990031_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Permit: AWS990031 Owner -Facility: Loyd Bud Bryant Facility Number 990031
Inspection Date: 06/20/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
7. The vegetation on the embankment of the lagoon needs to be mowed and reseeded this Fall to fill in the bare spots.
15. Millet is to be sown as soon as soil conditions allow.
16. Still need to revise the wettable acres due to construction of the new composter.
20. Mortality checklist still needs to be revised since new forced air oomposter has been installed. UPDATE: checklist updated
and submitted June 21, 2017. Thank you!
21. Soil tests for 2017 have not yet been conducted. Check next visit.
24. The irrigation calibration due in 2016 has not yet been conducted. Please complete as soon as possible.
25. Next sludge survey for the existing lagoon is due by December 31, 2019.
30. Notice of high freeboard received June 7, 2017.
page: 2

10
Permit: AWS990031 Owner - Facility : Loyd Bud Bryant Facility Number. 990031
Inspection Date: 06/20/17 Inpsection Type: "Compliance Ins '"'-- peotion Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Swine
Design Capacity
Current promotions
Swine - Feeder to Finish 8,640 6,848
Total Design Capacity: 8,640
Total SSLW: 1,166,400
Waste Structures
Dislgnated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon LAGOON 25.00
page: 3

Permit: AWS990031 Owner - Facility : Loyd Bud Bryant Facility Number. 990031
Inspection Date: 06/20/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection - Reason for Visit: . Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No No No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ 0 ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0 ❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ❑ O ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ M ❑ ❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection. Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
013
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le] large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
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
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No No No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS990031 Owner - Facility : Loyd Bud Bryant Facility Number.
990031
Inspection Date: 06/20/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection 'Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yea No Na No
Crop Type 1
Fea a (Hay)
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ 0 ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
N ❑ ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
E ❑ ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
E
❑ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 5

Permit: AWS990031 Owner - Facility : Loyd Bud Bryant Facility Number: 990031
Inspection Date:-- 06/20/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
rn No No No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
1100
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
N
❑ ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a PDA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
1101111
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
rot
No Na Ne
28. Did the facility tail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
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,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately. _
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewhinspection with on -site representative?
❑
E ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 6

Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 990031 Facility Status: Active
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection
Permit" AWS990031
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Denied Access
Reason for Visit m
9 Routine C Yadkin Re -ion: Winston-Salem
ounty. _
Date of Visit: 09/08/2016 Entry Time: 10:10 am Exit Time: 11:40 am
Farm Name:
Loyd Ray Farms, Inc.
Owner:
Loyd Bud Bryant
Mailing Address:
2049 Center Rd
Physical Address:
Casstevens Rd
F il' Status:
_
IncidentC
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Boonville NC 27011
Yadkinville NC 27055
ac uty us. 11111111 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator. L & H
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36" 10' 00" Longitude: 80° 42' 30"
From Yadkinville, take Hway 601 North, left on Haire Road, right on Center Road (SR1331), right on Cass Stevens Road
(SR1375), fans approx. 4000 it on right
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certfied Operator: William L Bryant Operator Certification Number: 21378
Secondary OIC(s):
OnSite Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Loyd Bryant Phone : [phone]
On -site representative Loyd Bryant Phone: [phone]
33 7Z -9699
Primary Inspector: `M/e a Ro ebroctk Phone:
Inspector Signature: i -ff.A -Q '!-��--"C�� Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
7. Please mow vegetation on dam of lagoon. Mowing on lop of dam looks great though.
20. Mortality checklist still needs to be added to CAWMP.
21. Soil test due 2017.
24. Irrigation calibration due by 12/31/2016. Check next visit.
25. Sludge survey due by 12/31/2019.
page: 1

Permit: AWS990031
Inspection Date: 09/08/16
Owner - Facility :
Inppection Type:
Loyd Bud Bryant
Compliance Inspection
Facility Number:
Reason for Visit:
990031
Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current promotions
Swine
Swine -Feeder toFinish
8,640
8,213
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
8,640
1,166,400
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon LAGOON 48.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS990031 Owner - Facility : Loyd Bud Bryant Facility Number: 990031
Inspection Date: 09/08/16 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No No No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
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)
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection. Storage & Treatment
Yes
No No No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
E ❑
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
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 No No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS990031 Owner - Facility : Loyd Bud Bryant Facility Number:
990031
Inspection Date: 09/08/16 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yea
No Na No
Crop Type 1
Fescue (tray)
Crop Type 2
Millet
Crap 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
Sail Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
0 ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
NO
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
_
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
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?
❑
Weathercode?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit AWS990031 Owner - Facility : Loyd Bud Bryant Facility Number: 990031
Inspection Date: 09/08/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
yes
No No No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑ M
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
M ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a PDA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
M ❑
❑
2T Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
1101111
Other Issues
Yes
No No No
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,
❑
M ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

1:30
Type of Visit PCompliance Inspection O Operation Review p Structure Evaluation U Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: CH Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit 7 5 DoArrival Time: t J n 1, Departure Time: County: Region: �"
Farm Name: �.Oyd F I F�MS�t aEt717N C, Owner Email:
J ^�� W 8- / 7.2-9
Owner Name: (�O �Ol/ �lI l/Q.YI- Phone:
Mailing Address: p? 0 q 9A--P41 AP,r ]eOt • l�pon ✓8, le , N G oZ 76 /
Physical Address: /
Facility Contact: 6 r t% &n T Title:
�r
Onsite Representative: Level 8rya.e
Certified Operator: Loyd bcq&yrt
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
C �-7(J55
Phone: RnaMu.) 4I01—
Integrator• L¢
Certification Number: /UA" 3 AAA
Certification Number: ky
Latitude: 36 0 / o / Do //
�jt� o
Longitude: O L1Z 36
u5 µwj Blatt nr/
IQ 601 L ir,! P_o1., GP_
Fa*- o
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle
Capacity P.
Wean to Finish
Layer
DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Dr, P,oul
Ca aci
P,o ,
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
ILayers
I
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
01
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turke Poults
01 Other
Other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
N
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3
21412014 Continued

Facili Number: • Date of Ins ection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
[:]No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
�Structure
Identifier: �n Dlq� �e5 ni
Spillway?: q
Designed Freeboard
Observed Freeboard (in): NIA
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
❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
jWo
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 ❑ YesVo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
y!
I Jd"No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window �❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved
Area
12. Crop Type(s)
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? Yes Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes CRrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ,rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes I ro ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes J�Ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes P(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check WYes ���❑No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
V21. es record keeping need iigr rovement? If yes, check a appropriate box belo . Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
ste Applica on C ,eekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield 20 Minute Inspections 121monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections Mudge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 1'4No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:]Yes [:]No �'1GA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facilj Number: . IDate of Inspection: 02 �(
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes K I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check [:]Yes Y'V' No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Iyl No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes CR"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ,�<No
[:]Yes U1 No
❑ Yes 1X<0
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments. . I
Use Amwinss of facilitv to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
• /
Mp ♦ • ♦ ,
• , ! an
♦ / • ,
P/ �' �� • • f c riJ ' i' .�i /
p /l / . •G // u n
• 1 /
I I Il9 / gw y zk_ 5
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
te, "us1s = /. J3 /bs.N
Phonel l%- 9 6 12
Date: f�a/Ze2-0 / 5
21412014

M Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 990031 Facility Status: Active
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reasonforvisit: Routine County: Y'
Date of Visit: 05/21/2015 EntryTime: 01:35 pm Exit Time: 2:35 pm
Farm Name:
Loyd Ray Farms, Inc.
Owner:
Loyd Bud Bryant
Mailing Address:
2049 Center Rd
Physical Address:
Casstevens Rd
F il' Status:
Permit: AWS990031
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Region:
Incident C
Owner Email:
Phone:
Boonville NC 27011
Yadkinville NC 27055
L&H
El Denied Access
W nston-Salem
336-469-5108
ac tY 111111111 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36' 10' 00" Longitude: 80" 42' 30"
From Yadkinville, take Hway 601 North, left on Haire Road, right on Center Road (SR1331), right on Cass Stevens Road
(SR1375), farm approx. 4000 ft on right
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: William L Bryant Operator Certification Number: 21378
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Ste Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Loyd Bryant Phone : [phone]
On -site representative Loyd Bryant Phone : 336A68-1729
Primary Inspector.
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Melissa Rosebrock
Phone:
Date:
Inspection Summary:
14. Please see tech specialist about combining waste plan crops. 2010 waste plan does not list fescue.
15. Control of weeds in fescue fields looks better.
20. Could not locate copy of mortality checklist.
21. V rainfall initials are complete --thanks.
21. Soil test due again in 2017.
21. Waste analysis from existing lagoon: 11/19/2014 = 1.23 lbs. N/1000 gal.
24. Calibration is due in 2016.
28. New forced air composter is reportedly working well. Ask technical specialist to update CAWMP mortality checklist to include
composter.
32. Wettable acres for field 9A needs to be reduced in WUP since there is now a dry slack located in this field.
Andrew Combs (farm), Charles Adair and Jason Elliott (Duke Carbon Offset), and Gus Simmons (Cavenaugh) were present for
the inspection.
page: 1

Permit: AWS990031 Owner - Facility: Loyd Bud Bryant Facility Number: 990031
Inspection Date: 05/21/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: . Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 8,640 8,007
Total Design Capacity: 8,640
Total SSLW: 1,166,400
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon LAGOON 30.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS990031 Owner - Facility: Loyd Bud Bryant Facility Number: 990031
Inspection Date: 05/21/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
0 ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
0 ❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
M ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
- Yes
No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
01111
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10a/o/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AVVS990031 Owner - Facility : Loyd Bud Bryant Facility Number.
990031
Inspection Date: 05/21/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Feswe (Hay)
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
0
❑ ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
❑
❑
18. Is there -a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
E ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
E ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
-❑ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
E ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS990031 Owner - Facility : Loyd Bud Bryant Facility Number. 990031
Inspection Date: 05/21/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Crop yields?
120 Minute inspections?
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
Failure to develop a PDA for sludge levels
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
2T Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
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?
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?
Yes No Na No
El
El
El
El
❑ ■❑ ❑
❑ El ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ E ❑ ❑
t
❑ ■❑ ❑
❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Q.
Yes No Na Ne
❑ ■❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ E ❑ ❑
9
❑ M ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑■❑❑
page: 5

Review
for Visit: 0Routine 0
Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Q l ��j Arrival Time: /a! oa Departure Time: 2;pp County:D ci .;� Region: w� o
Farm Name:-
Lo `/Q )&om/ u FCtrt` f . 17ne � Owner Email: `('Jj��Od 72el
Owner Name: Ley d 6"4n'fLp / Phone: 57/o8
Mailing Address: 249�9
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative: ftA
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Nwy yzl nJ.1 K pt,) 601
L
(gym 1W Integrator:
G _ N , = WI -slit
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude: /0 �4011
err fJ� (e0kr led./ r,
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?
Longitude: stoq1�,�.
6W 5"1 )U� 0, 1i fl l ,
❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [—]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes 0q No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
21412014 Continued

Facili ty Number: - • Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus stone storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: %a ovJ
Spillway?: �t�— Iv o
Designed Freeboard (in):
// —
Observed Freeboard (in): _ 1 Z N/{ rJ �
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes o ❑ 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 l yl No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan? 7�
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 ,M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks) ,�,/
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes I yt No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? �[
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes OK�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): J Cfcr�G
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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
El Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
9No
❑ 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? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
XYes
[-]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste
Transfers
❑ Weather
Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections Monthly IP Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
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 3 21412014 Continued

Facili' Number: �3 • Date of Ins ection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes dNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
,
❑ Yes L� No
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
l�`
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge
levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes ,p(I No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphors loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes I VI No
❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
fit"
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes AfNo
❑ 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)
T4
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question tO: Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional mazes as necessary).
21, A¢�L+ni rb Jrq�K+� I rC f prc"[Ttt+'^ WewtY Faf I ii{ inJllu�frA�1.
2'>` Gcl,%ra�/nn Grrploka G�znl�. �.rodrl. ►Jt°�C� c �� 1012,01(o, ll/
21, So%lrim/7S�sneX1 r 5cwe�wtr 2b17
2S' Slil* Su�jr✓�;s 4ke l�e�+�Lva; 2a1.1 _ ndN�,I
�,f
L
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: (�:7 — Z$ .57
Date: 20
2/412011

for Visit: ® Routine O Complaint U Follow-on O Referral O Emereencv U Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: p Z2 1j Arrival Time ,t— Departure Time:-1 q County:
T g1kin Region: W 90
Farm Name_� d Kr,4 *RfMf. 1�nG. Owner Email: Cw) 74r- I7;0
Owner Name: L_ 0 �d U f ti q n l' Phone: ("G) y G9 - 510k
Mailing Address: Z
2701 /
Physical Address: '9 z/p &-rr f J Al (RJktoyj'1'e NC Z%
'JE 1 Z'a,
Facility Contact: %0,J or RQ.ndl, Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: L.oy1 ,RAj �#%,44C J CC)M65 Integrator: 1,4 1
Certified Operator: 1-07 F r V aj Certification Number:
Back-up Operator
Location of Farm:
KAndl� D"� meffe
Latitude: -36 u 10 / 00 //
Certification Number:
=Y67—S[
7-
Longitude: gt7 �' 3 4)
µw Yz/ 0./
K Hwi �o
-� L f gtre_ /
R 6en4cr Kd, K Gv..s
~i /col.
Swine
Wean to Finish
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Design
Wet Poultry Capacity
La er
Current
Pop.
Desigtt
Cattle Capacity
Da Cow
Current
Pop.
Wean to Fceder
Non -La er
Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish
Q
Dai Heifer
Farrow to can
Fatrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Design
I) , R Poultry Ca aci
Layers
Current
P,o P.
D Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Turkeys
TurkeyPoults
Other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes ANo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: • Date of Inspection: JO Z 2
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity. (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Struct9re 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier. / � �—g�.fJvt
Spillway?: GS b
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) j�
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes No El ❑ 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
� j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes /gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application 10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes p(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? X
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes .)�j 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): Ve3 &A11 �4a14
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 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 kNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes AyNo
����TTTT'"/
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes I7�1 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? If yes, check the appropriate box below. At& Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall []Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:]Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

FaJHty Number: - • Date of Inspection:- ) o 2_2
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? XYes ❑ No
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
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
A
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
�(No
PM`
❑ 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
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
A NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
y�
I XI 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
n/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments. - I Use drawings of facilitv to better explain situations (use additional naves as necessary).
qk�, C411h--4h k1 J" Oo/= 20/2- . �ecor� /I)0.
z� slti sw� y41 duz by Peee^4,1� Zola
3, ✓ �(ar, Es{-IJ d lh �lvt/1�✓u dr r�i r1eger, 46A %4/f /? ��2'5.
/�.�� �"T� �DeK� , " �
lvto lrF+r4 Msvhh e 1`/r �/an 1><,TKTnJ on iPror�l ? Ok ral-/Z A
Kp,ur � }-Gb, ZF13 rJl,/S�nal,:�
Zf. tt�c.It.{rcllrrs.�kJ
/4� _
270j(� Ny-165dt.r-^'D,ZS;.,�Ar
*"9A1Vr Zr3ovk4'.4 �Vti M4+- 1.11" rrd11% ru_� WIC-7A,
WAS:
99 AN
!, yzA, N
S��o1s— 2,S716 n!
Reviewer/Inspector Name: '44fiyk A11, ) Phone:`! /7/ 8-5
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ^� Date: 10./la l9-013
T
Page 3 of 21412011

E Division of Water Quality
n Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 990031 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS990031 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comoliance Insoection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Complaint County: Yadkin Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 05/2212013 Entry Time: 02:10 PM Exit Time: 03,10 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Loyd Ray Farms. Inc. Owner Email:
Owner: Loyd Bud Bryant Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 2049 Center Rd Boonville NC 27011
Physical Address: Casstevens Rd Yadkinville NC 27055
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: L & H
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36°10'00" Longitude: 80'42'30"
From Yadkinville, take Hway 601 North, left on Haire Road, right on Center Road (SR1331), right on Cass Stevens Road (SR1375),
farm approx. 4000 ft on right -
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Otherlssues
Certified Operator: Randall Keith Dimmette
Secondary OIC(s):
W Waste Col, Stor, & Treat W Waste Application
Operator Certification Number: 985739
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Loyd Bryant Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Loyd Bryant Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: PatrickMitchell
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Melissa Rosebrock
Phone:
Date:/ZS/Zt7/3
Phone:
Page: 1

Permit: AWS990031
Owner -Facility: Loyd Bud Bryant
Facility Number: 990031
Inspection Date: 05/2212013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Complaint
Inspection Summary:
On May 22, 2013 WSRO staff members Melissa Rosebrock and Patrick Mitchell conducted a complaint investigation of the subject
facility. This investigation was the result of an anonymous complaint made concerning water quality and excessive odor. Present for
the investigation was Mr. Loyd Bryant and two representatives from Cavanaugh & Associates Engineering. The following observations
were made during the subsequent investigation:
• Lagoon embankments were found to be intact and well vegetated.
• No evidence of leaks was observed.
• Adequate freeboard was present in the lagoon (32 inches).
• Mild odor was noted mainly on the eastern•side of the lagoon, with some minor odor on the north side.
• Forested buffer was present between the lagoon and the nearest surface water feature.
• Vegetation in the buffer area showed no evidence of emissions burn.
• No evidence was found of past discharge in the buffer area.
• The Digester cover associated with the innovative treatment system has been temporarily removed for maintenance and repair work
(DWQ was notified of this activity as required).
• The Aeration Basin associated with the innovative treatment system was temporarily shut down due to Digester work.
• The Lagoon embankments need to be mowed soon.
• Recommended to Mr. Bryant to mow the irrigation fields soon.
Discussions with onsite representatives from Cavanaugh and Mr. Bryant revealed the following:
• Digester cover was removed in early April 2013, but according to Cavanaugh reportedly there were no excessive or additional odors
associated with this activity. Cover to be reinstalled after completion of work.
• Mr. Bryant began waste irrigation activities to the irrigation fields in mid -May 2013.
• Mr. Bryant indicated that the farm is in process of temporarily depopulating (process began mid -April 2013) and this will take place
over a total period of 20 weeks; at that point the farm will begin to restock and repopulate.
Conclusion:
The facility was found to be compliant with Permit No. AWS990031. It should be noted that the lagoon system is currently being used
due to the maintenance and repair work being conducted on the innovative treatment systems Digester. Once this work is completed
the facility will return to primarily using the innovative treatment system. This likely will reduce odor emissions. No further investigation
is warranted at this time.
Page: 2

n
u
Permit: AWS990031 Owner - Facility: Loyd Bud Bryant
Facility Number: 990031
Inspection Date: 05/22/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Complaint
Waste Structures
Type
Identifier
Designed Observed
Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
agoon LAGOON 32.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWS990031 Owner -Facility: Loyd Bud Bryant
Facility Number: 990031
Inspection Date: 0512212013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Complaint
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance -man-made?
D
0
■
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
0
❑
■
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
■
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the 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 Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 4!

c
Permit: AWS990031 Owner -Facility: Loyd Bud Bryant
Inspection Date: 05/2212013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 990031
Reason for Visit: Complaint
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
Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management ❑ In D D
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? ❑ In ❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ In fl ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Other Issues 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
❑
IN
❑
❑
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)
Page:5

Permit: AWS990031 Owner - Facility: Loyd Bud Bryant
Inspection Date: 05/2212013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number:
Reason for Visit:
990031
Complaint
Otherlssues
Yes
No
NA
NE
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?
DEDO
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on -site representative?
❑
■
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■
❑
❑
Page:6

for Visit: 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow-uD O Referral O Emergencv O Other O Denied Access
h
Date of Visit: 7 ►1 Arrival Time: O : 00 Departure Time: County:� /7q d k, n Region: WR Q
Farm Name:—L- a y d R q w T� rlyu ,, �A G, Owner Email: (W)
Owner Name: L O' L� Qr I eiil Phone: � ���
Mailing Address: 207 l Ce*% te! /Q� V tZ ao✓1 ✓,'I le-, 7y G Z % 0//
Physical Address: I5/d 6fr0evenz R�� 79dkAwIllC Z705-5—
R <.17 = YC 9- s07 2-
Facility Contact: L ay Ct R4,14 Title: Phone: „ �1 y(pr}_ 5109
Onsite Representative: T Loyd F"4 C. "t" Integrator: L vL kI
T
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator. RA d D;.""OfTif
Location of Farm:
Certification Number: 2 7/
2{ rr ��3t/Zat2,
Certification Number:
Latitude: 3E /O r 00 rr
Longitude: b'O t,/Z r 30 rr
Hwy yzl 11.11 R
NUy
of
Na,re KdCep Kd,�
R C4ff S,.c,t; Rd1
Swine
Wean to Finish
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop. I&MMWet
Poultry
Layer
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
g Ll 0
2100
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
I.. P,oul_ . +
I Layers
Design
Ga aci_ +
I
Current
P,o P.
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
I
Pullets
jBeefBroodCow
Other
Other
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and 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)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

41 Facility Number: - 3 • Date of Inspection: i
Waste Collection & Treatment
�/
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes p(I No
�❑
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
[3 Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
F1E�A"A
Identifier: Ga pan �+�
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health orrr environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? p(I Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? /❑ YesNo ❑ 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 ❑ YesNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
�/
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
�'J No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
✓�
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Pending ❑Hydraulic Overload ❑Frozen Ground ❑Heavy Metals
(Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
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?
OYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
NlNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
i7T
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
J� o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reunited Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
o
❑ 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 im rovement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �No
Waste Application Weekly Freeboard []Waste Analysis Soil Analysis �aste T ansfers
61�infa11 Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
❑ NA ❑ NE
[� Weather Code
Judge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ YesX.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ YesNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

.iFacili Number: 3 • Date of inspection: /
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [—]Failure to develop a POA for sludge
levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
����,,
❑ Yes XNo [j NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
[:]Yes [—]No XNA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
�/
❑ Yes IXI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
X,
29. 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.
_k'No
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 file drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑Yes ,IJO No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
l�
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question iI): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
4 �ruun ?lklPA^lnCAII'brR4..ff OIu.G �G��zlt i�Z�
vGt7 �tnne BC lur Zol�
flt"�z 5ttl1
vVAca v� M %�. d/jVeU/v A q rou„d �f e�-1 e
tidv� q er�.�'� 64s.'✓l ,
dgq/�h �rat,,�.�,cl
d) kr e/ Ia rik and d l 4 14041E ati Gier46,e-s-hn
NL+e d 7 Men PM1/L�trYI - (fan
v
' f&H
one P`` �eAP(,
2S �k117yVf�j �/ Waf rI Y'� tflr5m ¢��F"J l\°talJ
/�� ill-�_'"''�_`" ✓ l
` PAt
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 051) %
Date: %�� 2Lti I Z-
2/4/2011

Type of Visit: 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 6 O Q Departure Time: County: UiA � t n Region: LL)5p-
Farm Name: `- 1 \I -' P O-u FQrwys Owner Email: w YL S — I ld- j
Owner Name: 1,o U rV cl vt�- Phone:
Mailing Address: 0217 2V1 r{.1' ►�-(� •� $ eony i l l e. { NC P--7of l
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: LQ0 1(t 0 17- tie:
Onsite Representative: L 0W d &( w f)
Certified Operator: O d f "+-
Back-up Operator
Location of Farm:
G
Phone: R — -! /pal —SO 7cg
Integrator: �_cl- H
Certification Number: 9, 1 31<5
ChQcic }(ours +c1A%&5
Certification Number: ol- Ca_lI
Latitude: 3 to 10 0 Longitude: go g 2 3 Q
Design Current -
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean [o FinishI
Wet Poultry
JLayer
Design
Capacity
I
Current
Pop.
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Wean to FeederI
INon-Layer
I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Dr, P,oult .
Layers
Design
Ca ac_i_
Current
P,o ,
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
I lBeef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Turke s
TurkeyPoults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
❑ Yes XI I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 777❑] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [—]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) [-]Yes [—]No
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 0N0
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters [—]Yes t% o
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 ni
.4rea,+n-�e.c2S�rhevAaaS .g ".ttRcwd,I- Fat`oa-vK) PreSerJ"on
21412011 Continued

Facili Number: Date of Ins ection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate wast4acation equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
'�����
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ONE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes DqNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes 04 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes 1A 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 (useadditionalpages as necessary).
21. 0-1-0 11 Sot( VeM- ? Not \(&_ ,,�
Us' Cov4\FA-,ecc't�aOC$
a I Sew- "3z wt U need to
K_ee1in U6Lr_ -ea
(0"Mo. � Iue- Zca n1
®I Cond• 917 014-Io oiue
at- sumw-r ao�a-
15. 'Su�J-S-l' 5Qraylnq �OY v-010 U.3or-M,5 q- w�5 to kieM5
necares-t- (vOmSJJ°I f O . Klee( to CA.Lt °f %�OXU2S+ I -toe) .
Q�r �eexv,S �o I�ss �0 1 I �j?"55'
sty
Sp ri A5
�$fil� hee,i �o,eS�IDIIs
On
ra
3D1 C9P1 o _Lk vu� Po v �-VFq
cif j4� cis
P
at.s
��al�aoll = 7.9 Ijis. N/Io�go{1,
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: I — 5p2 9 9
Date: 9-10
21412011

Facili Number: Date of Inspection. J
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 2fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier.
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �0
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
"`YYY""""
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
`% Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
I `p 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? y /
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [—]Yes I �d'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): cQ, $ (1 LW_
13. Soil Type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes (A 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 I �G No
T'
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes (I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
YN
Reauired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes r0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes C p No p NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. bu)(Q NP�G� Y�=6 3/ /OC d-Ok o Ver5 IUt1. L hrp� R t yI'e, U-y Loy
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. oes record keeping need � provement? If yes, check /tj e appropriate box Eonthly
Yes �No ❑ N ❑ NE
waste Applic ion eekly Freeboar [ bVasl Analysisil Analysis �a., Transfers Bather Code
I� Rinfall Stocking �rop Yield 120 Minute Inspections and V Rainfall Inspections Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes YYYt I 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 , 21412011 Continued
VA)) Freeb fra�v� rnnS ab Cc3(tbr&ii'Okl

0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 990031 Facility Status: Active Permit: AW1990031 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Follow-uD County: Yadkin Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 04/11/2011 Entry Time:09:00 AM Exit Time: 09,50 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Loyd Ray Farms. Inc. Owner Email:
•[y�R•PC•R1fGM:7'.kTif kF�Il�7iDF�
Mailing Address: 2049 Center Rd Boonville NC 27011
Physical Address: Casstevens Rd Yadkinville NC 27055
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: L & H
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36"10'00" Longitude: 80"42'30"
From Yadkinville, take Hway 601 North, left on Haire Road, right on Center Road (SR1331), right on Cass Stevens Road (SR1375),
farm approx. 4000 It on right
Question Areas:
0 Discharges & Stream Impacts
N Waste Collection & Treatment
Certified Operator: William L Bryant Operator Certification Number: 21378
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Loyd Bryant Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Loyd Bryant Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melissa Rosebrock Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

Permit: AW1990031 Owner -Facility: Loyd Bud Bryant Facility Number: 990031
Inspection Date: 04/11/2011 Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Inspection Summary:
Today's visit was to observe construction of aeration basin and digester.
I observed that waste was being pumped from the existing lagoon, through surface -laid pipes into the digester in anticipation of the
digester being covered today. There was a very small leak from the connection of two of the aluminum pipes, but all waste was flowing
back into the lagoon. Construction of the blowers was still continuing in the aeration basin.
Both structures appeared to be structually sound with no slumping or seeping noted. Some grass had germinated and was growing on
the embankment of the aeration basin. All top surfaces were unvegetated and denuded as construction is still occurring in and around
the basin and digester. The diversion ditch along the row of swine houses is also denuded due to current construction.
The waste level in the existing lagoon was about 48 inches below the top of the dam and approximately 36 inches below the top of the
dam of the digester. Surface/rain water was observed being pumped from the aeration basin to enable construction to continue.
It appeared that the silt fencing had "blown -out" below the aeration basin since this area had been used as an access point for
construction equipment. Per Mr. Bryant, the contractor was aware of the sediment that had eroded and had began using another
access "road" Mr. Bryant said that the contractor had also "scooped -up the sediment and land -applied R."
Several photos were taken of the construction, structures, and current conditions
Page: 2

•
CJ
Permit: AWI990031 Owner - Facility: Loyd Bud Bryant
Facility Number: 990031
Inspection Date: 04111/2011 Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation Reason for Wit: Follow-up
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current Population
Swine
❑ Swine -Feeder to Finish 8,640
Total Design Capacity: 8,640
Total SSLW: 1,166,400
Waste Structures
rype Identifier closed Date start Date Designed Freeboard observed Freeboarc
Treatment System AERATION BASIN
treatment System DIGESTER 36.00
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. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than
❑
■
❑
❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?,
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (i.e./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
■
❑
❑
or 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?
Page: 3

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: F�'`i�"'' Arrival Time: C® Departure Time: I 1 A jD County: Region:+
Farm Name:�f �`.�'414 rarhNl.S Owner Email: �/,
Owner Name: t,b 4 8(• V A } Phone: L 4o — Sj DiS
Mailing Address: oZ� N9 nitiP,{(�{ O f' � • I V ► ��2 N �/ AID"
Physical Address: /q_f �5 [ 1�S4� oyrpN Ut�/L
Facility Contact: W l� r,, "F Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: ,
Back-up Operator: t�r�LLuYi
G loaf — 07 �
Integrator: 1- 4 H
Operator Certification Number: a 1 3 -18
Back-up Certification Number: Q 8 5" 13 1
Location of Farm: Latitude: ®° ® Longitude: ° Q
L)s 4,24 N
4 U6 gwy 661 N . l,ef'+onto
ire Pam. R4- anfo
`
69n+er
Pd.
12*. onfo C065 54�w
-
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
❑ Dairy Calf
10 Feeder to Finish
g
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Layers
❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
El Farrow
❑ Non -Layers
El Beef Stocker
El Gilts
❑ Pullets
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Number of Structures: I 1 I
1^1
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes )<No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes )K/No
❑ Yes No
12128104
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
DNA ❑NE
Continued

Facility Number: — Oof Inspection I K/ •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 4a,�(No El NA [I NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check El Yes ANo [I NA [I NE
El[IElSm El El the appropriate box. WUP Checklists Design TT''
21. D_,oessrreFord keeping need im ovement? e-app ,_,,� ❑ Yes t No ❑ NA ❑ NE
L_y'4V to Applica m eekly Freeboard ante Analysis soo�il Analysis EyVaste Transfers
ainfall Stocking Crop Yield 20 Minute Inspections M 4onthly and I" Rain Inspections Bather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
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
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ��� No
El Yes L���.,,I//(((No
El Yes L)SI No
Elt�l Yes TNo
El Yes '�(No
L)0 No El NA El NE
W
r-',No ❑ NA ❑ NE
0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
IgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
El NA El NE
❑NA El NE
❑NA El NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 &N-) k11§_C40U ! 12,28/04

Facility Number: — . Date of Inspection $ •
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes )(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: f)OY)
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (m):
Observed Freeboard (in): hA e4'k
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the of the structures observed?
❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
�,,[
❑ Yes Ii�I.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 environmentalth
at, 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 *0 ❑ 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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? " CCC
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes tKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 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) ­/0 A .@ t AN t 0 00 f
13. Soil type(s) V -
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
pa No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
El Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
YNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #)c Explain any YES answers and/or any -recommendation'; or any oth comments.­­,,,r � "
,Use drawn s of facility to,better.:explain situations ,(use additional, pages as pecessary)
�`Jo .Q UID
r/Inspector Name I
L
Phone:r/Inspector
Signature:
Date:
Page 2 of 3 ` 1 12128104 Continued

11
o�oF avATF9OG Incident Report
> =a
P -c
Report Number: 201001660 NbU-;zkb -
Incident Type: Non -Compliance Reporting On -Site Contact:
Category: APS -Animal First/Mid/Last Name:
Incidence t-Startedll 01/252010
Company Name.
County: Yadkin
Phone: '
City: Yadkinville
Pager/Mobile Phone: /
Farm #: 099-0031
Responsible Party:
Reported By:
First/Mid/Last Name:
�Ow—neer—: ^
CPerml it:— �AWS990031
Company Name:
Facility: Loyd Ray Farms, Inc.
Address:
First Name: Loyd Bud
Middle Name:
City/State/Zip:
Last Name: Bryant
Phone:
Address 2049 Center Rd
Pager/Mobile Phone: /
City/State/Zip: Boonville NC
27011
Phone:
Material Category: Estimated Qty:
UOM Chemical Name Reportable Qty. lbs. Reportable Qty. kgs.
DD:MM:SS Decimal
Position Method:
Latitude:
Position Accuracy:
Longitude:
Position Datum:
Location of Incident: Cass Stevens Road
Address:
City/State/Zip
Report Created 05/14/10 01:29 PM Page I

Cause/Observation:
Action Taken:
Incident Questions:
Did the Material reach the Surface Water? Unknown
Surface Water Name?
Did the Spill result in a Fish Kill? Unknown
If the Spill was from a storage tank indicate type.
Containment? Unknown
Cleanup Complete? Unknown
Water Supply Wells within 150011
Access to Farm
Structure Questions
Directions:
Comments:
Conveyance:
Estimated Number of fish?
(Above Ground or Under Ground)
Unknown Groundwater Impacted: Unknown
0 Animal Population
0 Spray Availability
Report Created 05/14/10 01:29 PM Page 2

Access to Farm
Farm accessible from the main road?
Animal Population
Confined?
Depop?
Feed Available?
Mortality?
Spray Availability
Pumping equipment?
Available Fields?
Structure Questions
Breached?
Inundated?
Overtopped?
Water on outside wall?
Poor dike conditions?
Waste Structure Type Waste Structure Identi inches Plan Due Date
Lagoon LAGOON 18.00
Event Type Event Date Due Date
Incident closed
Requested Additional Information
Report Received
Referred to Regional Office - Primary Contact
Report Entered 2010-05-11 01:38:00
Incident Start 2010-01-25 06:40:00
Report Created 05/14/10 01:29 PM
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No [DNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Plan Recieved Date Level OK Date
Comment
Page 3

Standard Agencies Notified:
Agency Name Phone First Name M.I. Last Name Contact Date
Other Agencies Notified:
Agency Name Phone First Name M.I. Last Name Contact Date
DWO Information:
Report Taken By: Report Entered By: Regional Contact:
Melissa Rosebrock
Phone:
Date/Time: 2010-05-11 01:38:00 PM
Referred Via:
Did DWO request an additional written report?
If yes, What additional information is needed?
Report Created 05/14/10 01:29 PM Page 4

Facility Number
Type of Visit (A Compliance Inspection
Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water
Other Agency
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit PRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied t ` Access
�� I J�
Date of Visit: l 'Arrival Time: � C Departure Time: a County: Region: i� Lo
Farm Name: Owner Email:
' nn (e) q69 s lost
Owner Name: t I I �If 4 Q ^ Phone: �T
Facility Contact: (-0y41. D r y a.n-E. Title:
Onsite Representative:
t
Certified Operator: _ a-U, -�
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
Gilts
Other
❑ Other
04Z&Ai% NL 0270/ 1
CiGt %I V I 2 WC h
Phone No: w U 7r�9r
Integrator: + H
Operator Certification Number: �O 9
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ®o W , M" Longitude: ® U EN
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
Pullets
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
ODairy Cow
ODairy Calf
I
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures: F
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
othe=tha r m a discharge?
��/(\/'_ ill L 40t, l C�T101U
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes XN El NA El NE
El Yes I]Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection I,
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
�//
El Yes Q� No
/❑
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
El Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
�Structure
Identifier.
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
�,/
El Yes Ly No
[I 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 XNo ❑ 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) IN
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ yes 4No ❑ 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. El Yes L No ❑ NA El NE
❑ Excessive Ponding El Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.) // ••
❑ PAN [--IPAN> 10%or ]O lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13.
Soil type(s) 4 v
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
[--]Yes
No
❑ NA
[I NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[YINo
77&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ 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 Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:'/J /4 % Date: 'Z 7 /1Q

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection / •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other �J/
21. Dos record keeping need irj�provement? gprogFia bg;, 4I - ❑ Yes L]A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste App ation We y Freeboard 'Waste Analysis soil Aralysis Waste TransfersTTT"`
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections—/gonthly and 1" Rain Inspections Bather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 4No ElNA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ElYes El No �6NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �0 No El NA ❑ NE
.
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes /Ly 0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ta�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [yNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes �kKo ❑ 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 NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) �,r
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes ppNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes &�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/o'r'Drawin - "= - <'
&s-
A4pl
aco�
V..- �
Page 3 of 3 d /y -AN An. n 12128104

Type of Visit (A Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
L05
Date of Visit: Arri/nv�al Time: � 1 a�� v „F Departure Time: pZ : S Counrv: MIIW_k—in Region: -0
Farm Name: _ LO y K� Fin r��11�lI Owner Email: L
Owner Name: L O dtIpUU� B f y dLA Phone:
Mailing Address: LR O r'Ll Ct 0t0 t-?,00✓ � R oo ,( t °C,--., eta -7 0 1,/
Physical Address: �O • 'q YO (1,�t55�-Pt/er�5 F-u 1 VQd��aZl//t/ ,,,,��i/yL
Facility Contact: o CJ r q 0.h-_ Title: Phone No`t�gbC?,— ► -7 a q
Onsite Representative: Lo � 15 kr U 0.h t Integrator: L+ 14
Certified Operator: L O b r 0. rlt Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: NT o � . [ " Longitude: © ° ®'
u 5 q al Noy t 661 Norte . (a { on{a t}&tl re PWd hf onfa
c-e.,fA-P—y (�d O -`1 on Ca 5S_, Sfe trer�s .
Swine
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Laye
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ TurkeyPoults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures:
❑ Yes JyNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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
ElNA
❑NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
WkNiN o
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection a
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: L&AmZ
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes OdNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmentaalhreat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? [I Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 0 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 P.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Apnlication
10.
Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
J�No
It.
Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of
Area
12.
Crop type(s) I_L p
13.
Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
El NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
El Yes
No
El NA
[I NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
El Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
E 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): ,
tg . Pre.Sjure, 4wj e_ no (dated on u
og . a
_
_ _ _ __ _U-r
Reviewer/IuspectorName I Phone: 111— Sr��9
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 � O /? _ 1 n , , � 12128104 co n ) I �
o /L.tA'/nw, /�1 Lp1A' JIhA"`A�V►', �C.(9(�.Q,,i� 15

Facility Number: — 10ate of Inspection t7 0 •
Required Records & Documents JJ
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes LY.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check Yes �/ �,N/ � o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists �Vt.'�'��/ ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does r/cord keeping need improvement? ElYes XNo ElNA ElNE
L]Vt�✓aste Application ❑ WeeeYy Freeboard ❑,Hi to AnalysisAnalysis E]-*Aa&i;o_T` �naj C_"&: f' ^4;p^
[�tainfall RStocking LWC;rop Yield [R 20 Minute Inspections M onthly and V Rain Inspections 54 eather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
5?<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
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 survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
TNo
El NA
El 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
5*<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
,,./
(](I No
El NA
El NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
Did the facility fail to notify the regional of emergency situations as required by
office
ElLj� Yes
������L.....`//////
No
NA
El NA
NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
//� /
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
El Yes
[)(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Calibres-*ien Clnee-JL of we�d PreS5ure/ w rlow�cl
CoY feted ? blot fie{ -Eo be CB1 lei -A Soon e
• � � it y 6• �•� � [' F � �� ,
(43108- a..5l bs . N/ 1066
�.5te- analyse d `
E- Spit L001
,,W hiklylx
Ain
12128104

Number
�1 Division of Water (
O Division of Soil and
0 Other Agency _
) P f11
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit O Routine o Complaint o Follow up o Referral o Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: IU I5 "Wrrivvaal _Time: �Qa Departure Time: I ;S pp ptyL.ounty: l/Q 11n Region:
Farm Name: L16 u _I4 Icu t Far m5 ( ""—Own"er� Email:
Owner Name: l ho 14 � Y I�AQ V�i�Phone:
Mailing Address: a(�N' q C'2.V1 TP.� ?)O6 Vl V 1 e-
.Physical Address: A/YlyO
Facility Contact: Ltou Q r- o-y-i Time: Phone No: ? UJ 7S 1 oZq
IJ me Q LL'' o
Onsi[e Representative: 1 Integrator: 1' °�.R le
Certified Operator: r' A an I Operator Certification Number: Ot 1 1
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: =o =' =.. Longitude: =o =, ="
U5 L}ri- Nor'1"�t. N i too( orb . Ee t 6✓l+-o irt2e ,
Rx_i Inf 0An 0 ( 5 21 33 I) P+- ovl Ca55 5-fe f" 5.
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer IT�
I❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
I
I
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder .
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: I ' I
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 7
No
12128104
El NA ❑NE
El NA ❑NE
Continued

/ Facility Number: — Date of Inspection /O D
Waste Collection & Treatment �;�/y
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? El Yes k 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: 00✓)
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ,
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan�
l -
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
�; o
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
( No
❑ NA ElNE
(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
El Yes
,./t,
1� No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
ElYes
No
X
ElNA ElNE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If,yes, check the appropriate box below.
El Yes
�..,/
L�,No
El NA El NE
El Excessive Ponding El Hydraulic Overload ❑ 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 ❑
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
of Wind Drill ❑ Application Outside of Area
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 imgation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes Ill No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes (5rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments�N
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
--7
MAX l� o�nd. PYc. dowV1 CAP IS r L3tt w
IReviewer/inspectorName V Phone: �l, -Sa 8Ll
Reviewer/inspector Signature: � Q Date:
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: —31 tate of Inspection I I6 —] •
Required Records & Documents /
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? El Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes (4/0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. D,_oe((cord keeping need iimm ovement? If yes, chec a appropriate botoil
. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Lt_d/,rite Application Lt7 Weekl Freeboard rite Analysis ,,./J�alysis n "ors ❑
('�' Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections L`7 Monthly and V Rain Inspections eather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
kNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
r%NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes I No
❑ NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
�XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
AN
❑ NA El NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
/
I.� No
El NA El 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
l�,l No
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately/�.,•(
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
El Yes
L]U 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
IyNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
a. 1ibrafj6rN ? lw 08' tw
as. 5�1�d4e SUr�� 1��2 I�./31�07.
g1310-1 a.¢ lbs. NllooarD
gllq I o1 1V.l I I's. N /160v Q 0
ao0<6
12128104

Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 990031 Facility Status: Active Permit NCA299031 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection IInactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Yadkin Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 02/16/2006 Entry Time:01:15 PM Exit Time: 02:30 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Bryant Hog Farms Owner Email:
Owner: Ray Bryant Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 2049 Center Rd Boonville NC 27011
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator.
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36°10'00" Longitude: 60°42'30"
From Yadkinville, take Hway 601 North, left on Haire Road, right on Center Road (SR1331), right on Cass Stevens Road (SR1375),
fans approx. 4000 ft on right
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator. William L Bryant
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 21378
On -Site Representative(s):
Name
Title Phone
On -site representative
Lloyd Bryant
Phone:
24 hour contact name
Lloyd Bryant
Phone:
Primary Inspector. Melissa Rosebrock
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s)
Inspection Summary:
21. Operator is using a total inventory sheet.
24. 2005 is ok. Don't forget to calibrate in 2006.
27. PLAT completed October 2004.
11/15/05 Waste analysis = 1.1 Ibs.N/1000 gal.
Page: 1

r1
�J
Permit: NCA299031 Owner- Facility: Ray Bryant
Facility Number: 990031
Inspection Date: 02/16/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
O Swine - Feeder to Finish 8,640 7,707
Total Design Capacity: 8,640
Total SSLW: 1,166,400
Waste structures
Type Identifier Closed Data Start Data Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
_agoon LAGOON 43.00
Page: 2

Permit: NCA299031 Owner -Facility: Ray Bryant
Facility Number: 990031
Inspection Data: 02/16/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Ranson for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
in
❑
❑
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
- ❑
■
Cl
❑
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?
❑
■
❑
❑
6. 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
❑
Is
❑
❑
improvement?
'Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance aftematives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

Permit: NCA299031 Owner -Facility: Ray Bryant
Facility Number:
990031
Inspection Date: 02/16/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Cl
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area? -
❑
Crop Type 1
Fescue
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑
■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4 .

Permit: NCA299031 Owner -Facility: Ray Bryant
Inspection Date: 02/162006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Records and Documents
Checklists?
Design?
Maps?
Other?
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Facility Number: 990031
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
❑
❑
❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after> 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance 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 representabve immediately,
Page: 5

Permit: NCA299031 Owner -Facility: Ray Bryant
Inspection Data: 02 1612006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Other Issues
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did ReviewerAnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 990031
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
n■QO
n■pO
n■pn
Page:6

Division of Water Quality
I Facility Number _ Division of Soil and Water Conservation ) p►►'I
Q Other Agency 1
Type of Visit mpliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Viisi—IVRoutine ouo Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access. p�
Date of Visit: I „L..1 1 In 1(1 NArrival Time: Departure Time: ®o County: Region: J.�
Farm P
Owner
Mailing
Physical Address:
Owner Email:
Phone: 4. b D - I -I I
111e 11N(- moll
Facility Contact: L bV l�rUQ.ri+ �T�i�tlje�:
OnsiteRepresentative: LSO 1A PI MCLIn- .1`-frV111�.1.t_7 Integrator:
Phone No:
Certified Operator: � r 1��� 5 Operator Certification Number: a 1 31 6
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: M
0 0 ' ©„ Longitude: ® o ®, M„
u s N u,y 4 a I rn 0f+V) . y (0 31 n or`I-1, • Lev-F o n to H r re
M ieiVi+oniz9 Oevilei- 15 2 /33► , U. onto Cass S
Design Current r Q'� ITesignC'u t�edt"
Swine„ ., .Capacity Population Wet,poultry Capacity, Population
❑ Wean to Finish ❑ Layer
Wean to Feeder ❑ Non -Layer
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean Dry Poultry -
Other -
❑ Other
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design" "-,Curl
Cattle Capacity,Topuh
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures.-',
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
0
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page Iof3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
�(^ Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
1�.,, Identifier: � aA
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes LyjVo
❑ NA
❑ NE
fie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
�%
6.
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
El Yes LY�No
El NA
El NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
V"
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 �A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? /
Waste Application
10.
Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
* No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11.
Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
)No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Windo/w�/] ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12.
Crop type(s)
13.
Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes
No
[I NA [I NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? [I Yes
No
❑ NA [I NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? El
No
[I NA ❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use
drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name
! i ,i/ 040-1
Phone: %'7 1' f{& O
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 2 of 3
Date: ,

Facility Number: — *e of Inspection (Jl/a_/__[JI �p •
Required Records & Documents�'T���� ,�,j(
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 XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does rec md keeping need improvem nt?�Efyes-eheek.W ' te.be*.be ❑ Yes No ❑ ppNAA. ❑ NE
❑ to Applica[io ❑ Wee{rIy Freeboard Was Analysis oil ysis rraes ies C] AnrEA"rtifr,ation
Rainfall Stockin Cro Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthl and V Rain Inspections
L]�'N'eather Code
g P P Y P
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
L (I No
7❑`
El NA
[I NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
El Yes
No
NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�)/
I]U No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
j(jiQJ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
*o
❑ 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
V
❑ 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
*o
❑ 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
q(1 No
-
Y.
[I NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
a o05 6+.-
a�. PUR-F
1/15'01C_'11 �S• N/1000 U
G"V �
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of Water Quality
n Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 990031 Facility Status: Active Permit: NCA299031 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit:
Inactive or Closed Date:
County: Yadkin Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 10/04/2005 Entry Time:12740 PM Exit Time: 02:15 PM Incident 9:
Farm Name: Bryant Hoo Farms Owner Email:
Owner. Ray Bryant
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 2049 Center Rd Boonville NC 27011
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Integrator: L & H
Latitude:36"10'00" Longitude:80"42'30"
From Yadkinville, take Hway 601 North, left on Haire Road, right on Center Road (SR1331), right on Cass Stevens Road (SR1375),
fans approx. 4000 ft on right
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Certified Operator: William L Bryant
Secondary OIC(s):
Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Other issues
Operator Certification Number. 21378
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Lloyd Bryant Phone:
24 hour contact name Lloyd Bryant Phone:
Primary Inspector: Mega Rosebrock Phone: [phone]
h /J Ext.383
Inspector Signature: Date: G
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Page: 1

Permit: NCA299031 Owner -Facility: Ray Bryant Facility Number: 990031 .
Inspection Date: 10/04/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
15. Application fields are starting to contain lots of broadleaf weeds. Suggest spraying early next year.
18. Leak in irrigation hose at the lagoon caused waste to accumulate near the pump. Not a water quality concern. Valve has also been
replaced.
21. Annual certification was received April 18, 2005.
21. 2005 soil test results report that several fields have zinc levels of 1500, 3000, and 4000. In 2004 these fields were around
400-600. Suggest re -sampling again in early 2006.
21./25. Sludge survey for 2004 was ok. Technical specialist is writing letter to request that the survey not be required again until next
permit cycle (2007).
24. Calibration was completed 08/02/05.
27. PLAT was completed in October 2004.
8/5/05 waste analysis=2.1 lbs. N/1000 gal.
`Owner is planning on constructing the last hog house (#9 of the allowable 9 houses) by this winter.
Page: 2

Permit: NCA299031 Owner -Facility: Ray Bryant
Inspection Date: 10/04/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Facility Number: 990031
Reason for Visit: Routine
Current Population
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 8,640 6,958
Total Design Capacity: 8,640
Total SSLW: 1,166,400
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
goon LAGOON 50.00
Page: 3

Permit: NCA299031 Owner -Facility: Ray Bryant Facility Number: 990031
Inspection Date: 10/04/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Vlslt: Routine ,
Discharges & Stream Impacts
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 DWO)
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWO)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
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.)7
6. Are there structures o"ite that are not property addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑■❑❑
Yes No NA NE
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
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 Pending?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN? -
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P2O5?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/siudge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift? -
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 2
Millet
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Page: 4

I • •
i
Permit: NCA299031 Owner -Facility: Fay Bryant Facility Number: 990031
Inspection Dale: 10/04/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan(CAWMP)?
❑
■
❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
■
❑
❑
Cl
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
Cl
■
❑
❑
17. Dces the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Is there a lack of property operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
- 19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
WUP?
❑
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?
Cl
Annual Certification Farm (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?
Cl
■
❑
❑
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?
❑
■
❑
❑
Page: 5

Permit: NCA299031 Owner- Facility: Ray Bryant Facility Number: 990031
Inspection Date: 10/04/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance 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 concem? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Voc M. NA NF
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Vice M. NA NF
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑❑❑❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑❑❑❑
Page: 6

IType of Visit 1� Cempliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit I�pj( Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: °® County: Region: W:5
Farm Name: Y M ta.n+ VIVA_ Fax -me, e,, Owner Email:
Owner Name: R" TV G �� T f Phone: 169—' %91
Mailing Address: tAU "[ 9 �.�Q� �li1� i l'1Ck�Y� V_L1I� N�/ %QI
Physical Address: 1N b��cuQ.Q-�4P
Facility Contact: 1) M � C U A Vl'- Title: Phone No: 4 (oQ
Onsite Representative: - A \ ��L Integrator: L
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes Ij1J 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 El NA El NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State ❑ Yes IAI No El NA ❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104 Continued

Facility Number-,31 • Date of Inspection mh'-►y •
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
El Yes
.,
A 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: L0. 00
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
[(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
lEl No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
T`
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes t
o ElNA ElNE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ElYeso ❑ 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 El Yes LyNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? //``
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes QLI No El NA El NE
maintenance/improvement? X
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes L�No El 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 Drill ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
C
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? XYes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination, El Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
® /
�I �
i9 U ( a�J5/.
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑NA ONE
❑NA El NE
❑NA El NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
El NA ❑NE
NEW

Facility Number: — D&Inspection IID/ YItJS •
Reauired Records & Documents T�
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists " ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does re rd keeping need imp�rrooyement? If yes, check
/tt� appropriate box �beloow. ❑ Yes )dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ SN Analysis ❑ Ve Transfers ❑ Annual Certification ✓
❑ RainfallJ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Y' Id ❑ 120 M' ute Inspections ❑ Moytthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ ather Code
DP WA V V
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? a0D5
Ob(��--
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
*o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
Imo, NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
*o
/❑-NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
,<No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes �(No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes XNo
El Yes //////jNo
❑ Yes �! No
ElYes *0
❑ NA ❑ NE
El NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
El NA ❑NE
El NA El NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional i u i Drawings:
i I �I t� 4 r� r E' ✓ iV ,�
I 1 '
d
IIFWP
� l � I /
0
v',

Facility Number 99 31 Date of Visit: Il/24/2004 Time: 0950
(7 Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ................ ........
Farm Name: OKYaat.Hog.Farms...................................................................................... County: YAdkin............................................... WSRO........
OwnerName: Flay .......................................... RnAlit......................................................... Phone No: 33.(i-.4.6&-J,7Z9 ..........................................................
Mailing Address: ZU4Q.Cent¢.t:.RoAd............................................................................... HuRuxilICAC.......................................................... 2.7.011..............
Facility Contact: 1dOXd.Ar ant.................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: 33b 4b9.1b22..4C1...............
Onsite Representative: 1.dOY.d.Uni at.............................................................................. Integrator: L ABc.H........................................................................
Certified Operator:.Wjlliam.L............................. 1iig4at.............................................. Operator Certification Number: 2137.A.............................
Location of Farm:
From Yadkinville, take Hway 601 North, left on Haire Road, right on Center Road (SR1331), right on Cass Stevens Road
(SR1375), farm approx. 4000 ft on right
®Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 10 ° 0� Longitude 80 • 42 30
Design = Current
Swine Canacitv PODnlation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
8640
7962
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons
IO
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I I[] Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 8,640
Total SSLW 1,166,400
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
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: ..........Lagoon..........
Freeboard (inches): 54
12112103
Continued

Facility Number: 99-31 • Date of Inspection FI1/24/2004 •
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees; severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ®No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes
® No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
®No
❑ Excessive Pending ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc > 3000
12.
Crop type Fescue (Hay) Millet (hay)
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
®No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
®No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
®No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
®No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes ® No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Field Copy ® Final Notes
Must calibrate new reel prior to next use. Don't forget to document.
Calibration was conducted in 2004, per permit, by GraMak according to the operator, but there is no written documentation.
over the requirements of the permit with Mr. Bryant.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
hr � _
Al-JA.44 U L R Date: I ,1t�
rzifsivr wmirsuea

f Facility'Number: 99-31 �of Inspection 11/24/2004
111 •
Required
Records & Documents
21.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
�J
tgN0
22.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
I
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
[ No
23.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
I
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
�k`No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
1 No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
/,[�``No
27.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified A WMP?
❑ Yes
/j®No
J�No
I
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
es
t
❑ No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
es
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
12112103

Facility Number Date of Visit: '•'-y��— q T nie:
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted 13 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
7� o
Farm Name:.. Ll r .A it iiq Fn S r- County:VL_,__�
Owner Name: ---- , +p_ rr43 Il+ � �' I_. Phone No: � 3 �) 1 40 g e � % �
Mailing Address:-°��?"YL_. C� 1} e r����1L11L� t t"`� c2 _701 ^�
Facility Contact: _Sc SZ_ i�l�__.___Title: _�__._�Phone No: baa
Onsite Representative: UOU [��_ Y�t.__._ Iutegrator. __•_ L* N _ _
Certified Operator:— 11VIOLM B_ 1-ucz-X+ ____ Operator Certification Number.
Location of Farm:
Nw.I (ob! h, Prom lkinvi l e. l,eF+- onloHaire-M • T-t. onto 6ent-ar
o 0-05 p �d
dSwine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes �(No
Discharge originated at ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes o
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 y /
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? lY] Spillway ❑ Yes o
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 (� Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: _ QOrI
Freeboard (inches): 3�+- *
12112/03 zltq Continued

I�
Facility Number: 9q — 31 1Date of Inspection ,2 p
5. Are there any immediate threats to the Wry of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tre' severe erosion,
❑ Yes
ANo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑ Yes
No
closure plan?
(if any of questions 4.6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancerimprovement?
❑ Yes
No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes
)XNo
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenanceltmprovement?
❑ Yes
ko
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Cer&ed 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
b(No
c) This facility is periled for a wettable acre determination?
❑Yes
1
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attar below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes XNo
Air Quality representative immediately.
Field Couv ❑ Final Notes
Q4'{1on (9Q.'1�7fLCilbYi
Crop t e,(A5 ?
© Must" dp&1br0.i;e_ u5@ —
boc'uw4yt
Reviewer/inspector Name
Reviewer/inspector Signal
rr�L 3 Lko- Max-c-h. aoo,S
Date:
12112103

Facility Number; _ ' of Inspection a O •
Reouired Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ®No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? II
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes No
23. Does�acord keeping need vement? If ygs check the appro�te box below. ❑ Yes No
L—YLWaste Application Freeboard L—V.vr1aste Analysis Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes *o
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes *o
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes No
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlmspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes No
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes No
LAMES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35) Ayes ❑ 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? NQ �DY IYl n re e ort ❑ Yes ❑ o
--
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? OY\(yi$� yr• ❑ Yes ❑ N
35. D record keeping fforr DES required forms eed im rovement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes o
S ' king Form � Crop Yi d Form �Rainf on After 1" Rain
120 Minute Inspections Annual Certification Form
113 No violations or deficiemaes were noted during this visit You will receive no further correspondence about this visit
12112103

Assistance Site Visit
n of Soil and Water ConservatioM
I Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number 99 - 31 Date: 10/18/04 Time: 10:10 Time On Farm
Farm Name Bryant Hog Farms County Yadkin
Mailing Address 2049 Center Road Boonville NC
120 WSRO
Phone: [phone]
Onsite
Representative Lloyd Bryant Integrator Premium Standard Farms
Operation Review
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
IN 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
8640
7542
Purpose Of Visit
Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
Response to complaint/local referral
Requested by producer/integrator
Follow-up
Emergency
Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Nan -Dairy
❑ Other
27011
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structural Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Lagoon
Level (Inches) 1 36
CROP TYPES Fescue -hay Millet overseeded
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES CfB2
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03
❑ Dairy
❑ Nan -Dairy
❑ Other
27011
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structural Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Lagoon
Level (Inches) 1 36
CROP TYPES Fescue -hay Millet overseeded
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES CfB2
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03
❑ Other
27011
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structural Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Lagoon
Level (Inches) 1 36
CROP TYPES Fescue -hay Millet overseeded
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES CfB2
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 99 31 Date:
10/18/04
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
Y8. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
[113. Waste structure needs maintenance
❑
❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
[114. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
❑ 1Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
re-certification
30.2H.0200 reertification
[116. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
[119. 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
❑
Cl
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Refaulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
®
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
El Other...
43. Irrigation system design/installation❑
El
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45.Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
Mr. Bryant purchased a new irrigation reel.
2
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5.
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
6
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 99 - 31 Date: 10/18/04
Waste analysis: 9/16/04 ALS 2.0 Ibs.N
Soil samples dated 7/22/04 looked ok.
# 42. The irrigation equipment needs to be calibrated.
Mr. Bryant has taken his soil samples and the technical specialist is currently working on the PLAT
it the application field.
# 57. The crop yield record needs to be completed for this year.
The facility looks good overall.
Good farm.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 10/18/04
Entered By: IRocky Durham
03/10/03

ision of Water Quality
ision of Soil and Water Conservation •
Q Other Agency
(Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 99 31 Dale of Visit: 12/02/2003 Time: 1300
O Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
N Permitted E Certified. 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold- --- -- ------ --
Farm Name: 8"''.ant.HogFarms................................................................ County: 3(A.dj tt-,--------.----.--.----.--•-.. W
Owner Name: RRX_------•------------- 1?[Yaot-•-----•---•-•-•---•-----•-- Phone No:336468J_Z24------------------------------
Mailing Address: 2R49..Cknt1<[..RRati._............................................................................ H.Q9.n.A1Ilz..NC ......................................................... U.0.11............-.
Facility Contact: MOY.ARrynt.....................................Title:............................................... Phone No: ......................................
Onsite Representative:Uayd-B7yaut--------------------------------------- Integrator: 1,&H----------------------_---_-_-_-_-_-,
Certified Operator: Witlia0GI............................ RnAllt .............................................. Operator Certification Number: 2]1.7.8.............................
Location of Farm:
From Yadkinville, take Hway 601 North, left on Haire Road, right on Center Road (SR1331), right on Cass Stevens Road
,SR1375), farm approx. 4000 ft on right
®Swine ❑ Poultry []Cattle []Horse Latitude 36 • 10 0 Longitude F 80 • 42 30
Design Current
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
[] Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Po ulation Cattle Capacity Po ulation,
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 8,640
Total SSLW
0
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: -----Lagoon------- --------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------
Freeboard (inches): 45
05103101 �9�a Con ' ue .

Facility Number: 99-31 Date of Inspection 12/02/2003 •
5.
Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
® No
seepage, etc.)
6.
Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
® No
(if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
8.
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
® No
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
®No
12.
Crop type Fescue (Hay) Millet overseed
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
®No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
®No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comment refer to question Explain an. F ans er an or ap. recommendations or an. othe comments
se drawings of facili o better exp ain i an ions. tsea pages as pecessary : ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
19. Suggest labeling soil samples by pull number for easy cross referencing. Highest zinc level was 23.5 lbs.
Went over new NPDES permit with operator.
Waste analyses:
7/17/03 ALS 5.2 lbs. N/1000 gal.
9/15/03 ALS 2.7 lbs. N/1000 gal.
- - ---- - -- - - -- - -
Reviewer/Inspector Name [Melissa Rosebrock
Reviewed] nspectorSignaturemi� ti " Date: 02
05103101 Continued

Pacilityifi'umber: 99-31 Df Inspection 12/02/2003 •
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
(.' " ttto'naQ •o'mme'nt an .'7 rawmgs:
05103101
05103101

.. ' . ' • a 1PM
Type of Visit A Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit VRoutine O Complaint Q Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time:
10 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted Certified U Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Alcove Threshold:
Farm Name: IB m1 and F60 FQrmS County: Vo/tc1,111/ p'
Owner Name: Qn� Phon`e^No: 3 34 •7�10f 9. ) 11Z-Q
Mailing Address: a CX.Xr t�l rc N L aC 1 0) 1
Facility Contact: Lloyd r ,,, Title: Phone No:
%J
Onsite Representative: Llo Integrator: �� 1 1
p o
Certified Operator: 14111ii2mOperator Certification Number: a ► 3 �g
Location of Farm: Q DIM e✓
a
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude =' =, =- Longitude �' �• � �
Design '. Current
swine
II I Farrow to Feeder I I I'.
;Design Current Design C
Poultry' C2paC!tV Population Cattle capacity Po
❑ La er 1 1[:] Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW I 1 - I7
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
���❑l
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
,.[
lYJ No
� ,�,� Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S
Identifier: ,��_
Structure 6
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
Continued

• •
Facility Number. — Date of Inspection 2. O
5.
Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
WNo
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
_
No
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
8.
Does any pan of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yeshj'o
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate. gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
gNo
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
. 11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pending [I PAN' ❑ Hydraulic Overload
El Yes
�No
12.
Crop type L)6 (?
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designs ed 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
(�o
`. 18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management lan readily available?
(ie/ R'U$ checklists, design. maps, etc.) /
❑ Yesto
19.
�// ,//
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, was" to analysis & soil sample reports)
❑Yes
[Io
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 terrified operator in charge?
❑Yes
777���
tip No
`
22.
Fail to notif} regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
,
(ie' discharge, freeboard problems. over application)
❑ Yes
,NNo
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
o
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cattle noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
,LrNo
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit -
.FS. iu .-eS '6 �Y.a�/a s _ ja'i �' a av' h�K
Comments (refer to quesLon Elgplam any YES answers and/or auy reeomzn da6ons or any er eommenis
Lse drawings of facility, to better exphtm sdpations. (use addutional pages as necessary) _ •
Field CODY ❑Final NOTeS ✓ - ..:
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signal
Date:
05103101
Continued

• • Facilih Number: Date of Inspection 1
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below, t27 es
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes A���///No
28. Is there anv evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation. asphalt. ❑ Yes t)p 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?—e.p;a
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation farts) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missin_2 or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters. etc.) ❑ Yes WNO
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes XNo
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submereed fill pipe or a permanentitemporary cover? ❑ Yes i o
s. a ) N�jo©o
3 A�5 a.�
0
PVPZ)E�5 nUJ
O5103101

technical Assistance Site Visit
of Soil and Water Conservatioril
Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number 99 - 31
Date: /24/03
Time: 10:30
Time On Farm: F-180-1 WSRO
Farm Name Bryant Hoq Farms
County Yadkin
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 2049 Center Road
Boonville NC
Onsite
Representative Lloyd Bryant Integrator L & H Farms
Type Of Visit
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
IN 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
8640
7052
Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
Response to complaint/local referral
Requested by producer/integrator
Follow-up
Emergency
Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
27011
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2.
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
27011
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2.
❑ Other
27011
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2.
Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
❑ yes
® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3.
Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
❑ yes
® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4.
Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
❑ yes
®no
requiring DWQ notification?
5.
Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment
❑ yes
® no
and/or public health?
6.
Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure?
❑ yes
® no
Structural Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Lagoon
Level (Inches) 38
CROP TYPES escue-hay VAillet
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES Cf 32
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

a
Facility Number 99 - 31 Date:
4124/03
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.
El
❑
❑ 15.
Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30. 2H.0200 re -certification
❑ 16.
Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
❑ 17.
Deficient irrigation records
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 18.
Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19.
Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
[121.
Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22.
Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24.
Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
❑
❑
❑ Other...
43. Irrigation system design/installation
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45.Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
2
49. Drainage workievaluation
❑
❑
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
❑
❑
2
03/10/03

iy
Facility Number 99 - 31 Date: 4/24/03
COMMENTS:
Waste analysis: 11-15-02 ALS 5.5lbs.N/1000 gals. I, B
The lagoon level has risen approximately 28 inches since last year. The waste level was checked with a level instrument.
o application of waste to date.
Mr. Bryant has received his NPDES general permit. I went over some of the record keeping requirements of the new
NPDES permit. I also reviewed some of the time deadlines of some documents with Mr. Bryant.
Suggested adding some microbes to the lagoon to help with the solids digestion and lower the Nitrogen level of the liquid
waste.
Facility appears to be in compliance. Fescue crop looks great.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: /25/03
Entered By: IRocky Durham
03/10/03

Facility Number: 99-31 A91L Date of Inspection 11/13/2002 •
5.
Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
® No
seepage, etc.)
6.
Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
8.
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
® No
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
®No
12.
Crop type Fescue (Hay)
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
®No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
®No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
®No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
®No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments refer to question # : Explain any YIS answers and/or any recommendations or any otlter comments.
Use drawingN5f facility to better explain situations. use additional pages as necessary): ❑Field Copy ® Final Notes
19. Per operator, no animal waste has been applied this year. No soil or waste analysis records or application records are required.
Aerator plans on taking soil samples for his own records, though.
. Operator wants to have CAWMP revised to include updated application window of August -July. He wants to have "millet" taken out
f the CAWMP. Need to see technical specialist for this.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Metistia Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur772 e:IJJ2ADate: (� a-
05103101 1 V Continued

Facility -(Number: 99�1 D&f Inspection 11/13/2002 •
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 farts) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
J
05103101

la pin
Type of Visit Olt Cc pliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint 0 Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: 01 M=
e: 4==
10 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted A Certified Conditionally Certified 13Registered Date Last Operated or bov f Threshold:
Farm Name: _�rQYi ��C�Li[j� 5 County: I Yi
L
Owner Name: r^� �T 11 ,�,, ��,,yP�hone No: ��/�'���Z
Mailing Address: / IXb�i� ��' I d.�a-+���iII� ►�� %AI_l
Facility Contact: "' I L
Onsite Representative:
Title:
Integrator:
Phone No:
L04 FI 'mj
Certified Operator: '/ ) (I I I (.iYVI L` Operator Certification Number: 9 13 7 2'
0
Location of Farm,
16 Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse LatitudeLongitude I MO 1?0•
DDesian`:Current Dres en = .=Goaeet.. I
Farrow to
Diseharves & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any pan of the operation?
❑ Yes
41No
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 galimin?
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
K`No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
J�41No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway
❑ Yes
„W No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
(06 Identifier: 00
Structure 6
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
Continued
jv

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection f
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 smctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application'/, ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
13. Do the receivingicrops differ with thhZ re dMigi(ated 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 or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CertifieAnimal W`// as{e Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) /
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, Ord, 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 p(,I No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 4No
El Yes ANo
❑ Yes (I)YNo
ElYes KNo
❑ Yes ip1 N0
U'Yes �No
El Yes No
El Yes No
El Yes No
El Yes No
❑ Yes ;<No
❑ Yes 9 No
❑ Yes 9 No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes IRNo
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
.Comments(refento queshan #):- Ezplaip any':YES answers and/or any reeommendatiops or snv other comment�s. `/-�-,:
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use addinonal pages as necessary) Field Conv �(i final Notes
_ -.
EQReviewer/Inspector Name .: .. _ _ ._ G
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: __LLL1aj An
05103101 L r t Continued

C19
Facility Number: qq—_311Date of Inspection .�
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes No
28.
is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes o
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
,,.,(
El Yes DC I 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.)
El Yes No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes 0 No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
ElYes XNo
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
K/ %�
KJ (M/ ✓v/ (� �l�/ T
—41!f 7W
/ '
0
O5103101

Division of Soi1W Water Conservation 13Other
division of Water Quality
19 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection 5U�r
1 1 Time of Inspection Efff =_24 hr.
U Registered [3 Certified E3 Applied for Permit &Kermitted JE3 Not Operational Date Last Operated: ..........................
7
FarmName: . ............................... County: ..... ................... ......... . . .....
Owner Name:.... .....7................ Phone N
Facility Contact: .... ... .... . .......... Title: ...... ..... .... Phone No: —:57 .......................
...............
MailingAddress: ..(....1........ ....................... ...... I ....... .. ....................... Ae .................... !::�
... ... ....
%
................................................ Integrator ... .....
Onsite Representative:.. 14-4 z .:� ............ ............
Certified Operator ..... ..... .... .. ........................ ... ............. Operator Certification Number.."?.Y.w?.Z.V
Local• n of Farm:
.. ww.
......... 7.6 ..... Al2 ........ e. LaLongitude
Latitude EM­ Lo 2Z
�siCurMt siDggn Currnt
Design'
'Cirre nt
Swore _ Capacity Population Poultry -Capacity Population-,, Cattle; �' 'Capackty,,,Population.
❑ Wean to Feeder I[] Layer 1 0 Dairy T
Feeder to Finish IL]Non-Layer l 10 Non -Dairy I
El Farrow to Wean
;i,� El Farrow to Feeder AD Other I
El Farrow to Finish Tot
al Design Capacity
0 Gilts
10 Boars 4
Total S§E-W
'Number of Lagoons g-... �s ftold'hi Ponds 10 Subsurface Drains �Present 10Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? [I Yes KNo
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? E3 Yes )NNo
Discharge originated at: [I Lagoon [I Spray Field [I Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? 0 Yes [I No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes. notify DWQ) 0 Yes 0 No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ) El Yes D No
Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? 0 Yes JZI No
Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? 0 Yes XNo
Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require 0 Yes x No
maintenance/improvement?
3 facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? 0 Yes ANo
id the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? 0 Yes gNo
t ,/97

Facility Number 99 31 Date of Visit: N17J2002 Time: 13:30
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
S Permitted 0 Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: llryattt.flog.Faxm...................................................................................... County: YAdkart.............................................. WSEQ __..
OwnerName: RAy.......................................... Bxymt........................................................ Phone No: 9104.68.-5.352 ..........................................................
Mailing Address: 2042_Geltte3..R.oAd............................................................................... U.Q.QEtyj1k.xC ........................................................ 2.7.011.............
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: ) 9y..d.R1CS.aitf.............................................................................. Integrator: L.4t.H........................................................................
Certified Operator:.Y.S.'7l0aam L............................. Brunt.............................................. Operator Certification Number:21d7.8.............................
Location of Farm:
From Yadkinville, take Hway 601 North, left on Haire Road, right on Center Road (SR1331), right on Cass Stevens Road
(SR1375), farm approx. 4000 ft on right
N Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 10 ' DO " Longitude 80 • 42 ' 30
Design Current
Swine Ca aci r P,o ulafion
Design Current Design Current
Poultry G acit P,o elation Cattle Ca acit P,o elation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Dairy
N Feeder to Finish
8640
7244
ayer
❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
_
6.�
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total Design Capacity 8,640
Total SSLW 1 1,166,400
F1
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Number of Lagoons
Holding Pon/SIf, id Traps
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N 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
a 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 N No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes N No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? N Spillway ❑ Yes N No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ............................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 66 -
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 99-31 Date of Inspection 6/12/2002 0
5.
Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
® No
seepage, etc.)
6.
Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? -
❑ Yes
® No
8.
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
® No
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
12.
Crop type Fescue (Hay) Pearl millet Overseed
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? '
❑ Yes
® No
E3 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments refer to question # : Explain any YFS answers and/or any recommen lions or any other comments
Use drawings of facility to better explain RMHBn5 use addi onal pages a5 ecessary : ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
Facility is well maintained.
r. Bryant has not had to apply waste to date. Application fields have been mowed and baled.
Reviewer/Inspector Name lRocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility NuDqf Inspection 6/12/2002
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
J
05103101

I/ t vision of Water Quality
��vision of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection 0. Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint 0 Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 99 31 Date of Visit: 6/13/2001 Time 13:00 Printed on: 8/2a/2001
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
N Permitted N Certified [3 Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Bryant.11119.Farm...................................................................................... County: Y;AdkAa .............................................. WSRQ........
OwnerName: Ftay........................................... Bxymt........................................................ Phone No: 410, 46&S.3S.2...........................................................
Mailing Address: 2U42.CCUkx..RQAdC.CUkx..RQAd .............................................................................. 119vittAlleNc ......................................................... 2.7011..............
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
OnsiteRepresentative: Uoy.d.Brry.oAt.............................................................................. Integrator: l.A..ti........................................................................
Certified Operator ffilial n.................................. Bryant.............................................. Operator Certification Number: 213.78 .............................
Location of Farm:
From Yadkinville, take Hway 601 North, left on Haire Road, right on Center Road (SR1331), right on Cass Stevens Road
SR1375), farm approx. 4000 ft on right
N Swine ❑ Poultry []Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®• 10 • F 0 Longitude F 42 ®•°
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)
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ 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 N No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? N Spillway ❑ Yes N No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ....................
Freeboard (inches): 64
05103101
Continued

�c_ a
Facility Number: 99-31 Date of Inspection 6/13/2001 • Printed on: 8/23/2001 .-
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 Anolication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? []Excessive Ponding []PAN []Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Fescue (Hay)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ®No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
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 IN 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.
Comments refer to question #): Explain any YES answers an or any remmmendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to letter explain situations use additional pages as necessary ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
r. Bryant has not had to apply waste to date. His lagoon was designed for 9 houses and he only has 8. The lagoon level has come up
_
since last year, but not much due to a dry year.
r. Bryant has required records of soil analysis, freeboard levels, and a waste analysis.
ecords and facility look good.
121
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

,.Facility Number: 99-31 Def Inspection 6/13/2001 • Printed on: 8/23/2001
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
32. Facility does not have flush tanks.
'ante analysis: ALS 3/22/01 4.7 Ibs.N/1000 gals. I
�l
J
05103101

(Type of Visit 0 compliance inspection U operation Heview V Lagoon tvawation I
Reason for Visit O• Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 99 31 Dal• of Visit: 3l29/2001 Time: 0915
Q Not Operational Q Below Thresl
Permitted E Certified 0 Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: 0JrYYAlxt.A0i.Eanus....................................................................................... County:Xatllrilt.................................................WSRO.......
OwnerName: Ray ........................................... Sx'Y.ant........................................................ Phone No: 3.MZQqjQ7.8...........................................................
Mailing Address: 2Q49..Cf xftr..livad............................................................................... lion[1.Y.iA NIC......................................................... 270.Al ..............
Facility Contact: UQy.d.0ju..aat..................................................Title:............................................................... Phone No: 306..68.3.7.29........................
Onsite Representative: LIQY.d..N,ARCY..>•C.chit..)!.[aukSPriI Mt..,.JiIAM............ Integrator:l...tlt.11.........................................................................
Certified Operator:W.IlAlaM................................. H.t:Y+Qlxf................... I........................... Operator Certification Number:2j,3.7.6 ............................
Location of Farm:
From Yadkinville, take Hway 601 North, left on Haire Road, right on Center Road (SR1331), right on Cass Stevens Road
;SR1375), farm approx. 4000 ft on right
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' ®• 10 11 011 Longitude 80 42 < ®"
Design
Current
lksigo @anent Desigii"IrE
eulatioo
t atae' Ca actP,o elation
❑ Layereder
ean to Feeder
to Finish 8640
7260
❑ Non-Layerrrow
to Weanrrow
to Feederrrow
Design Capacity 8,640
to Finishl
iltsoars
Total SSLW 1,166,400
Number of Lagoons Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds /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?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
01/01/01 #34Ilf$ Continued

Facility Number: 99-31 • Date of Inspection 3/29/2001 •
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: .......... Lagwn..........
Freeboard(inches): ...............G1...................................................................................................................................................................................................
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 maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
® No
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
®No
12.
Crop type Fescue (Hay)
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? _ _
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
17.
Are rock outcrops present?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Is there a water supply well within 250 feet of the sprayfield boundary? ❑ Unknown
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ On -site ❑ Off -site
Required
Records & Documents
19.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® 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)
❑ Yes
® 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 atlor 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 Continued

Facility Number: "-31 Dff Inspection 3/29/2001
30. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
31. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
32. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
33. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
34. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
Printed on: 3/29/2001
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signal
Date:
01/01/01

qAM
:.Wvilsionpf
--A:.
Water Quality
X
0Division of Soil and Water ConservationConservation
v
9pther AgeacX,
P_
(Type of Visit A Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ORoutine OComplaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other E❑3 Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: 4�4LU Time:E= TI 10 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
)Permitted P(Certified E3 Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Narne:1.r.ian . ........ fl Eafm5 .......................................... County:......... ................. .......................
Owner Name: .............. R.A. tr T)II. ........... ................
Facility Contact: ....... LLP ... ... 4 ......... Bf Title: ................................................................ Phone No:
Mailing Address: ......... .......
...q ............. U.. ..... . .... ........ N� ...... ... ... 3.0.0
Onsite Representativ
e:
..Ucqa.t .....S I.V�
.. Integrator: ........... ..........................................................
Certified Operator:....... ..I...11.1.4 ........ .... ! ....... nf ......... Operator Certification Number; .... ......
Location of Farm: it-
&01 NOr" from y5_d Win vi Ife - te-T-76rik on -to
-
CWte� P-d rlI­ ah-6nk 0_a6s 5 f e v PQ. roy. Z160 Voj/)
Swine 0 Poultry ❑ Cattle [3 Horse Longitude Latitude E300 =1 F -DO11 0 F,-3 —ol
Design Current Design Current DesignCarterev..�,-s
Swine CapaCitV Population Poultry Capacity P elation Cattle , 7
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer I ❑ Dairy
Weeder to Finish IR Inq I ;,Lid 10 Non -Layer 1 0 Non Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
0 Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
0 Gilts
I Total SSLW [] Boars I Fl to 6) 7531'
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area 10 Spray _F­ie_1d_Area j
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps E::= FEI No Liquid Waste Management Sys
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: E] Lagoon E] Spray Field [I 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? AKpillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: .. ....... tl.oan .................................... ................................... .................................... .............................
Freeboard (inch
5100
11 Yes XNo
0 Yes 0 No
0 Yes 0 No
11 Yes [I No
❑ Yes ,4`
, No
❑ Yes 4NO
0 Yes No
Structure 6
Continued on back

F cility Number: — Date of Inspection 2 0 • Printed on: 1/9/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the 9grity of any of the structures observed? fie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ YesNo
seepage, etc.) "'���
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes Ao
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate pubtic_health or environmental threat, notify DWQ) �/
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes );(No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes XNo
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes XNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? \❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes kNo
12. Crop type Fes C u e
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes yVNo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes [XNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes [(No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes XNo
15. Does the receiving crop need itprovement? ❑ Yes XNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes )(No
Required Records & Documents ���,,,///
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? _ ❑ Yes No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? '\
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? fie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes A No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ANo
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes *0
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes .rNo
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes [(No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes kNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes XNo
•Yiglatiptjs;or defciencies •wgre i►Of ditritig thjs;visit; • Yoit wail-;ee¢iye tjr- -: • :
cori•is• o deitce:abotitithisvisit:: ::::: :::::::::::::•:•:-:-::•:•:•:•:-:•:•:•:
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or'any othe�s
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additiopal pages as necessary):-,f „
7 • for SPAS Bh I ►1�L�lor Q F ,�ago�n av-f_ 0.I I+f14- Jp-� i
tom-- �tsr has re seedPrior
IReviewer/Inspector Name N'.Ii 6�jQ V
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur ` t S.4n P L ,r, Date

Facility Number: —3 f inspection I `y/aC�{/(I/1 • 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 attor below
❑ Yes
Nio
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
,,yy��
��1llyKo
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
�<_�Dro
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
n /
k"V
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
1 /
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
[ENO
vv*0
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanendtemporary' cover?
❑ Yes
No
21 . 0ih(mo,15 awe bu rit i vl a- h61 e,
L
5100

Facility Number 99 31 Date of Visit: 7/(✓2000 1 Time: 14:30
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
■ Permitted ■ Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: B[3:7m1.H08.ItArm.............................................. _...................................... County: Yattlkiw.............................................. WSRQ........
OwnerName: Pay .......................................... B..1:S,t1fAt........................................................ Phone No: 919A.M.-5.352 ..........................................................
FacilityContact: ..............................................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: ZQ42..CnAte.r..&AdCnAt.e.r..&Ad .............................................................................. B0.oxxi k.NC......................................................... 2.7.011 ..............
OnsiteRepresentative: ........................................................................................................... Integrator: L..&.H ........................................................................
Certified Operator:li(1d11aAAL ............................ BAy:RAIL.............................................. Operator Certification Number: z13.7.8.............................
Location of Farm:
Irom Yadkinville, take Hway 601 North, left on Haire Road, right on Center Road (SR1331), right on Cass Stevens Road
ISISR1375), farm anorox. 4000 ft on rieht I
® Swine []Poultry []Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude F-367*F 10 ° 0'• Longitude F80 • 42 0
Discharge. & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 65
5/00 Continued on back

Facility Number: 99-31 is Date of Inspection 7/6/2000
(-
. e _
5.
Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ treeP vere erosion,
❑ Yes
® No
seepage, etc.)
6.
Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
8.
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
® No
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
® No
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
❑ No
12. Crop type Fescue (Hay) Small Grain Overseed —
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
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?
.... yiolatiolis:o� deficiencies were ilofed:dui... his; visit :Y....l. �....e i. flirthei
ctilzesaolidence about this.vlstt:::. .
❑ 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
11. This facility still has not applied waste.
9. Has not had to apply waste yet, therefore, there are no waste samples. Had soil samples.
icility is clean and well maintained.
cording to the facility's operation and maintenance plan he was to pre -charge the lagoon to 112 the treatment volume which he
d. The lagoon has risen approx. 7 inches since my review last year, but still lacks just over afoot reaching the stop pump mark.
0
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5100

tuer:
Facility N b99-31 llf Inspection 7/6/2000
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
® 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
J
5100

Ir
Wsion of Water Quality
a
Q�fvision of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
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
Facility Number 99 31 Date of Visit: 9/25/2000 'rime: 0950 Printed on: 9/25/2000
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ...........
".7..
............
Farm Name: BlrY.asl.11Ag.Fal:IISIS...................................................................................... County: Yadkin .............................................. F..SR.........
Owner Name:
Phone No: 336-2.Q9.:1 Q.7.8...........................................................
Facility Contact:UoyARryalit1.................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: 33.6,46.8,17.Zg .......................
Mailing Address: 2Q44.S:.filtt@C.$R,�d............................................................................... J3..Q.Qxjy
........... V911 ..............
OnsiteRepresentative: 1,,10yd.Blrxapl.............................................................................. Integrator: LAM
Certified Operator:WilliaM.L............................. Bryant.............................................. Operator Certification Number:Z13I#.............................
Location of Farm:
From Yadkinville, take Hway 601 North, left on Holcomb Road, right on Center Road (SR1331), right on Cass Stevens Road
(SR1375), farm anDrox. 4000 It on right
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 10 �0 Longitude 80 42 30
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
8640
7274
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps
Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Other
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
Total Design Capacity 8,640
Total SSLW 1,166,400
Subsurface Drains Present
Waste
Area I❑ Spray Field Area
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ®No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ®No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ..........Lagoon. .............................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 78 v tr _1
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: 99-31 Date of Inspection 9/25/2000 Printed on: 9/25/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the *ty of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tree0vere erosion, ❑ Yes N No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes N No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
9. Do any strictures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes N No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
11.
12.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
Crop type Fescue (Hay)
❑ Yes
N No
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
N No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
N No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
N No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
N No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
N No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
N Yes
❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
N Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
N No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
N No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
N No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
N No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
N No
Nti•violatioris;o:r deficiencies were uoted'during•this:visit.• YtiA. ill �ece►ve - flirth;ej- ;
• ctirresaorideuce: about this.vlstt.......................... .. . .
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):
18. Need to complete checklists in WUP as part of records.
19. Need to record solid applications of fertilizer to fescue crop on SLD forms. Send copies of forms
Need to start recording weekly freeboard.
Has not applied waste yet, no waste application records to review.
Need to ananlyze soil samples for copper once waste starts being applied to spray fields.
Reviewer/InspectorN e i .. - -
Reviewer/Inspector ector Name Melissa Rosebrock Abner Braddy Larry Coble
p Signature: Date: 5100

Facility Number•. 99-31 Da f Inspection 9725/20011 • Printed on: 9/25/2000
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
® 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
5100

ivision of Water Quality
ivisiomof Soil and Water Conservation
- 0 Other Agency
Type of Visit XCompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit )VIfioutine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
—� Date of Visit: b ime: = Printed on: 7/21/2000
0 Not Operational Q Below Threshold
ll�kPermittecl 91LCertified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
1 —
Farm Name:
Owner Name:
Facility Contact: ......................
�Lr% ..f% LI-44........
0-1..... %(�I¢�:I
Mailing Address: ....... . f2.b.-(.....1.......... h eY.J ••��........lb
Onsite Representative: .... fvtQ ............ �[.1.1.................
Certified Operator: .... �.A...L.di-am ......... ...._.81..y_Q0
Location of Farm: 1,1A I A -
County:......... aa.�.... 3� r..e . .
I �O�q= U-7g........
Phone No: ;,:„ ....r:
...................................... Phone No:... ..... y.6 X t.._t v i
.Pt. I�.1C1.1.�e..,II.....N....0................ a7_a.1...C..
Integrator: .................. ...................................Q...........
Operator Certification Number: ....... a_._�, V.........
awy
601 North r lef -. bn+o
+.2�a
Pad. I Kf- , 6 nft Cep,+-e r l 04 ,
hnI rt 1/660 -R. on r 19
-
Swine
❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle []Horse Latitude
�• �' �•°
Longitude �• �' �"
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity
Population
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish
JE1 Non -Layer
1
10 Non -Dairy
ff Farrow to Wean
❑Other
Total Design Capacity (p 6
Total SSLW
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
I Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area I
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ® ❑ 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 discharec is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/ruin'!
& Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway
Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: ...1001r.1 .............................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inche�t�
5100
❑ Yes >No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes 0o
❑ Yes XNo
Structure 6
Continued on back

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection Printed on: 7/21/2000
- 5. Are there any immediate threats to the grity of any of the structures observed'? (ie/ tre s, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.) 7`
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 ANo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes �'No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level /,
elevation markings? ❑ Yes >No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with thosoesignated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes 5KNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes X.
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes 6dNo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'? ❑ Yes ���....5 No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes Dp No
qDocuments; , `� Reuired Records &
IT Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes VNo
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
fie/ WUP, checklists, design, m,Ls, etc.) �, � )(Yes El No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste Inalysis & soil sample reports) 0(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 o
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
fie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes ?y�-(�y,,,o
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes 7NO
o
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes
iVd violatitirfs:or def cieucies were pored- dufing th,is:visit; , Yoii will teceipe rid: further.' .•.
cories oridence.abotiEthis:visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
[9. "4ee! * c*6 Cheek_ for a p pre/' I Iq Sb .Ila
s IS . e nCei wa.s4e -
O%J Ids
19 , W L5 ► - c� pp1 I ed ways+� �e�i-, no rr-co-rds Flo re�r� e �l
Reviewer/Inspector Name IVIP,10,54 r6
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date: b 5/00

FaciW Ajpmber: — 3 of Inspection • Printed on: 7/21/2000
• Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge Wor below ' ❑-Ve&— g bJo
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? OMIT t c;?W,
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? []Yes IYI 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 pp 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 b<No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? Q m'r 0—,Cw $yes --diva
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? o m M, C b2w. E3 *es 6 N&
a canlmils sfw-Ved ? moW I l�qd
b* ore aia►,r e- ? ✓tL q f
riod5 L0/ou-i an imczl S % NO
la-) 0,51 For avt Ien`y%�6 e-f %11'X0 ? N
IYleke,r on (.I�eJI(? i� eeor�S ?
ne.c6rJ5 .
13 �oo�
ash aA-%--e
RV
tI -, s jt► �' r i , VIRPROV

i}
Q ton of Water Quality
scion of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
(Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection p 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 99 31 Date of Visit: 7/6/2000 'rime: 14:30 Printed on: 9/21/2000
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold
FarmName:Ury8nt.HQ9.Facttls...................................................................................... County: Y,adlcio............................................... V.F'SRQ........
OwnerName:&y........................................... $I:rant......................................................... Phone No: 910. 4.68-S.3S2...........................................................
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: 2049.Cemite.Road........................................................... :................... 8.9mlyffic.N.0 ......................................................... 2.7.011..............
OnsiteRepresentative: ........................................................................................................... Integrator: LAM ........................................................................
Certified Operator:..WillialfO.L ............................. B[3:ant.............................................. Operator Certification Nurnber:ZI3.7B .............................
Location of Farm:
From Yadkinville, take Hway 601 North, left on Holcomb Road, right on Center Road (SR1331), right on Cass Stevens Road
S111375), farm approx. 4000 It on right
®Swine ❑ Poultry []Cattle []Horse Latitude 36 • 10 , 0u Longitude 1 80 161 42 11 1 30 ..
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Pnnulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
8640
6731
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I JoNon-Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 8,640
Total SSLW 1,166,400
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps E:= ❑ 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 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .....................
Freeboard (inches): 65
5100
Continued on back

Facility Number: 99-31 r i Date of Inspection 7/6/2000 Printed on: 9/21/2000 1
5. Are there any immediate threats to therity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trWevere erosion, []Yes ®No
seepage, etc.)
6. 'Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
8.
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
®No
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
❑ No
12. Crop type Fescue (Hay) Small Grain Overseed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility, need a wettable acre detennination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
�' N6•violatious'or deficiencies i,vere:nbted ;duripg this: visit :Ytiu:will receive uti-farthcr-;
. correspondence: about this visit.
I■Vd=_4m
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
omments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
se drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
11. This facility still has not applied waste.
9. Has not had to apply waste yet, therefore, there are no waste samples. Had soil samples.
Lcility is clean and well maintained.
-cording to the facility's operation and maintenance plan he was to pre -charge the lagoon to 112 the treatment volume which he
d. The lagoon has risen approx. 7 inches since myt review last year, but still lacks just over afoot reaching the stop pump mark.
t�
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5100

iFacility Number: 99-31 Date of Inspection 7/6/2000 Printed on: 9/21/2000
/ Odor Issues • •
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ 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 permanem1temporary cover?
❑ Yes
❑ No
5100

6 ® Division of nd Water Conservation -Operation Revi
Division o[ nd Water Conservation -Compliance Ins on
U Division of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
Other Agency - Operation Review
Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number 99 31 Date of Inspection 7/7/99
[Time of Inspection 14:45 24 hr. (hh:mm)
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Not O ¢rational Date Last Operated: ..........................
Farm Name: Ury.;MI.HUg.. A1:jW...................................................................................... County:
WSRO........
OwnerName: Ray ........................................... Bxmt......................................................... Phone No: 91,0-4.687535.2 ...........................................................
FacilityContact: ................ :............................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:
Mailing Address: 2Q49.C.enter.BRad.............................................................................. BARnxBlt.1Y......................................................... Z. RI..............
OnsiteRepresentative: LQYd.B.ry.lnt............................................................................... Integrator: L.&A ........................................................................
Certified Operator:%Y.i.111a101..L.............................. B¢Y.a.QI.............................................. Operator Certification Number:ZI3.7R .............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 36 • 10 ' �'° Longitude 80 • 42 < 30
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
8640
7680
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current
Poultry Ca it Po ulation
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Other
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
I Number of Lagoons J❑ Subsurface Drains Present [[] Lagoon Area J❑ Spray Field Area I
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Facts
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 gaVmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): ................7z...............
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes []No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ 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
Continued on back
Printed on 9/21/2000

Facilit Number: 99-31 D^' of Inspection 7/7/99
6. Are there structures on -site which are n*operly addressed and/or managed through a management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
N No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
8.
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
N No
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pending ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
N No
12.
Crop type Fescue (Hay)
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
N No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
N No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre detemilnation?
❑ 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
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
N No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) _ _ __ __
❑ Yes
N No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
N No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
N No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
N No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
N No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
N No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
N No
13
No yiolatious'or & ciencies•were noted ;during•this; vigit::Ytiu:Will receive oo further ;
corres olidence.Abo fthis .Visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Overall operation looks good.
o application has occurred yet. Lagoon has not filled to the treatment volume yet.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
on

' Facility Number: 99-31 Dof Inspection 7/7/99 .
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes N 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 N No
28.
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)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes N 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 N No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes N No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional omments and/orDrawings:
32 N/A Facility has pit flush system
Printed on 9/2112000

Je Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review (:)Other
1
j Facility Number 99 31 Date of Inspection 3/30/99
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
E Permitted in Certified ® Conditionally Certified (3 Registered Not O erational Date Last Operated: ..........................
Farm Name: Bryant-Hog.Earmx...................................................................................... County:Yadkin .............................................. W..SRQ........
OwnerName: Rag .......................................... REYAIA ........................................................ Phone No: 910..46&5351..........................................................
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No: ........................................ _... _._
Mailing Address: 2.049.Center..Road............................................................................... BQojxyHk.N.0 ......................................................... 170.11 .............
Onsite Representative: Layd.Rryaut............................................................................... Integrator: Ls kjf;Atlul8............................................................
Certified Operator: William.L............................. Bryant.............................................. Operator Certification Number: 21372 ............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 36 • 10 �0 Longitude 80 • 42 { 30 a
Design
Current:; Design Current-
Design Current
Swme
Ca tact
> Po ulatino
Poultry Ca grunt Yo` matron ;Cattle ::.
Ca racrtv
Po Mahon
.
❑
Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer'❑Dairy
®
Feeder to Finish
8640
7156
❑Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑
Farrow to Wean
_
❑Farrow
to Feeder
❑Other
-.
❑Farrow
to Finish
Total Design Capactty,
8,640
❑Gilts
❑
Boars
Total SSLW
1,166,400
'
Nainber of Lagaons
,
:� ';;: ❑ Subsurface Drains Present
❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holdmg PondslSulidTraps
:_ ❑ 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 die 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 Stricture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: ....................................
Freeboard (inches): .............. 95.................
5. Are there any hnmediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99
❑ Yes ® No
[] Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
Structure 6
...............................
..............................
❑ Yes
® No
Continued on back

Facility Number: 99-31 • I f Inspection
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/improventent?
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
Fescue
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 further information for wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need nuprovement?
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?
3/30/99
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Yes
N No
B -Naviolaiibns. nr.defitiieliciesivelie.tioieil.duriilg itiii visit:. Yriu ivB1.receive.no fiirNier.
..........................................................
.......
aMrit YRic. '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.
No waste applied as of yet.
No problems noted with lagoon; still slowly tilling.
Facility is already in compliance with Odor BMPs which become effective June 1, 1999.
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
[]Yes N No
Reviewer/InspectorName I
Reviewer/InspectorSignature: �011h/f47 S , Date:

Routine
Of
Facility Number 99 31
0 Registered ®Certified 13 Applied for Permit M Permitted
ow -up of DSW C review O Other
Date of Inspection 12/4/98
Time of Inspection E� 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Not Operational Date Last Operated: ..........................
Farm Name: Bryant.flog.F.arm...................................................................................... County: Y,adkitt.............................................. WSR.Q........
OwnerName: Ray...........................................AryAnt ........................................................ Phone No: ..........................................................
Facility Contact: IoO.Bacot................................................... Title: .Qpe rater............................................ Phone No: 336.-.461-.1722 ......................
Mailing Address: ZQ49.Center.Ruad............................................................................... B0011VIlk.N.0 ......................................................... 27.011 .............
Onsite Representative: .I.Atyd..B:rYant............................................................................... Integrator: Ld R arms............................................................
Certified Operator: Wit iam.L............................. Bryant.............................................. Operator Certification Number: .2.U7.8 .............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 36 • 10 �0 4, Longitude 86 • 42 30 k
Design
Current f
Design Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity
Population_
Poultry Capacity Popuhttioo _> stile
Capacity Popuia#ion
❑Wean to Feeder
; ❑Layer ❑ Dairy
N Feeder to Finish
8640
6720
10 Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑Farrow to Finish
Tot9� Desigta Capattity
-:, 8,640
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Tot...
1,166,400
dumber of Lagoons
1HoldingNmIs
1� _ ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
± ❑ No liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvernent'?
❑ Yes
N No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
N 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
N No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
N No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
N No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
N No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge'?
❑ Yes
N No
7/25/97

Facility Number: 99-31 Date o ection 12/4/98
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site ch need to be properly closed? • ❑ Yes ® No
Structures (Lapoom.Holdinc Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 0 No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard(ft):...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ® 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)
I5. Crop type..........................................................................................................................................................................
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?
ig-No-kiolatiUttsdr'd'efteiet►ete5-Were'goted'durittgt4iS-*8it.' 4tf. i1!'rBeefVe'nbYiYrN1eY'
'.'.cOrresj)a6dei1Ct7 altoui'[lti5.vlSlt.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.
No waste applied as of yet.
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes []No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes H No
Inspection conducted as a result of a complaint received this date, regarding liquid level in lagoon, why it has not filled more quickley.
No problems noted with lagoon, still slowly tilling-, level could be attributed to prolonged lack of rain, fact that it was sized for 9
nd only 8 are built, and low water usage (--2.9 gal/hd/day/including wasste production).
Reviewer/InspectorName Ahlter$ratldy
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

I I Division of SoiWd Water Conservation (3 Other AWCy
&Irrivision of Water Quality *^t'
Vlt
O Routine 0 Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
E3 Registered 0 Certified E3 Applied for Permit
Farm Name:.....��f/lil...11... ...
Owner Name:..,X,� ... 1f ....le'! (?/...!
Facility Contact:.,,.,,
Mailing Address: ..... .............. �%�....
Onsite Representative: -A -ay ................1....._�,�
Certified Operatort....�./�1 ...................
//.�/
of
Title:
it Operational Date Last Operated:
..........................
Countv:......�% .................. .......................
....Phone No ... .
............... Phone No:... ?. �.....................
Operator Certification NumberO`..(.....T.,;? .
Latitude ®' ®' ®" Longitude ®• ®' F_/_!5_f["
Design �= Current
`,Design Current Desrgn urgent
Swore ;" �:�
Capacity' Population
Poultry
Ca ulahon,,r Cattle C aci Po ulation
Capacity Po P y P Capacity _ i
❑ Wean to Feeder
10 Layer
-3 ❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
10 Non -Layer I
I 1;10 Non -Dairy
-, []Farrow to Wean
❑Farrow to Feeder
,,I[] Other-
_
❑ Farrow to Finish
_ Total Design Capacity
" ❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
Number of cons'/ Holding Ponds
®
❑ Subsurface
Drains Present
❑ Lagoon Area JEI Spray Field Area
d,
——
— e ''
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System 3
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
❑ Yes ,JN No
❑ Yes ,Kt No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes fiTNo
❑ Yes CWNo
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes P'No
❑ Yes XNo s

Facility Number: = •
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? • ❑ Yes )KNo
Structures(LaEoonsJfoldinP Ponds, Flush Pits. etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ANo
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard(ft):.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes IMNo
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ANo
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes two
(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 vel markers? ❑ Yes RNo
ante A lication�4Sfi��y
14. Is then: physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type............................................................................................................................................................................................................. ...............................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? _ ❑ Yes ❑ No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ❑ No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes ❑ No
22. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes &No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes_VNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit? ❑ Yes.J�o
VROf�q deficiencies.were noted during this;visit:' You:V011 receive-no-ft rthei•':
correspolideilce :Wout this: visit:
Cotrtmettt� (refer to queshan #) � ErzpLva anysYF.S aas�wers artdfor any t�ecommendat<tws or any'other comments � ' �* .>;
Jse daratirtngs of fitcifiy to,better ezplam s.tuadons {use addthonal,pages as.necessary),._
ft
—1AS�Pe7i n
G✓r�y i/ `ins l/�lZe7�,
/S A71
��
���, frrj` .r� i� �✓�s, s'/z,�d✓�� l �s'���s �- ��. yam- --
Reviewer/Inspector Name 1rG
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:f�y���I �� Date:

vision of Soi� Water Conservation ❑ Other
vision of Water Quality
O Routine 0 Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
13 Registered E3 Certified ELApplied for Permit M4erermitted 113 Not Operational DateLast Operated: ..........................
Farm Name:...../�%✓:fy��� .%.../ ��..�%j. .. f��!.?........._................... County:...... l /./W............................................
Owner Name:..X`C../t....... ..... �a..C!L"........�.._ //1.................... Phone No ..........��
�' s r............
Facility Contact:...._Tit�le:.....ar�G(..ftl✓ ............... P�honeNo:..._/rIC`......................
Mailing Address:.._ .....0 f`�'f �]f .X / ........... 1 ( (.f........1..!..../�...... /....!
............
Onsite Representative: . /-� Intc./....... '.._Y/.......- C 7_�............
p ��/................L:...........,t�.r��......._......_............. grator:..,G�"'
Certified Operator;... ,��'... .. /......_........._.,%7Y..yl-f... ....._.._.... Operator Certification Number..;,_ ....................
Latitude ©°E/_ 721 �« Longitude E27--I• �i �"
a ',Destgn 'Current _. -'; "Design ,.Current Design` `,Current
Swme =�, �Capactty Population Poultry Capacity Population .,,Cattle' Capacity,Popalation.,
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish I0 Non -Layer I ;i ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
-;- ❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
4 ❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design`Capacitp
❑ Gilts ._'. • <`
❑Boars I ITotal SSLW,;.'
"Number ofL agoons /Holding Ponds F, ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑Spray Feld Area
-�--� ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
A No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
XNO
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DW Q)
❑ Yes
❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated Flow in gaUmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
KNo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
UNo
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
XNo
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
i9No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
}fit No
7/25/97

Focillty Number:
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on she which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes ANo
Structures (Lagoons.Iloldine Ponds. Flush Pits. etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes XNo
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard(ft):.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
10. is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes XNo
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes J$,No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes 15l:No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid vel markers? ❑ Yes 6d'No
3*a'ste'Ayplication
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? / ❑ Yes ❑ No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ..........
.... .................................:....................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? - ❑ Yes ❑ No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ❑ No
21. Did Reviewer/nspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?- ❑ Yes ❑ No
22. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes RNo
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes�No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit? ❑ Yes�No
o.violations or deficiencieswere noted during this.visit. You.will receive no further -
correspondence about this:visit::
r
Commits {refer to question Aj Erzplatn any YT�Sanswels an�or any�recomutendahons or any other cottnnent�s ,� �,
Use drawings?of tacthty:Eo better ezpiams,tua6ons faseaddthonalPages as necessary):
zl
el-
ReviewerQnspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: // , Dale:

Other
Facility Number 99 31 Date of Inspection 11/25/98
Time of Inspection � 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Registered ®Certified 0 Applied for Permit ®Permitted JE3 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name:BrywalRog.Farms...................................................................................... County: YadLdn.............................................. ..S.RQ........
OwnerName: Ray ........................................... Rqatit ........................................................ Phone No: 91U.-.4b8:-5352................................ _........................
Facility Contact: L ud.Brxanit................................................... Title: .QAerator............ I.............................. Phone No: 3.36,461-1722 ......................
Mailing Address: 2049.Center..Road............................................................................... Bounvilk.N.0 ......................................................... 2 011.............
Onsite Representative: 1RYd Rryant............................................................................... Integrator: LaP UFArms............................................................
Certified Operator:...W.illiam.L............................ Bryant.............................................. Operator Certification Number. 2.U7S .............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 36 • 10 0�� Longitude 80 • 42 30
General
1'. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement'?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
H No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in 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 lagoonstholding 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

Facility Number: 99-31 Date • spection 11/25l98
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site hich need to be properly closed? • ❑ Yes ® No
Structures (La¢oons.Holdina Ponds. Flush Pits. etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard(ft):......................................................................................................... ..........................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ® No
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
Cg No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
® No
Waste Annlication
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
® No
(If in excess of WNW, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
I5.
Crop type ....................... Ec.%U>r....................... ...................................................................................................................... ...................................................
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)7
❑ Yes
®No
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
®No
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency'?
❑ Yes
B No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Does record keeping need improvement'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
®No
24.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
®No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
J9N6'V'iolatitin' or'd'eficieif wereiioted'du►ipgtiliS.ZiSit.'You•will'reeeive*abfarther
. corresbondence ahiout ihis:iijs —'. :::::: ::: :::::::::::: :
Owners adding fresh water to lagoon to aid in odor control.
Lgoon still filling to begin pump level; does not appear that it will need pumping anytime soon.
Haave not had to spray as of yet, so record keeping N.A. at this point.
No odor noted except in immediate area of hog houses (fans) and lagoon; farm well operated and maiantained.
Reviewer/Inspector Name AbnerBratidy
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

• Facility Number• — •
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes A No
Structures (Laeoons.Holdine Ponds. Flush Pits. etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes XNo
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................
Freeboard(ft):.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes X No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes XNo
12. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes (�No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
/
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes ($ No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
(If in excess of or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
/R1No
/WMP,
15. Crop type ..... 1?lif�...................................................................................................................................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes PrNo
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
ANo
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
XNo
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
XNo
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
LWNo
21.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
FNo
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
V No
24.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
1WNo
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes
)2VNo
fif-t_:violki6ns-4
deficiencies.were noted during this;visit. You:will receive no•ftirther
correspondenceahoutthis:visit: : : :::::: : : : : : ' -: •: ; ; ; ::•:-:•: ; ; ; ; ;
4/'�/�j ro /Tarr 7i5�. ale' i.
710 /��yi? 1�i1*i Avl/
/467'177- /--/// ///l� ��siyy�%� Amy .mil s�4,
®, s�r� s��y ors
ewe
Reviewer/Inspector Name j
Reviewer/InspectorSignature: I�X_~ Date: