400152_Inspection_20191212

40 Division of Water Resourcesx"
Facility Number 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
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: -/g- Arrival Time: Departure Time: jV County: Region: W
Farm Name: �r _,�� r ,,.n _�� Owner Email:
Owner Name:Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: //1�✓,_�-yam Title:
Integrator:
Certification Number:"'
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: �,,�J( '7�p
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
*Ifl1b-d661 o Cy" - 6076
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Phone: 71%--
Certification Number:
Latitude:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
FLayer --�
Non -Layer
rou
Other
Poults
Design Current
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?
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes [Z)/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes ❑ o
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
o
tNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: j} - Date of Inspection: /
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure 1/ Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 7
Structure 4 Structure 5
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 which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
Yes ENo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environme al threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes Z' o ❑ 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 Yo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes • No ❑ NA ❑ N E
❑ 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
❑ o
❑ NA
0 NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
o
❑ 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
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
E No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check th ppropriate box below. Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Applicat' Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall OStocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ YesV❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: jDate of Inspection: - 3 -
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? B ❑ Yes l +'J N ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes I rJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA ❑NE
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA ❑NE
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes ❑ No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
j
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
-SaIse Pv
Phone: 74fS -
Date: '.Jae, /I- rr&Z
21412015

NCDABCS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Website: www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/
Report No. FY20-WO04191
(;ULTU E
Predictive
Client: Neil Mo ye
Advisor:
Moye Farms
X
3060 Ormondsville Rd
A
Waste
Report Ayden, NC 28513
Greene County
Links to Helpful
Information Sampled: 12/11/2019
Received: 01/09/2020
Farm: Not Provided
Completed: 01/16/2020 PALS #: 405307
PALS #:
Sample Information
Nutrient Measurements are given in units of parts per million (ppm), unless utherwise specifed.
Other Results
ID: #1MOYE
Nitrogen (N) P K Ca Mg S Fe Mn Zn
Cu
B Mo
C Al Na CI
Code: ALS
Total N:
31.0 1110 127 31.6 56.6 2.66 0.62 0.72
0.87
1.62 -
- 0.67 374 -
Description: Swine
Total Kjeldahl N: 602
(—
Lagoon Liq.
Inorganic:
— — — —
— —
— — — —
Grower Comments:
NH4-N
EC pH BD CCE
ALE
C:N
DM
Swine
NOs-N
_SS
(10 S/cm) (MS/cm) (Unitless) (lb/yd') N
(1000 gal)
(Unitless)
N
- - 7.45 - -
-
-
-
Estimate of Nutrients Available for First Year (lb/1000 gal)
Other Results (lb/1000 gal)
Application Method:
N P205 K20 Ca Mg S Fe Mn Zn
Cu
B Mo
Al Na CI
Irrigation
2.51 0.59 11.1 1.06 0.26 0.47 0.02 0.01 0.01
0.01
0.01 -
0.01 3.12 -
North Carolina
Tobacco Trust Fund Commission
Reprogramming of the laboratory -information -management system that makes this report possible is being funded
through a grant from the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission.
Thank you for using agronomic services to manage nutrients and safeguard environmental quality.
- Steve Troxler, Commissioner of Agriculture.