940021_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qua

- 7 -

M
Division of Water Resources
❑
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑
Other Agency
Facility Number:
940021 Facility Status: Active Permit:
AWC940021 ❑ Denied Access
Inppection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or
Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Washington
Region: Washington
Date of Visit:
09/01/2017 Entry Time:
10:30 am Exit Time: 11:15 am
Incident #
Farm Name:
Tidewater Research Station
Owner Email:
Owner:
NCDA&Cs
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 207 Research Sta Rd Plymouth NC 27962
Physical Address: 207 Research Station Rd Plymouth NC 27962
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35° 51' 23"
5 miles east of Plymouth, Hwy. 64, South SR 1119 approx. 1.5 miles
Longitude: 76' 39' 25"
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: William T Armstrong
Operator Certification Number: 991347
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name Terry Armstrong
Phone:
On -site representative Terry Armstrong
Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis: soil tested: 1212016
7-26-17 = .06
5-19-17 = .09
1-23-17 = .08
10-03-16 = .08
IRR records are complete & balanced out.
Reviewed: rainfall/freeboard; crop yield; sludge survey at 49%, POA submitted 2017
page: 1

Permit: AWC940021 Owner -Facility: NCDA&Cs Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 09/01/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Cattle
Cattle -Beef Feeder 120 I 0
Total Design Capacity: 120
Total SSLW: 96.000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon LG 1 04/17/97 19.00 25.00
page: 2

Permit: AWC940021 Owner -Facility: NCDA&Cs
Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 09/01/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
M ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (l.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?
❑
M ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na 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 7 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: AWC940021 Owner - Facility : NCDA&Cs Facility Number:
Inspection Date: 09/01/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
940021
Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
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
❑
N ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop andlor 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?
❑
E ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
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?
❑
N ❑
❑
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?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page:
4

Permit: AWC940021 Owner -Facility: NCDA&Cs
Facility Number: 940021
Inspection mate: 09/01/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
No
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
M ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail 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,
❑
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
(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
❑
❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
M ❑
❑
page: 5

L
n
0 Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number: 940021 Facility Status: Active
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection
Permit: AWC940021
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Washington Region:
Date of Visit: 05/19/2016 Entry Time: 10:00 am Exit Time: 11:15 am
Farm Name: Tidewater Research Station
Owner: NCDA&Cs
Mailing Address: 207 Research Sta Rd
Physical Address: 207 Research Station Rd
Facility Status: 0Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35` 51' 23" Longitude: 76' 39' 25"
5 miles east of Plymouth, Hwy. 64, South SR 1119 approx. 1 5 miles
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Incident #
Owner Email:
Phone:
Plymouth NC 27962
Plvmouth NC 27962
❑ Denied Access
Washington
252-793-4118
Certified Operator: William T Armstrong Operator Certification Number: 991347
Secondary OIC(s):
On -.Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Terry Armstrong Phone:
On -site representative Terry Armstrong Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Waste analysis:
5-13-16 = .28
3-16-16 = 08
2-9-16 = .08
7-24-15 = 34
5-25-15 = .07
IRRs are complete & balanced out.
soil tested: 412016
Reviewed: rainfall/freeboard. sludge survey at 53% in 2015: In August 2015 sludge was removed with IRRs being complete &
balanced out.
Calibration is due in 2016.
page: 1

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility : NCDA&Cs Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 05/19/16 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Cattle
Cattle - Beef Feeder 120 0
Total Design Capacity: 120
Total SSLW: 96.000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon LG 1 04/17/97 19.00 39.00
page: 2

I
Permit: AWC940021 Owner- Facility: NCDA&Cs Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 05/19/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na He
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
ME]
❑
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)
❑
0 ❑
❑
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
❑
M ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (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?
T. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
No
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
MEI
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na He
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%110 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: AWC940021 Owner- Facility: NCDA&Cs Facility Number:
940021
Inspection Date: 05/19/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
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?
❑
E ❑
❑
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?
❑
N ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
E ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
19. aid 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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

4
Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA&Cs
Facility number: 940021
Inspection Date: 05/19/16 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
M ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
M ❑
❑
(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
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
❑
E ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
00011
Otherissues
Yes
No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail 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,
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
M ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

v
M Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
940021 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWC940021
Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Washington Region:
Washington
Date of Visit:
05129/2015 Entry Time: 12:00 Pm
Exit Time: 1:15 pm Incident#
Faun Name:
Tidewater Research Station
Owner Email:
Owner:
NCDA&Cs
Phone:
252-793-4118
Mailing Address: 207 Research Sta Rd
Physical Address: 207 Research Station Rd
Facility status: E Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
5 miles east of Plymouth, Hwy- 64. South SR 1119 approx. 1.5 miles.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Plymouth NC 27962
Plymouth NC 27962
Integrator:
Latitude: 35' 51' 23"
Longitude: 76' 39' 25"
Waste Col, Star, & Treat Waste Application
Other Issues
Certified Operator: William T Armstrong Operator Certification Number: 991347
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Terry Armstrong Phone
On -site representative Terry Armstrong Phone
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary
Waste analysis: soil tested: 11l2014
5-25-15 = .07
3-3-15 = .21
11-11-14 = ,09
8-20-14 = .12
IRR records are complete & balanced out.
Reviewed stocking/mortality, crop production (hay), new COC, Sludge S. T=4.76 ft. LTZ = 1.16'
Pasture & fescue looks great.
page: 1

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility : NCDA&Cs Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 05/29/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Cattle
Cattle - Beef Feeder 120 0
Total Design Capacity: 120
Total SSLW: 96,000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon LG 1 04/17/97 19.00 35.00
oaae 2

Permit: AWC940021 Owner -Facility: NCDA&Cs Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 05/29/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na Ne
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■ ❑
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
❑
❑ ❑
❑
& 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
❑ 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 a 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWC940021 Owner- Facility : NCDA&Cs Facility Number
Inspection Date: 05/29/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
940021
Routine
Waste Application
Ycs
No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda
Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
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
Soii 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?
❑
M ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
9 ❑
❑
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 No
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?
E
❑ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below_
WU P?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21 (Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
❑ ❑
❑
ff yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page:
4

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility NCDA&Cs Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 05129/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
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 POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
❑ ❑
❑
27 Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑ []
❑
Other tSSUeS
Yes
No Na No
23. Did the facility fait 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
❑
❑ ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑ ❑
❑
34 floes the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
❑ ❑
❑
page 5

0 Division of Water Resources
El Division of Soil and Water Conservation
El Other Agency
Facility Number:
W021 Facility Status: Active
permit: AWC940021
Denied Access
Inssection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine County:
Washington Region:
Washington
Date of Visit:
06/1712014 Entry Time: 10:00 am Exit Time: 11:15
am Incident #
Farm Name:
Tidewater Research Station
Owner Email:
Owner:
NCDA&Cs
Phone:
252-793-4118
Mailing Address:
207 Research Sta Rd
Plymouth NC 27962
Physical Address:
207 Research Station Rd
Plymouth NC 27962
Facility Status:
Compliant Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
35' 51' 23" Longitude:
76' 39' 25"
5 miles east of Plymouth,
Hwy. 64, South SR 1119 approx. 1.5 miles.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stm, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: William T Armstrong Operator Certification Number: 991347
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Terry Armstrong Phone
On -site representative Terry Armstrong Phone
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone.
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Waste analysis:
2-21-14= .28
11-26-13= .27
8-29-13=.11
5-31-13= .31
IRR records are complete and balanced out with no irrigation in 2014 yet.
Rainfall. freeboard and stocking records were reviewed
Soil tested 2012.
page 1

Permit: AWC940021 Owner -Facility: NCDA&Cs Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 06/17/14 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Cattle
Cattle -Beef Feeder I 0
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon LG 1 04/17/97 19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA&Cs Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 06/17/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
[]
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
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)
❑
0 ❑
❑
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 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 (LeJ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
No
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
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 Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN a 10%110 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

r
Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility : NCDA&Cs Facility Number:
940021
Inspection date: 06/17/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda
Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Qverseed
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 Pian(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 E]
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
M ❑
❑
ReCords and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
M ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

4
Permit AWC940021 Owner - Facility : NCDA&Cs Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 06/117/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit. Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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 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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na 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,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
(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 I Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
M ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33, Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
M ❑
❑
page: 5

I
M Division of Water Quality
n Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 940021 Facility Status: Active _ Permit: AWC940021 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: W 2hinaton Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 05/01/2013 Entry Time: 02:30 PM Exit Time: 03:20 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Tidewater Research Station Owner Email:
Owner: NCDA&Cs Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 207 Research Sta Rd _ _ Plymouth NC 27962
Physical Address: 207 Research Station Rd Plymouth NC 27962
Facility Status: ■ Compliant n Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35-51'23" Longitude: 776°39'25"
5 miles east of Plymouth, Hwy. 64, South SR 1119 approx. 1.5 miles
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: William T Armstrong
Operator Certification Number: 991347
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name Terry Armstrong
Phone:
On -site representative Terry Armstrong
Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis: soil tested 10-16-12
2-21-13 = .54
9-20-12 = .12
IRR's are complete & balanced out.
Calibration on 6-29-12 Sludge survey on 6-18-12 @ 57%
Average number of 55 cattle per year in lot.
Looks Good!
Page: 1

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA&Cs
Inspection Date: 05/01/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 940021
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
f� Cattle - Beef Feeder 120 55
Total Design Capacity: 120
Total SSLW: 96,000
Waste structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Ciosed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
agoon G 1 04/17/97 19,00 25.D0 t
Page: 2

Permit: AWC940021 Owner -Facility: NCDA&Cs Facility Number : 940021
Inspection Date: 05101/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? Q ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure rl
Application Field 11
Other Q
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)
❑
■ n
n
2_ Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
n
■ n
n
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than
❑
■ 0
Q
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes
No NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
Q
■ ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
Q
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
Li
■ I I
I
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
Q
■
❑
❑
Or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
n
■
n
❑
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
n
■
n
n
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? Q
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? Q
Page: 3

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA&Cs
Inspection Date: 05/01/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 940021
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No
NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 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?
❑
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
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?
DED
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■
n n
Records and Documents
Yes No
NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
n ■
n n
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
n ■
n ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC940021 Owner -Facility; NCDA&Cs
Inspection Date: 0510112013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Records and Documents
Facility Number: 940021
Reason for Visit: Routine
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Lease Agreements? ❑
Other? ❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
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
❑
01111
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 to charge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Page: 5

4
Permit: AWC940021 Owner -Facility: NCDA&Cs
Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 05/01/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
0
■
❑ Q
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 Q
■
❑ 0
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 n
■
n
Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e.,
discharge, ❑
■
❑ El
freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
n
■
n n
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
Lagoon 1 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 Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
n
n
Q
Page: 6

I
0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 940021 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC940021 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: WashinatQn Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 06/04/2012 Entry Time: 10:00 AM Exit Time: 11:00 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Tidewater Research -Station Owner Email. -
Owner: NCDA&Cs _
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 207 ResQarCh Sta Rd Plymouth NC 27962
Physical Address: 207 Research Station Rd Plymouth NC 27962
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 5°51'23" Longitude: 76°39'25"
5 miles east of Plymouth, Hwy. 64, South SR 1119 approx. 1.5 miles.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Certified Operator: William T Armstrong
Secondary OIC(s):
Waste Cal, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Otherlssues
Operator Certification Number: 991347
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Terry Armstrong Phone:
On -site representative Terry Armstrong Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: 4 z{7 - - Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA&Cs Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 0610412012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Waste analysis: Soil tested: 9-2011
5-29-12 = 2.8 - Very high
2-24-12 = .58
12-19-12 = .62
9-12-11 = .11
IRRs on Rye in Dec. 2011 are all balanced out & looks great.
Rainfall, freeboard & stocking records are recorded very neatly. Remember to do the caliberation this year 2012. Sludge survey has
been done in 2012 with 57% but this is mostly sileage. A plan to remove this with the honey wagon is in place.
NOTE: Failed to conduct a sludge survey in 2011 - a NOV will be sent.
Looks Great!
Page: 2

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA&Cs
Inspection Date: 06104/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection
Facility Number: 940021
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle -Beef Reeder 120 90
Total Design Capacity: 120
Total SSLW: 96,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier
Designed Observed
Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
lagoon LG 1 04/17/97 19.00 34.D0
Page: 3

Permit. AWC940021 Owner • Facility; NCDA&Cs Facility Number. 940021
Inspection Date: 06/04/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. 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 andlor 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 iTT ■ ❑ ❑
improvement?
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or ❑ ■ 0 ❑
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

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA&Cs
Inspection Date: 06/0412012 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 940021
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 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?
❑
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■ 0 ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■ ❑ 0
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ ■ n ❑
20, Does the facility fail to have ail components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■ n n
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWC940021 Owner -facility. NCDA&Cs Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 06/04/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Lease Agreements? ❑
Other? ❑
If Other, please specify
21, Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate
❑
■ ❑ ❑
box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26, Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

Permit: AWC940021 Owner -Facility: NCDA&Cs
Inspection Date: 06/04/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Records and Documents
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Facility Number : 940021
Reason for Visit: Routine
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 life 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?
n
11
Page: 7

0
0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 940021 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC940021 Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Washington Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 04/28/2011 Entry Time:02:00 PM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: Tidewater Research Station Owner Email:
Owner: NCDA& ,s
Mailing Address: 207 Research Sta Rd _ Plymouth NC 27962
Physical Address: 207 Research_ Station Rd Plymouth NC 27962
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Phone: 2�2-793-4118
Latitude: 35°51'23" Longitude: 7 °
5 miles east of Plymouth, Hwy. 64, South SR 1119 approx. 1.5 miles.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: William T Armstrong Operator Certification Number: 991347
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Terry Armstrong Phone:
On -site representative Terry Armstrong Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

Permit: AWC940D21 Owner -Facility: NCDABCs Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 04128/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis: soil tested: 1112010
4-12-11 = .35
2-8-11 = .37
10-29-10 = .36
7-27-10 = .15
SS 4-22-10 = 53%
Caliberation done in 2010 IRR records are completer and balanced out.
Everything looks Great! No cattle confined on site now but will return in the fall
Terry Armstrong's cell # 394-5175
Page: 2

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDABCs Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 04/2812011 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle - Beef Feeder 120 0
Total Design Capacity: 120
Total SSLW: 96,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
kgoon LG 1 04117/97 19.00 30.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWC940021 Owner- Facility: NCDA&Cs Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 04/28/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Im act5 Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ fl
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 (LeJ large trees, severe 0 ■ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management El ■ 0 ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? F1 ■ ❑ 0
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? Cl
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA&Cs Facility Number : 940021
Inspection Hate: 04/28/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
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? ❑
Crop Type 1 Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2 Small Grain Overseed
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
❑
❑
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?
D
IN
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
Cl
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
E
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA&Cs Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 04/28/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Lease Agreements? ❑
Other? ❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ ■ ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rairlbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑ ■ ❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ ■ ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate
❑ ■ ❑
❑
box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels ❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon ❑
List structure(s) and date of first surrey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? In ■ ❑ ❑
Page. 6

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA&Cs
Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 04/28/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No NA
NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■ 110
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 normai 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 ReviewedInspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 7

E Division of Water Quality
n Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 940021 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC940021 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comphance Insoection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Washington Region: Washing(on
Date of Visit: 06/17/2010 Entry Time:09A5 AM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: Tidewater Research tin Owner Email:
Owner: NCDA&Cs Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 207 Research 5ta Rd _ Plymouth NC 27962
Physical Address: 207 Research Station Rd Plymouth NC 27962
Facility Status: E Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
5 miles east of Plymouth, Hwy. 64, South SR 1119 approx. 1.5 miles.
Latitude: 35°51'23" Longitude: 7Q*, 9'25" _
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: William T Armstrong Operator Certification Number: 991347
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Jewell Tetterton Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Terry Armstrong Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page 1

Permit: AVVC940021 Owner- Facility: NCDA&Cs Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 06/17/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Waste analysis:
02-08-2010 = .66
11-23-09 = .59
08-12-09 = .28
5-5-10 = 1.1
2-20-09 = 1.2
soil tested 2009 and lime applied calib. 2010 SS 2008/2010
# 25. Sludge survey done in 2010
Freeboard range: 14" on 2-8-10 thru 28" on 6-14-10
Page: 2

Permit: AWC940021 Owner -Facility: NCDA&Cs
Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 06/17/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current Population
Cattle
W Cattle - Beef Feeder 120 0
Total Design Capacity: 120
Total SSLW: 96,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon LG 1 04/17/97 1900,29.00
Page:3

Permit; AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCIDA&Cs Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 0611712010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■
n
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
n
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
n
■
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
n
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
n
❑
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
n
■
❑
n
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
n
■
n
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management n
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
n
M
n
n
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
n
■
❑
n
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
n
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
n
■
n
n
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding? n
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? n
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? n
Page: 4

Permit: AW0940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA&Cs Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 06/17/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
PAN? n
Is PAN } 10%110 lbs.? ❑
Total P205? n
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil? Q
Outside of acceptable crop window? ri
Evidence of wind drift? n
Application outside of application area? ❑
Crop Type 1 Bermuda Grass (Hay,
Pasture)
Crop Type 2 Small Grain Overseed
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)?
❑
❑
n
15 Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
n
■
❑
n
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
n
❑
17 Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
01
■
❑
n
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?
n
■
n
n
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
fl
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA&Cs Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 06/17/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
Checklists?
n
Design?
n
Maps?
n
Other?
n
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
n n [f
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
n
120 Minute inspections?
n
Weather code?
J -1
Weekly Freeboard?
0
Transfers?
n
Rainfall?
n
Inspections after> 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
n
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
n
Stocking?
n
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
n
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
0 E n n
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑ ■ ❑ n
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
n ■ fo" ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the pemnit?
n ■ n n
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
n ■ n n
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
n m ❑ n
Other Issues
Yes No NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑ ■ n n
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead anima€s within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑ ■ n n
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
Quality representative immediately.
❑ ■ 0 n
Page. 6

Permit: AVVC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA&Cs
Inspection Date: 06117/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Other Issues
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 940021
Reason for Visit: Routine
Page: 7

0
E Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 940021 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC940021 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Washington Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 05/07/2OQ9 Entry Time:02:00 PM Exit Time:
Farm Name: Tidewater Research Station
Owner: NCDA&Cs
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Mailing Address: 207 Research Sta Rd Plymouth NC 27962
Physical Address: 207 Research Station Rd Plymouth NC 27962
Facility Status: E Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
5 miles east of Plymouth, Hwy. 64, South SR 1119 approx. 1.5 miles.
Phone: 2`z2-793-4118
Latitude:35°51'23" Longitude:76°39'25"
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: William T Armstrong Operator Certification Number: 991347
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Jewell Tetterton Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Terry Armstrong Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste anallysis:
2-20-09 = 11
8-22-08 = .30
soil tested July 2008
no irrigation from this lagoon since 7-21-07
Page 1

Permit: AWC940021 Owner -Facility: NCDA&Cs
Facility Number : 940021
Inspection Date: 05/07/2009 Inspection' Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current Population
Cattle
Q Caftie - Beef Feeder 120 0
Total Design Capacity: 120
Total SSLW: 96,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
lagoon
LG 1
04/17/97
19.00 40.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA&Cs Facility Number : 940021
Inspection Date: 0510712D09 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ ■
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑ MOO
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 (I.e./ large trees, severe
❑ ■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ ■
❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑ ■
❑
❑
dry stacks andtor 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 altematives 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: AWC940021 Owner- Facility: NCDA&Cs
Inspection Date: 0510V2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 940021
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Coastal
Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Winter Annual
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
❑
■ ❑ n
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?
❑
■ ❑ n
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: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA&Cs Facility Number : 940021
Inspection Date: 05/0712009 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design?
Maps?
Other?
21 Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
f-1
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 instal( 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?
n
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28 Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■
❑
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andlof 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 DODD
Quality representative immediately.
Page 5

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA&Cs
Facility Number : 940021
Inspection Date: 05/07/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ ■ ❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative? n ■ I] ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
n■❑❑
Page: 6

Division of Water Quality
n Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 940021 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC94002.1 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Washington Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 06/17/2008 Entry Time.Q8:30 AM Exit Time:
Farm Name: Tidewater Research Station
Owner: NCDA CS
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 207 Research Sta Rd Plymouth NC 27962
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
5 miles east of Plymouth, Hwy. 64, South SR 1119 approx. 1.5 miles.
Integrator:
Latitude:35°51'23" Longitude:76°39'25" _
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Terry Armstrong Phone:
On -site representative Jewell Tetterton Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis:
11-08-07 = 2.6
3-26-08 = 1.1
6-9-08 = .55
Last irrigation event was 7-21-07
soil test 2007
Looks good!
Page: 1

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA C5 Facility Number : 940021
Inspection Date: 06/17/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Q Cattle - Beef Feeder 120 62
Total Design Capacity: 120
Total SSLW: 96,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon LG 1 04/17/97 19.00 48.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA C5 Facility Number : 940021
Inspection Date: 06/1712008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? Q ■ D n
Discharge originated at:
Structure n
Application Field
n
Other n
a. Was conveyance man-made? n ■ n n
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) n ■ n ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
n
■
n
n
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
n
■
n
n
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
0
■
0
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage $ Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
n
■
n
n
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
n
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
n
■
n
n
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
Q
■
n
Q
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
n
■
❑
Q
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
n
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
n
improvement?
Waste Ap licp ation Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
n
■
n
n
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? n
Hydraulic Overload?
Frozen Ground?
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? n
Page: 3

Permit: AWC940021 Owner -Facility: NCDA CS Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 06/17/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
PAN? ❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 Ibs.? ❑
Total P205? ❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil? ❑
Outside of acceptable crop window? ■
Evidence of wind drift? ❑
Application outside of application area? ❑
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Summer
Annual
Crop Type 3
Winter
Annual
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
❑
■
❑
1=l
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?
❑
■
0
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility tail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
D
❑
El
El
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP? ❑
Rage: 4

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA C5 Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 06/17/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
❑
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?
w.r
❑
V...-
❑
\I..
❑
\IA
n
LIC
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
29, Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air fl F1 1=1 F1
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AVVC940021 Owner -Facility; NCDA CS
Facility Number: 940021
Inspection bate: 06/17/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? n n Q Q
3L Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? n n n n
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑nn❑
Page: 6

0
N
■ Division of Water Quality
n Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number. 940021 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWQ9400 1 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Washington Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 05/31/2007 Entry Time:10:00 AM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: Tidewater Rese rch Station Owner Email:
Owner: NCQA C$q _ , Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 207 Research Sta Rd Plymouth NC 27962
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant n Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
Latitude: 35'52'00"
Longitude: 76'39'54"
5 miles east of Plymouth, Hwy. 64, South SR 1119 approx. 1.5 miles.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
WRecords and Documents Other issues
Certified Operator: George H McNair
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number. 23245
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Jewell Tetterton Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Jewel€ Tetterton Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Soil tested in 2007
waste analysis: 5-28-07 Liquid = .67 sludge = 1.5
Page: 1

Permit: AWC940021 Owner -Facility: NCDA CS
Facility Number : 940021
Inspection Date: 052112007 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Q Cattle - Beef Feeder 120 12
Total Design Capacity: 120
Total SSLW: 96,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon LG 1 04/17/97 19.00 21.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA CS Facility Number : 940021
Inspection Date: 0513l/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
n
n
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
❑
■
Q
❑
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
❑
■
n
n
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?
❑
■
❑
n
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
❑
■
n
n
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
[i
❑
improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
n
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Pending?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
Q
Page: 3

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA CS
Facility Number : 940021
Inspection Date: 05/31/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA
NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN a 10%110 Ibs.?
❑
Total P2O5?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Summer Annual
Crop Type 3
Winter Annual
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
0000
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: AWC940021 Owner -Facility: NCDA CS
Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 05/31/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
n
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
n
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
n
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
n
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
n
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
Cl
23. if selected. did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES
only)? O
■
0
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
n
■
❑
❑
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?
Q
■
❑
❑
Yoe
Nn
NA
P1F
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ■ n ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ I_1 [I
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA C5
Inspection Date: 05/31/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection
e%," 1__..__
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 940021
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
Q■nn
n■❑n
❑■❑n
Page: 6

E Division of Water Quality
r[ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 240021 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC940021 n Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Wa hington Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 1110312006 Entry Time:10-15 AM Exit Time: Incident ##:
Farm Name: Tidewater Research Station Owner Email:
Owner: NCDA CS Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 207 Research Sta Rd Plymouth NC 27962
Physical Address:
Facility Status: n Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°52'00" Longitude: 76'39'54"
5 miles east of Plymouth, Hwy. 64, South SR 1119 approx. 1.5 miles
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Teron D Sloan Operator Certification Number: 22074
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Teron Sloan Phone:
24 hour contact name Teron Sloan Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Waste analyses; 10-9-06 = 0.20
Soil test 2006 everything looks good.
Page: 1

u
Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA CS Facility Number : 940021
Inspection Date: 11/03/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle - Beef Feeder 120 0
Total Design Capacity: 120
Total SSLW: 96,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
koon TLG 1 04/17/97 19-00 28.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWC940021 Owner -Facility: NCDA CS Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 11/03/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ n
Discharge originated at:
Structure n
Application Field
Other n
a. Was conveyance man-made? n ■ 0 Q
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) n ■ ❑ f l
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
n
■
n
0
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
n
■
n
n
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
n
■
n
n
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
o
o
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
o
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
o
■
o
n
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management n
■
n
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
n
■
n
n
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
0
■
n
n
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
n
■
n
n
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
n
■
n
n
improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application?
n
■
n
n
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Pending?
n
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWC940021 Owner -Facility: NCDA CS
Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 1110312006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
L)
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
0
Total P2O5?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
n
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
Crop Type 1
Fescue (Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Summer Annual
Crop Type 3
Winter Annual
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Sail Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
n ■ n n
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
n ■ 0 n
16. Did the facility fall to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? n ■ n n
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
n ■ n n
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
p ■ n n
Records and Docurnents
Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available? ❑ ■ D
ED
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? ❑ ■ ❑ 0
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP? n
Page: 4

Permit: AWC940021 owner - Facility: NCDA CS
Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 11/03/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
Q
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
Q
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after> 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
Q
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
Q
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
Q ■ ❑ 0
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES
only)? ❑ Q ■ D
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?
Q ■ Q ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Cl ❑ ■ Q
Other Issues
Yes No NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ Q Q
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 ❑ ■ 1=l Q
Quality representative immediately_
Page: 5

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA C5
Facility Number : 940021
Inspection Date: 1110312006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Afhor Icc — Yes NO NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32_ Did Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
0 M 0 0
0000
❑■0D
Page: 6

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 940021 Facility Status Active Permit: AWC940021 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Washin tan Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 03/16/2005 Entry Time: 01:00 PM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: Tidewater Research Station Owner Email:
Owner: NCDA CS Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 207 Research Sta Rd Plymouth NC 27962 T
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑
Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 35°52'00" Longitude: 76a39'54"
5 miles east of Plymouth, Hwy. 64, South SR 1119 approx. 1.5 miles.
Question Areas:
0 Discharges & Stream Impacts
a Waste Collection & Treatment
0 Waste Application
Records and Documents
0 Other Issues
Certified Operator: Teron D Sloan
Operator Certification Number: 22074
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
Title Phone
On -site representative Teron
Sloan
Phone:
24 hour contact name Teron
Sloan
Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
Waste Analysis: 9-7-04 = .13
Soil test, 2004 good
The irrigation records are complete & balanced out
Page: 1

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA CS
Facility Number : 940021
Inspection Date: 0311612005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
Type
Identifier
Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Lagoon LG 1 19.00 21.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA CS
Facility Number : 940021
Inspection Date: 03/16/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Imparts Yes No NA NE,
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ M ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) 11000
C. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
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?
❑
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑
YPs
❑
No NA
❑
NF
4. Is storage Capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e.1 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?
Yes
No NA
NE
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P2O5?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Coastal
Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain
(Wheat,
Barley.
Oats)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Page: 3

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA CS
Facility Number : 940021
Inspection Date: 03/16/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste A1212kiition Yes No NA NF
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)?
❑
E
❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure andlor operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
E
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
E
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records Documents
❑
yes
0
Uo
❑
NA
❑
NE
and
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
Cl
E
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
Cl
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0
Cl
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
E
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
0
❑
❑
26, Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
N
❑
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC940021 Owner - Facility: NCDA CS
Facility Number: 940021
Inspection Date: 0311612005 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection
ords and Documents
27, Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Reason for Visit: Routine
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those mortality
rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Rev€ewerllnspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
1101111
Page: 5

Technical Assistance Site Visit Report
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number 94 - 21 Date: 5/14/04 Time: I 9o0 Time On Farm: 30 WaRO
Farm Name Tidewater Research Station
"!« Iing Address 207 Research Station Road
Onsite
Representative Teron Sloan
Type Of Visit
M Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
1❑ Technical Assistance
I❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
Ll Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
n Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
j Farrow to Finish
1❑ Gilts
I❑ Boars
County Washington Phone
252-793-4118
Plymouth NC 27962
Integrator JNCDA&CS
Purpose Of Visit
0 Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy 120 2$
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
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?
S. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑yes ®no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier I
Level (Inches) 1 29 11
CROP TYPES Fescue -graze kereaVannual rye
SPRAYFIELD
()IL TYPES Cf
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy 120 2$
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
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?
S. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑yes ®no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier I
Level (Inches) 1 29 11
CROP TYPES Fescue -graze kereaVannual rye
SPRAYFIELD
()IL TYPES Cf
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 94 - 21 Date:
5114/04
PARAMETER
© No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
10. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
El
❑ 11. Level in storm Storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
2&. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
El
El 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
30. 21i.0200
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
,❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
_❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organizelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Latelmissing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield Conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker checkicalibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWO Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation
designlinstallatlon10
❑
❑
Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
❑
❑
46. Wettable Acre Determination
1
47. Evaluate WAD certificationlrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
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
❑
❑
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 94 - 21 Date: 1 5/14/04
ICOMMENTS:
`A'aste plan maybe amended to include millet which was deleted from waste plan dated April 16, 2002. Crop was included
plan previous to April 16,2003. See DWO inspection report dated 3/10/04 (Field #16 did not include millet). Approx. 20 II
nitrogen was applied on Sept 10, 1, 12, o3.
No animal waste has been applied since last DSWC inspection dated 12111/03.
Time to secure new waste analysis when waste is applied.
Soil test for 2004 taken. Cu, Zn and ph within guidelines. Facility in process of deep sampling in order to include S/A in
paste plan.
Lagoon freeboard level and rainfall recorded weekly.
Field #16 grain sorghum being planted at time of this inspection. If waste is applied field need to be in waste plan.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST Imartin McLawhorn
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 5/17104 Entered By: Imartjn McLawhorn
3 03/10/03

�GF 1NATFR Michael F. Easley, Govam�ft
�O G William G. Ross, Jr„ Secretary
f Department of Environment and Natural Resources
a Y Alan W. KlimeK, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
To: Producers
General Permit Holders
From: Scott Vinson
Environmental Engineer
Washington Regional Office
Subject: Animal Compliance Routine Inspection - Year 2004
Enclosed please find a copy or copies of the Compliance Site Inspection(s) (as viewed in DWQ database) conducted at the
referenced facility by the Division of Water Quality from the Washington Regional Office. Please read this inspection and
keep with all other documents pertaining to your animal operation for future inspections.
In general, these inspections included verifying that: (1) the farm has a Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP);
(2) the farm is complying with requirements of the State Rules 15 NCAC 2H.0217, Senate Bill 1217, and the Certified Animal
Waste Management Plan; (3) the farm operations waste management system is being operated properly under the direction of a
Certified Operator; (4) the required records are being kept; (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or runoff.
As a reminder, please note the following which are conditions of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan and the general
permit; therefore, these items must be implemented:
(p The maximum waste level in lagoons/storage ponds shall not exceed that specified in the CAWMP. At a minimum,
maximum waste level for waste for lagoons/storage ponds must not exceed the level that provides adequate storage to
contain 25 year, 24 hour storm event plus an additional foot of structural freeboard.
(p An analysis of the liquid animal waste from the lagoon shall be conducted as close to the time of application as practical and
at least within 60 days (before or after) of the date of application_ This analysis shall include the following parameters:
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Zinc and Copper.
(p Soil analysis is required annually.
cp The following records are required: off -site solids removal, maintenance, repair, waste/soil analysis, land irrigation and
freeboard records. These records should be maintained by the facility owner/manager in chronological and legible form for
a minimum of three years.
(p Land application rates shall be in accordance with the CAWMP. In no case shall land application rates exceed the Plant
Available Nitrogen- P( AN) rate for the receiving cronor result in runoff during any given application.
tp In accordance with you waste utilization plan, the irrigation application events should not exceed the hydraulic
loading as specified per the soil type and in no case should an irrigation event exceed one inch per acre.
tp The maximum amount of PAN. which may be applied to small grain overseed and not harvested. is 30 lbs per acre.
The Nitrogen applied onto the overseed must be reduced from the next crop PAN by the amount applied (up to 30
lbs). This option must be stated in the waste utilization plan. If more than 30 lbs of nitrogen is applied to the
overseed then the overseed must be harvested.
(p All grassed waterways shall have a stable outlet with adequate capacity to prevent ponding or flooding damages. The outlet
can be another vegetated channel, an earth ditch, stabilization structure, or other suitable outlets.
cp It is suggested. not required, to keep crop yield information for future use to update your waste management plan. You will
need three years of crop yield data before your plan can be updated.
cp An inspection of the waste collection, treatment and storage structures and runoff control measures shall be conducted at a
frequency to insure proper operation but at least monthly and after storm events. For ex. lagoon, storage ponds and other
structures should be inspected for evidence of erosion, leakage, damage by animals or discharge. Any maj or structural
repairs (to lagoons or waste storage ponds) must have written documentation from a technical specialist certifying proper
design and installation. However, if a piece of equipment is being replaced with a piece of equipment of the identical
specifications, no technical specialist approval is necessary [i.e. piping, reels, valves, pumps (if the GPM capacity is not
being increased or decreased.), etc.].
cp The OIC has the duties to ensure that waste is applied in accordance with the CAWMP and General Permit by properly
managing, supervising, and documenting daily operation and maintenance. The OIC also has the responsibility to certify
monitoring and reporting information. The failure of an OIC to perform his/her duties can result in a letter of reprimand,
suspension of certification, or revocation of certificates.
For your information, any swine facility that has a discharge to surface waters of the State will have to apply for a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit with the Division of Water Quality, effective January 1, 2001.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation during the inspection. If you have any questions, please contact your Technical
Specialist or me at 252-946-6481, ext. 208.
943 Washington Square Mall Washington, NC 27889 252-946-6481 (Telephone) 252-946-9215 (Fax)

Division of Water Quality - y%
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation _
- O other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 3/1012004 Time: lo:oo
Facility' Number 94 21
! O Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: ......................... County: W.4$hjjuVt9.R...............................................................................1'l'.aRo .......,
OFvner Name:. ................................. ............. >ICI?A..&C.S............................................ Phone No: 2.52- 93.4118...........................................................
Mailing Address: 2R7. tee axch. tatA¢1a-13aad............................................................ rt-i taauib..NC---•-...... ............................... 2.79.0.2 ..............
Facility Contact: .............................................................................. Title:.................... Phone No:
Onsite Representative:1cron.51Qam........................................�.... ..... ................ Integrator: LLdrPCXjdeuf............................ ......_ .w...._..
Certified Operator: y er................................... SlSl�1�................... ......
............ ...... Operator Certification Number:j (3.4 ........ „....... �._.
Location of Farm:
5 miles east of Plymouth, Hwy. 64, South SR 1119 approx. 1.5 miles. �
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 51 60 d° Longitude 76 • 39 ®64
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -layer ® Non -Dairy 120 59
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 120
Total SSLW 96,000
Number of Lagoons 1 Subsurface Drains Present Sprav Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps
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 Ivan -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): 27
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 94-21
Date of Inspection 3l10/2i104
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate boa below.
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type Fescue (Graze) Small Grain Overseed Com (Silage & Grain) Sorghum
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ® Yes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ 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.
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): ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
* Waste 7/14/03 w/ 0.49 lbsN/ 1 000gal.
+
* Soils test dated 8111/03 xith up to 09 T/ac. suggested for Field 17. pH, Cu & Zn are within guidelines.
13 & 23) Field #16 has 3 events in September on the 10, 11, & 12 of 2003 that are on a Summer Annual (millet) where a Summer
Annual is not written in the most recent Waste Utilization Plan, dated April 16, 2002. Only about 20 lbs N/ac were applied to Millet in
Sept. Discuss with tech_ spec. Rufus Croom the update needed for Field 16 in order to include a Summer Annual. Note_ the winter
annual (rye grass) has an application window of 10/1 through 3/31 and a 75 1bN/ac limit with a 50/50 split in the narrative of the Waste
Plan. A Summer Annual had been written into previous plans and was accidently left out of the most current; therefore an NOV will
OT he sent for this.
Re,dewer/Inspector Name Scott V' son
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12112103 Continued

Fatyty Number: 94-21 Date of Inspection 3/10/2004
r
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ® No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No
® Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Perrrnt?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
27.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
®No
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
® No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑Yes
❑ No
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑Yes
❑ No
33.
Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
35.
Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
0
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
VW
12112103

Technical Assistance Site Visit Report
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 94 - 21 Date: 12I311Q3 Time: 1 1200 Time On Farm: 60 WaRO
Farm Name Tidewater Research Station
Mailing Address 207 Research Station Road
Onsite
Representative Teron Sloan
Tyne Of Visit
0 Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
[]Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
County Washington Phone:
252-793-4118
Plymouth NC 27962
Integrator JNCDA&C3
Purpose Of Visit
O Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaintllocal referral
O Requested by prod ucerh nteg rator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
0 Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
® Non -Dairy 120 62
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier
Level (Inches) 1 21
CROP TYPES Fescue -graze mall grain overseed rn/sorghum
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES Cf
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
1 03/10/03
County Washington Phone:
252-793-4118
Plymouth NC 27962
Integrator JNCDA&C3
Purpose Of Visit
O Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaintllocal referral
O Requested by prod ucerh nteg rator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
0 Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
® Non -Dairy 120 62
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier
Level (Inches) 1 21
CROP TYPES Fescue -graze mall grain overseed rn/sorghum
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES Cf
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
1 03/10/03
❑ Dairy
® Non -Dairy 120 62
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier
Level (Inches) 1 21
CROP TYPES Fescue -graze mall grain overseed rn/sorghum
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES Cf
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
1 03/10/03

Facility dumber 94 - 21 Bate:
12/11/03
PARAMETER
O No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
El
El
10. Level in structural freeboard
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
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)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 ibs_
30. 21-1.0200
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organ izelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Recltllatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. design/installation
El
❑
❑ Other...
Irrigation system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certificationlrecheeks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
2_
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping; subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
El❑
❑
❑
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
❑
❑
16.
58. Cropfforage management education
®
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 94 _ 21 pate: 1 12/11/03
MENTS:
'Waste analysis dated 7/14/03 nitrogen is 0.49 ibs11000 gallons
'Need to lower lagoon by following guidance from waste plan and soil and weather conditions.
'Soil test dated 811103 Cu, Zn and ph within guidelines Sample #11.
'Be sure to use the correct PAN rates listed in waste plan for S/A=105 Ibs acre.
'There have been only five irrigation events for 2003 until this inspection.
'Acreage used on IRR2 field 16 = 3.5 acres matches field acreage listed in waste plan. (Irrigated)
_agoon level is recorded weekly with drops in lagoon consistent with irrigation events.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST Martin McLawhorn
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 12/12/03 Entered By: IMartin McLawhorn
03/10/03

L
Facility Number Date of Visit: r 7-1-2002
p Not Operationa p Below Threshold
r
Permitted 0 Certified p Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: •••••••.................
Farm Name: Tidewater Research Station County:Washinglom.-................................. .W..aRU( .......
Owner Name: NCDA Prone No: 252-793-4118
Mailing Address: 207.Research.StatimRoad ............................................................ Plymauth.Nc ........................................................ 27962.-----........
FacilityContact:...............................................................................Title:............................................................... Phone No:
Onsite Representative: TeroR.Sluan................... .................. Integrator: lYi�A&CS.......................... ....................................
Certified Operator:TerAn.D ............................... Sloan .......................................... ... Operator Certification Number:216.14 .......................
Location of Farm:
miles east of Plymouth,Hwy. 64, Southapprox. 1.5 miles.
p Swine p Poultry ® Cattle p Horse Latitude ©• ©� ®�� Longitude ®• ®�
Swine
Design Current Design CurrentDesign Current
p p Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
a aci Population
r� airy
N on- airy
p Wean to Peeder
❑ Feeder to Fin ts
p Farrow to Wean
p Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finis
p Gilts
p Boars
p
Layer
p
Non -Layer
©Other
Total Design Capacity 120
Total,SSLW 96,000
Number.of Lagoons 0 ®Subsurface Drains resent ❑�e ea
, agoon rea ® pray r
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ o Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: 0 Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes p No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes p No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) p Yes p No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? 13 Yes H No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? 0 Yes N No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway p Yes N No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ..........pzimuy......... .............................. ..................
Freeboard(inches)----------------46................ .................................... ................................... ......................... ........... ..,....................................................................

acitity Number: 94-21 Date of Inspection
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, t3 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? p Yes N No
(IT 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? p Yes N No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? p Yes N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? p Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? p Yes ® No
I t . Is there evidence of over application? p Excessive Ponding 13 PAN p Hydraulic Overload [3 Yes ® No
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Graze) Small Grain Overseed Winter/summer annuals
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CA WMP)? (3 Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? p Yes p No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? p Yes p No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? 13 Yes p No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? 13 Yes N No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? p Yes N No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? 13 Yes ® No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WLiP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) p Yes N No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) p Yes ® No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? p Yes N No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? p Yes ®No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) p Yes ®No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? 13 Yes ® No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? p Yes ® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? p Yes ® No
In No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You wdl receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Go meets (rater tom tio,n 9). Expl ik7 ny_YES a iswers,and/oreany recommendations orany other-commentse
i[
Use draw inof fac 4s it�to better explain �. .,. ,p ar. situationsiise-.additianala .y): geS as neCess� Field Gopy ❑ Final Notes
* Lagoon level records complete
AL
* Last waste analysis dated l 1-21-01 at 0.29 lbs PAN/1000 gal.
* Waste plan dated 7-14-99 with an overall PAN deficit of 6070 lbs.
* Has only irrigated twice in October 2001 for a total of 4.57 lb PAN/acre in field # 15. Would recommend contacting technical
specialist for a wettabel acre evaluation to ensure correct acreage is used. For example, plan has field #15 at 9.0 acres however using
only 3.5 acres for IRIt2. Operation does have access to manure spreader for total acreage coverage - will need to know which acres are
der irrigation and which acres fall under spreader truck for record keeping purposes (IRR2)
_ a
Reviewer/Inspector Name pt Hooper 25Z-941-6 8
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

05103701 Condnued
Facifity Number: 94_21 I)ate 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 13 Yes p No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27, Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? p Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, p 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? 0 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.) p Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? p Yes ® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? p Yes p No

Division of Water Quality
0 Division of Soil and Wafer Conservation
Q Other Agency
IType of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit • Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: I ?/14/n2j Time: �
rO Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
MPermitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Re 'stored Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name:-�►�4vJ�T�'ar � Ng ne A County: LL�C
Owner Name: r �.L�' Phone No:f��
Mailing Address: _2s.
ff �1l
Facility Contact: LSiwt, Title: Phone No: 1 -
Onsite Representative: C� J j �+ Integrator:
Certified Operator: _�eots.,41 _y�1�dVn Operator Certification Number: 3
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry K] Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 1 44 Longitude ' 6 01.
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Laver ❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Ion -Laver JEU N n-Dairy I I 2A
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JE1 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps C� ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3- Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
❑ Yes T No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes [VNo
❑ Yes X No
Structure 5 Structure 6
Freeboard (inches): 30/1`
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 9 &j — 2_1 Date of inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are then: structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Anulication
❑ Yes fQ No
❑ Yes J91 No
❑ Yes 5� No
❑ Yes Q6 No
❑ Yes 0 ] No
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes [XNo
11. is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload �j El yes 91 No
12. Crop type � fL [ �% m �,. c2zcsF�
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes i�l 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
e) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes M No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Eq 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
[4-No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
W No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
91 No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
K[No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[jNo
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
M No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
E'No
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 and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field tbnv ❑ Final Notes
v,;n th
Soi� SFS �! 341
ilt
Lit �t�
Reviewer/Inspector Name-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �� �_
Date: _ j 16 O 2-
O5103101 Continued

49
Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or Iagoon fail to discharge atlor 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 [h 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? (Le. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) Cl Yes No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes RNo
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
05103101

+ Division of Water Quality
Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit OO Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 94 21 Date of Visit: 12/20/2001 Time: 10:15
7 7 Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted N Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Tides 0J9x..li= cht.5tAt om................................................................... County: ! -85iMAOM.................................... WARD........
OwnerName: ................................................... NCR& ........................................................ Phone No: 252.-793.-.411.8 ..........................................................
Mailing Address: 107...9598lr9b..$jk Qja,RQAd.................................. y
Facility Contact: d!AU.Swth..................................................... Title: 1.1 au ............................................ Phone No: ............................ ......... ...� ....
Onsite Representative: Tcwj1..S1QA a................................................................................ Integrator: hWepettdejai ....... .....................
Certified Operator::loll,A.D.............................. Wall ................................................. Operator Certification Number:�1��. __........... ....
Location of Farm:
5 miles east of Plymouth, Hwy. 64, South SR 1119 approx. 1.5 miles. #
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 51 6 64 K Longitude 76 ' 39 & ®u
Design Current
Swine C'anacity Poni lation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer Non-Dairyl 120 64
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 120
Total sSLW 96,000
Number of Lagoons 1 ® Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ® Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ 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): 48
05iO3mI rouhaupd

05103101
Continued
Facility Number: 94-21 Date of Inspection 12/20/2001
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?
El Yes
®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Graze) Small Grain Overseed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
16. Is there a 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
M No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question J',)- Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other corn-inents. f
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
* Waste Analysis dated 11/21/01 with 0.29 lbs. N / I000gal.
7/27/01 with 0.54 lbs. N 1 I000gal.
AL
5110101 with 0.26 lbs. N / 1000gal.
* Need soil analysis copy for field book, aquire copy from main office.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Scott V" so
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

OSIO3101 Continued
Facility Number: 94-21 Date of Inspection 12i20/2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31_ Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No

0 Division of Water Quality
Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation -
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit d Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit a Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ,LO Time: O
Facility Number �+
Q Not Operational O Below Threshold
0 Permitted Certified [3 Conditionally
Certified /3 Registered Date Last Operated
/or Ab�ve reshold• ! Q
Farm Name: ............\�e�:..�..r•.. �1� County: v ti 5......... ft!./1....
Owner Name: ....... .... . ..................................... ...... . ...... Phone No: ....... .7�..��j...'..,.1 ... ....... _....
UA
Facility Contact: ....+.3..tnn...S."`a.t. !.►............................Title:................................................................ Phone No:..........................
v/ Mailing Address: ....... f'1rr.d....1......... ......
fe ,.
Onsite Representative:........... . .............. a +.. ....,,��VYy... ! .i a.... Integrator:.......:..... .
Certified Operator;........ W.� ................ .... ....... „............. .,... .. Operator Certification Number:......... ��i�;�.. .......
Location of Farm:
♦''
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �• �� ��° Longitude �• ��«
Design Current
Swine Cnnacitv Pnnulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes IEZNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes E*No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes JRNo
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure b
IdcntiFier : .................................... ............................ •....... ................................... .—................................ ................................ .... ....................................
Freeboard (inches): I I
5/00 Continued on back

Facility Number: 4 6 Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
RNo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
4 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
JqNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
IR No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
R[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
f
12. Crop type e S ram. er �t
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
W 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
Vj No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
WNo
I& Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
V No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
jj No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
[M No
21, Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
Yes
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑
No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
IM 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 AWNIP?
❑ Yes
JO No
-No •viol fibiis;oi" dfflciendbe§ *eriD noted. i ou� g tbis:visit} • X64 34J11- �eb6W jio fu ftf • : .
rorresporideQce. about t!><IS visit.. . . • . • . .. .. . . .
Comments (refer to question #l): Explain any YES answers and/or any recomiuendatinns or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necesss
'7/0 f,! `V14
/ r a/ 1v I
©,;Q J6s
© V AU, 1 5 IVYr
7S7
91 4tYA-1)LS CsiQ 19r 1(41ei) 4—At av Lt{`rk ,,,o..� hnc_i�► c� i`C�
r�
L
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 1.2-j1ab 5100

)Facility Number: z Date 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 attor 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 PQ No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes JRNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property) li
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes JQ 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
5/00

O Division of Water Quality
• Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O. Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other El Denied Access
Facility Number 94 Z1 Date of Visit: 12/I/ZQQO Time: I5:00
0 Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified © Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ............
Farm Name: ..................... County: Shi�igt�ik
....................... ............. 'W.WO ...,....
OwnerName: ............ . ................... . . ............. NC1?,4..................................... ..................... Phone No: 252::793.-.411.......
FacilityContact: J.Qlm..Smjtb......................................................Title: 1!' anAvi............................................ Phone No: ....... ................................. ...........
Mailing Address: 247..Rg5&argll..$I tiola.RQgLd........................................................... 1'IyRQ.Ut1..IYC................................................. ...... . .79 ............
Onsite Representative:) SAIL SIIIlr3.L.� Y]GRIt.S1S?.Rla.................. ..... Integrator:.................
........
Certified Operator:Ealloift ...................................... Lilla................................................. Operator Certification Number:17 �(j..............
Location of Farm:
15 miles east of Plymouth, Hwy. 64, South SR 1119 approx. 1.5 miles.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 51 60 it Longitude 76 • 39 i 54
Design Current
Swine Canacity Panulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer Ir7 Non -Dairy 120
❑ other
Total Design Capacity 120
Total SSLW 96,000
Number of Lagoons 1 ®-Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management Svstem
Discharaes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes ®No
Discharge originatcd at: ElLagoon ❑ Spray Field [IOther
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. if discharge is observed., did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:............... .................................... ............. ...................... ...........................
.................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 49
einn -.a -- i . 0.

5/00
Facility plumber: 94-21 Date of Inspection 12/1/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
L Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
Continued on back
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
®No
❑ Yes
®No
❑ Yes
®No
❑ Yes
®No
❑ Yes
®No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CA WMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Rectuired 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?
0 'NO -Violations or :deficiencies -were noted during this visit. You will receive po further
. . correspondence aboui this.visit.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages
Vegetation looks good
soil sample
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rufus Croom

Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5/00 1
Facility Number: 94-21 Date of Inspection 12/1/2000
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
S/00

T r Division of Water Quality
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Fallow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 94 21 Date of Visit: 5-12-2000 Tine: 1500
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
0 Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ........................
Farm Name: ................................................................... County: W.asltuagtian,.................................... W.RRQ...... -
Owner Name: ................................................... NGDA............................................ ............. Phone No: 252.-7,9,3.-.4jj8 ..........................................
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone No:
Mailing Address: ZQZ.RSpAKZL,5j&iQA.RAfild ........................................................... Pl MwAl1t.NC........................................................ 2.7 ....—....
Onsite Representative: Egs9.1..L,lilgy.................................................. Integrator: N.CDA............ ...... ........
Certified Operator: ,JOi0................._........._........ Sw1h ................................................ Operator Certification Number:J,73.6.7..............._.... _...
Location of Farm:
miles east of Plymouth, Hwy. 64, South SR 1119 approx. 1.5 miles. +
_ I7
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry N Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 51 60 Longitude 76 • 39 4 54
Design Current
Swine Caaacity Pouulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer 19 Non -Dairy 120 40
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 120
Total SSLW 96,000
Number of Lagoons 1 N subsurface Drains Present 110 Laggoon Area N Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
N No
Discharge originated at: ElLagoon ElSpray 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
N No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
n/a
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
N No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
N No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes
® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
❑ Yes
N No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
identifier: .................................... .................................. . ................................... ................................
Freeboard (inches): 26"

5100
Facility Number: 94-21 bate of Inspection 5-12-20(f0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Winter Annual Summer Annual
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
0 3�1q I iolatimis or dcf cieneies were rioted during this visit: you: will receive nb furiber
correspunc enee about this:visit. . ... . . .
C (refer to question #): Explain anyVES answers and/or any'• _ mmendatioi
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
lecords available for review.
Waste analysis - 7-6-99 = 0.45; 3-24-00 = 0.51lbs.
asn't been a need to irrigate except for 2 times.
'-attle are onsite mainly between October to .Lune.
continue managing the farm as you have.
If you have any questions, contact me @ 252-946-6481, ext. 318
Continued on buck
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Yes
®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 ❑ 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/Inspector Name
Hardison
z

Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5/00 1
Facility Number: 94-21 Date of Inspection TI2-2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge actor below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ®No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
i/00

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Jaynes B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
May 7, 1999
Mr. John Smith
Tidewater Reacarch Station
207 Research Station Road
Plymouth, NC 27962
ODENR
NORTH CARptINA C>EPART1yENT OF
ENVIRONMENT A4o NA-r"UFZAL RESOUIRCES
SUBJECT: Animal Feedlot Operation Compliance Inspection
Tidewater Reacarch Station
Facility No. 94 -21
Washington County
Dear Mr. Smith:
On May 6, 1999, 1 conducted an Animal Feedlot Operation Compliance Inspection at the referenced
facility. Overall, the operation was found to be in satisfactory condition. A copy of the inspection report is
attached for your review.
In general, this inspection includes verifying that: (1) the farm has a Certified Animal Waste Management
Plan (CAWMP); (2) the farm is complying with requirements of the State Rules 15 NCAC 211.0217, Senate
Bill 1217, and the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan; (3) the farm operation's waste management
system is being operated properly under the direction of a Certified Operator; (4) the required records are
being kept; (5) there are no signs of seepage, orosion, and/or runoff.
The recommendations and/or comments regarding your inspection can be found in the comment section of the
attached inspection form. It is very important as the owner and Operator in Charge that you address any noted
concerns, as soon as possible. For assistance, please contact your Technical Specialist and/or the local Soi 1 &
Water Conservation District Office.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance during the inspection. Should you have farther questions or
comments regarding this inspection, do not hesitate to call me at [phone], ext. 321 _
Sincerely,
Q;� 6 -
Daphne B. Cullom
Environmental Specialist H
cc: Washington County SWCD Office
WaRO
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

p Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Operation Review
p Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Compliance Inspection
Division of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
p Other Agency - Operation Review
1* Kourme p uompiainr p ronow-up or uwv inspection p rouow-up or ubvvu review p vtner
Facility Number Date of inspection
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
p Permitted E Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered 10 Not Operationa Date Last Operated : ...........................
Farm Name: Tidewater.Reseair A.Slation.................................................................... County: Washington WaRO
OwnerName:...... ..............,.............................. NDAI......................................................... Phone No: 7.9..-4.1.$............................ .... ....................................
Facility Contact:.Iohn.Smi#h...................................................... Title: Manager ........................................... Phone No:.-- .... ...................
Mailing Address: 29.7. pg ilr lg 911. 4 d............................................................1'lYMf?.;A1h.N'C.............................. ......... .............
Onsite Representative: Easaan.LjJley..& Terau.S1aan................................................ Integrator:.......................................................................................
Certified Operator: John W.• ...................$�Il:.11............................. ........ Operator Certification Number: 1.737...............................
Location of Farm:
AL
.�mihes.-eas#.n�FPlxuautlt.S�..G4,.SaattlxS�Lt tldQ.aAprn...S..nnilc...................................................................................................................... ...
Latitude © • ©4 ®" Longitude ® a & ®�
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
p
Wean to Feeder
p
Feeder to
Finish
p
Farrow to
Wean
p
Farrow to
Feeder
p
Farrow to
Finish
0
i i5
p
Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
p Layer
p Non -Layer Non -Dairy 1 1
p Other
Total Design Capacity 120
Total SSLW 96,000
p
airy
Number of Lagoons 0 In Subsurface Drains Present p agoon rea pray { ie . rea
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps p No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes N No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon [3Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? (3Yes [3No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) [3Yes [3No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) [3Yes p No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? [3Yes R No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? [3Yes N No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway [3Yes p No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ..... --......... .................................................
Freeboard(inches): ...............3.3.................................................. .................................... ................................... ........
5. Are There any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (Tel trees, severe erosion, [3 Yes ®No
seepage, etc.}
3/23199 Continued on back

Facility Number: 94_21 1Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
p 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?
p Yes
®No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
ig No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
p Yes
® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
® No
11. is there evidence of over application? p Excessive Ponding p PAN
p Yes
® No
12. Crop type Winter Annuals Summer Annuals
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 Iack adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
N No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
N No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
p Yes
® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
p Yes
N No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
p Yes
p 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.)
p Yes
®No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
p Yes
®No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes
® No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
p Yes
®No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
El Yes
p No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
p Yes
N No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
p Yes
® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
p Yes
®No
a "No:violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. 'You will receive no.-#'urther .
correspondence about this visit,

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr_, P.E., Director
January 11, 1999
Mr. John W. Smith
Tidewater Research Station
207 Research Station Road
Plymouth, North Carolina 27962
SUBJECT: Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
Tidewater Research Station
Facility No. 4 94-24 & 94-21
Washington County
Dear Mr. Smith:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection (as it is
viewed in DWQ database) conducted at the referenced facility by the Division of Water
Quality from the Washington Regional Office. Please read this inspection and keep it
with all other documents pertaining to your animal operation for future inspections.
In general, this inspection included verifying that: (1) the farm has a Certified Animal
Waste Management Plan (CAWMP); (2) the farm is complying with requirements of the
State Rules 15 NCAC 21-1.0217, Senate Bill 1217, and the Certified Animal Waste
Management Plan; (3) the farm operation's waste management system is being operated
properly under the direction of a Certified Operator; (4) the required records are being
kept; (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or runoff.
'bank you for your assistance and cooperation during the inspection. If you have any
questions, please contact me at 919/946-6481, ext. 318 or your Technical Specialist.
Sincerely,
Lyn B. Hardison
Environmental Specialist
Cc: LBH files
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

I Td Division"of Soil and°Water Conservation - Operation Review
! - 13 Division of Soil and Water Conservation Compliance Inspection
iI Division of Water Quality- Compliance Inspection
p Other. Agency.- Operation Rey yew
10 Routine O Complaint p Follow --up of DWQ inspection o hollow -up of USWC review p Other '
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
12 Registered E Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted in Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: TidcwzLer.Research.Sfatian................................. County: Washington WaRO
OwnerName: .............................................. _ LYCDA.......... ....................... ....... ..... ........ Phone No: 9.1-411&...... --.... ...................... ...... ....
_ ..- .......
Facility Contact: ............................. -........ -........ -.._.............. __Title: .. Phone No:
Mailing Address: 20.7.Aescarcb .. StaijoB Road-......................................................... P1 moth.NC........................................................ 22961...._.......
Onsite Representative: Eamn.1.Tilley.1arna.slun................................................... Integrator: .................. ......... ..................... .......................................
Certified Operator:W.AianxX............................ Liiley.................................................. Operator Certification Number:21612 .............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ©• ©° ®K Longitude ®r ®6 ®u
Swine Capacity Population
p Wean to Feeder
p e e-r to E
p Farrow to Wean
p Farrow to Feeder
N Farrow to Finis
p Gilts
0 Boars
Poultry Capacity Population .. Cattle , Capacity Population
p ayer p Datry
❑ Non -Layer I lo Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 250
Total SSLW 354,2
Number of Lagoons I Holding Ponds I® u sur ace rams resent J[EiTagoonArea pl pray [e rea
p No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? 13 Yes K No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes ® No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) p Yes ® No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? n/a
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) © Yes Ig No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p Yes ®No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? p Yes ®No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require p Yes ®No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ®No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? p Yes ® No
7/25/97 Continued on back

8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Laaoons.Holdina Ponds. Flush Pits. etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure 1 Structure 2
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft):.............3.33..................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
Structure 3 Structure 4
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
p Yes ® No
Yes ® No
Structure 5 Structure 6
15. Crop type ...... CoasWBezmuda G ass.....................wimtrA. n ual.........................................................................
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 AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
• . o:v, cit oils -or . e acien-cies-were -note q • qg: t• is Visit., - .You. Zvi • - tei ift 116 further • - -
.. t orrespcinderice abr tit ihis visit: ................ .. .
p Yes ® No
[]Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes 11 No
Comments (refer to question'#):j.Explain any YES answers and'or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use draw-inas of facility to betfez<'explain situations (use additional pages as necessary):
Waste Analys'
Field ditches have
v Y .y oui lie de acted from the foliotiv.ins berinuda uass.
sfiggge tb include it in }your, waste mgna(,enient plah just in case you chooseto .
ott
estio a ea
Reviewer/Inspector Name Lyn B. Hardison.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: l{ f�� Date:

I® E9IvLifou of �Drl anti water 8...onservatlon - tiperation Kevtew
Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Compliance Inspection
jsian €�f water Quality'.Corpliance inspection =
er.Agenc -4 erationReview R
19 Koutene p t ompiamt p rouow-up or Ljwt,l inspection C ro
Facility Number
p Registered M Certified 13 Applied for Permit ]:3 Permitted
-up of U5WU review O Other I
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
p Not Operationa Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Tidewater-Research.Staxiu m................ ...... ..................................... ........ County: Washington WaRO
OwnerName: ............................... . .................. NCI?A......................................... .............. Phone No: 252-193.411R.................................... ..... .....
Facility Contact: .......... _........ ... ........ __...... ................r.............._Title:..............................................-....--...-..--.. Phone No:
Mailing Address: 2Q.7-Resca.r.ch.Stativa..Rctad....................................... ......••.......... Plyumuth.NC. ............... .-..............
Onsite Representative: EasApt.Lille,.TelCRIn.SIAaR................................................... Integrator: ........... .......................
Certified Operator: ,Imhn-W.............
Location of Farm:
R_100?
Smith .......................... Operator Certification Number: 0730................. ....... ..
Latitude a I ®" Longitude ®0 ®° 14
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
[3 Wean to keeder
[3 ceder to Finish
[3 ParTow to Wean
p Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finish
p Gilts
p Boars
p ayer p Dairy
p Non -Layer ® Non -Dairy 120
�©Other
Total Design Capacity 120
Total SSLW96,0!=
Number of Lagoons / Holding Ponds 1
lei 5u
sur ace
Drains
Present ❑
agoonArea
IS Spray �e rea
p No
Liquid Waste
Management
System
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at_ p Lagoon p Spray Field p 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 cal/min?
d. Does discharge bvpass a la600n 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?
p Yes 11 No
p Yes ® No
p Yes Ig No
p Yes ® No
n/a
p Yes ® No
13 Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
Yes ® No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25197
p Yes 11 No
Continued on back

8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? p Yes H No
Structures _{Lagoons.Holding Ponds. Flush Pits. etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Yes ®No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft):.............. .3_4............... ....... ............................. ................................... ....................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? p Yes ® No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? la Yes 0 No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? p Yes ® No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
I3. 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? p Yes ® No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15- Crop type ......................... Ryc................................................. Millet ....................... ...... oaaaJ.Berm"a..Grass...........................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? p Yes ®No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
• -Or 6 tiela5-Or a 4bi01i-6esVe1r*4Wt6 , �.lr agt. is Visit.'- ait-'wi •tative 116 t't ear; -
:: t oirrespan;d6& ab-6,it liiis:visiL::: • ::.. : - ::: - :: : :
p Yes N No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ONO
p Yes ® No
Yes N No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ONO
Comments (refer to question #): Explain ariy`YES"answers and/or any recommendations_`or any other comments.'
Use drawings of facility` to better explain situations. (use additional pages as neecssary):
No cows onsite and_haqaLtbe pJill u - ab onsi _ f.
Waste.An,Tysis 0. s o
igatiom,records`- com Iete
:r-
eed to" e`o" o ten
-ontin- a e x ;v
ontin 4
j. 64. 0
a�i-t-y.•
Reviewer/Inspector Name Lyr.B. Hardison,:,. —
�__E.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: � _ , �li��Jr Date:
f

.v�iepwynyp.vekiyvi:�y:.vx:xvxx:x:y�:xy
Facility Number 94 21 # Date of inspection F 5/22/98
Tame of Inspection 24 ht. (hb:mm)
D Registered WCertified [3 Applied for Permit E3Permitted 10 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ........................... Coua Wasbiut
OwnerName: ................................................... NCDA................................. I ................ I...... Phone No: 793. 41..I8....................................................................
Facility Contact:J.9.1w-W...Sxuith............................................... Title: managor ............................................ Phone No: 251-1.9AAX.M...... ................
Mailing Address: 2Q1.1tsearch.S1a1iwLFQad............................................................ P1yxm9.uthNC......................................... .............. 179,6Z.._-..-....
OnsiteRepresentative: ................................................ Integrator: ............................................................. -........................
Certified Operator: Wdillam.E....... ...................... 1Cillcy................................................. Operator Certification Number: .t7.d6.0.........................
....
Location of Farm:
Latitude 35 • 51 60 K Longitude 76 " 39 54
lgit C f IieBiglt G t^tGt3i
IfeStgn ..
Secure
ry:: Ca act Po ttmE:: Cie
:Pvpu]8t on . Point p c'i. P.
..':tour
Ca ,a F"."..:'...`
.:.1 . `.....: .-..:.:.
[] Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -.Layer
I
I
® Non -Dairy
1 120
143
❑ Farrow to Wean
..
❑ Farrow to Feeder
10 (.)thy r
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design 'Capacity
120
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
96,000
❑ Boars
Number of LagNms I Holding Pohds 1 ® Subsurface Drains Present
....:.:.
U0 Lagoon Area M spray Field Area
........ .......... ....
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
General
I. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? © Yes No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: Q Lagoon ❑ Spray Field [] Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? Q Yes Q No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) Q Yes Q No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes '•Q No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? Q Yes No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes .23 No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes Z No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes M No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes M No
7/25/97

Facility Number: 94--Z1 Date of Inspection 5/22198
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes ® No
Structures (Laeoons.Holding Ponds, Flush fits, etc.}
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure 1
Identifier: ................... _.....
Freeboard (ft): ...............4.0.............
Structure 2 Structure 3
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
0 Yes N No
Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ENO
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
p Yes N No
.W1nta:.atxutt&.......................
l5. Crop type ..............---.autwt:.atuxu& .......................................................................................
........................ ....................
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 AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
I •No• i.iolati6ns' or'd'efitierieles•vvbte'ifoted'duribg � 4is-visit.' You -will-rbceive'np'farther : - : -
........................ .. .. ....
:co>•respondeiice abrouf v siti . . . : .
Hole in dike. No threat to dike. Needs fill material
❑ 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
■ ss •
�&l
'VI
Reviewer/Inspector Name t]dt-; .......
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

❑ DSWC Animal Feedlot Operation Review
DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site„Inspection
10 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Tinte (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: ❑ Registered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for i hr 15 ruin)) Spent on Review
® Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection includes travel and processing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated: .. . ........... . ............. . ........................ ...................... __ . ..... ......... . ...... ................
Farm Name: --..L I I✓ ✓ ,If!SC�L,r.....� Xs.. B. ...................... County:........... �' { +'.ij ..... ......... ....... yam:." .
Land Owner Name:9-cDA... Phone No:
Facility Conctact:..=.11-)..... YV..:....... q
Title:. ................. Phone No:
Mailing Address: 0 ._! ;i ...... ?5..... ..... ... r�( ........... ..I.....�'..... ! -
Onsite Representative: ......._a..Pr!r ............ ?.{.a .._ ........................................... Integrator: ........._... .............. -....P................_......................
—
Certified Operator: ©�1 +^_.......1/`............... :.: ............................. Operator Certification Number:..... ....��..7.. .........
Location of Farm:
Latitude Longitude �• �:
1 ype of operation and Design Capacity
Design Current Design Current Design.
Current
Swine Poultry Cattle .a aci Po ulatonCa Capacity Population cyo
❑ Wean to Feeder �❑ Layer Work-Dairyl
Dairy
El Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer I1?10 1 3
El Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder Total Design Capacity
ID Farrow to Finish
Total SSLW
❑ Other
Number of:i:agoons / Holding Ponds Subsurface Drains Present
❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
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
4130/97 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes .4E31\10
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes 13'lgo
❑ Yes "Q'N'o
Continued on back

Facility Number:...... ..—..a�1.�..-
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
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes $No
Freeboard (ft): Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
... ............ ............................ ............................ ........... I .... ............ .......... ..................
... .,...... .............. ...
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
[:]Yes L;.No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes Ea Vo
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes _0-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 2No
Waste Application
t4. Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes 9'&o
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
ti -.
s��Y1�i6.G ...... C' L .. —j: s ...........W -. r�� ...>�' "ls��.............. -� ✓........
...................... 15. Crap type -.
R�� I i -e
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management flan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes Aallo
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for Iand application?
❑ Yes .9 NO
18. Does the receiving crop -need improvement?
❑ Yes 'B.'no
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes J�lNo
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes -LINO
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes 1—wo
For Certified Facilities Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes ,G-No
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ' Jallo
24. Dogs record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes -[]-No
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).
* e-t
01A
Reviewer/Inspector Name a W.'.... .. _
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: ( a g ,7
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

Site Requires Immediate Attention:
Facility No.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
Date: S —Lj -qy- , 1995
Time: ZT
Farm Name/owner:
Mailing Address:
County: U'. a
Integrator: Phone: 1 - 22 3 " LI L
On Site Representative: j, rN kj. 1, Phone:
Physical Address/Location:
Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: No. of Animals on Site:
DEM Certifica ior; No.: ACE DEM Certification No.: ACNEW
Latitude: Sl 20 Longitude: Lk_ Elevation: Ft
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient ?eboard of 1 Ft + 25 year 24 hour
storm event? (approximat y 1 Ft + 7 in) a or No
Actual Freeboard: Ft Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes a No
Was any erosion observed? Yes o No
Is adequate land available for spray? � or No
Is the cover crop adequate? Yes or No
Crop(s) being utilized:
Does the facility meet SCS--minimum setback criteria?
200 Ft from Dwellings? � or No 100 Ft from Wells? Yes or No
Is the al waste stockpiled within 100 Ft of USGS Blue Line Stream?
Yes 0 No
Is anLnal waste 141 applied or spray irrigated within 25 Ft of a USGS Map Blue
Line? Yes or No
Is ani*^al waste discharged into waters of the statean-made ditch, flushing
s-rs,em, cr other s i m_lar man-made devices? Yes o Na
If Yes, please explain:
Dces the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure,
land a,,lie , spray irrigated cn specific acreage with cover crop)? Yes or No
Insce,_sr Nacre Sianature
CC: Assess.me^t Unit
Comments & Sketch on Back of Sheet

DEM
SITE VISITATION RECORD
Page Two
Comments: o 1. Zl—j re !
Sketch:
.e NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
r JAWS A. GRAHAN, COI mmlONER
s
JOHN W. SMITH
SUPERINTENDENT
RESEARCH STATION DIVISION
TIDEWATER RESEARCH STATION OFFICE [phone]
203 RESEARCH STATION ROAD HOME [phone]
PLYMOU TK NC 27%2-9526 FAX [phone]

Site Requires Immediate Attention: AD -
Facility No.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
Date: it Al-gL , 1995
Time: :mac
Farm ,Name/Owner: t 14G, 1,ve o4 P)
Mailing Address:
County:
Integrator: Phone:
On Site Representative: Phone:
Physical Address/Location:
Type of Operation: Swine Pouitry Cattle
Design Capacity: No. of Imimals on Site:
DEM Certification No.: ACE DEM Certif] ation No.: P
Latitude: Q Longitude: Elevation:
Circle Yes or No
Ft
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Ft + 25 year 24 hour
storm event? (approximately 1 Ft + 7 in) Yes or No
Actual Freeboard: Ft Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes or�ED
Was any erosion observed? Yes OCP
Is adequate land available for spray? Yes or No
Is the cover crop adequate? ±Qor No
Crop(s) being utilized:
Does the facility meet SC5 Minimum setback criteria?
200 Ft from Dwellings? ( rjQor No 100 Ft from wells? (Aso or No
Is the qy
Qwaste stockpiled within 100 Ft of USGS Blue Line Stream?
Yes or
Is animal waste land an_nlied or spray irrigated within 25 Ft of a USGS Man Blue
Line? Yes or No
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state b n-made ditch, flushing
system, or other similar man-made devices? Yes or
If Yes, please explain:
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure,
land applied, spray irrigated cn specific acwith cover crop)? Yes or No
.S u--- P yn'��L_
Inspe^_tor Name Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit
Comments & Sketch on Hack of Sheet

DEM
SITE VISITATION RECORD
Page Two
Concnents :
Sketc...

Site Requires Immediate Attention:
Facility No. 4 —
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPE�TIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
Date: , 1995
Time: eka—
Farm Name/Owner:
Mailing Address: tp
County: P4k\i-m ice'►-.
Integrato .
on Site Representative
Physical Address/Location:
Phone: 't,11-7- -713,3_
Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: No. of Animals on Site:
DEM Certification No.: ACE DEM Certification No.: ACNEW
Latitude: 3S_ SZ •'JC) Longitude: --)62 27 14 Elevation: Ft
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freebo d of 1 Ft + 25 year 24 hour
storm event? (approximately 1 Ft + I in) Yes or No
Actual Freeboard: Ft "Ca Incheq,�f
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes or J (�
Was any erosion observed? Yes o No - 15r,yr-q_
Is adequate land available for spray? YeDr No�c��� Gj r
Is the cover crop adequate? (Yes)or No y �J
Crop(s) being utilized:
Does the facility meet SC nimum setback criteria?
200 Ft from Dwellings? Yes r No 100 Ft from Hells? Ye or No
Is the al waste stockpiled within 100 Ft of USGS Blue Line Stream?
Yes o No
Is animal wast�nd applied or spray irrigated within 25 Ft of a USGS Map Blue
Line? Yes o No
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state by man-made ditch, flushing
system, or other similar man-made devices? Yes or
If Yes, please explain:
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of man
land applied, spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? Yes o No
Inspector Name -' Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit
Comments & Sketch on Back of Sheet

IV
DEM
SITE VISITATION RECORD
Page Two
Comments: pc {,
40
.� Sketch:
t
C
I

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Washington Regional Office
1 •
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Adandsommk
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C) E
Nancy W. Smlth, Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
August 21, 1995
Mr. Mike Martin
3239 Mt. Tabor Road
Creswell, North Carolina 27428
J
Subject: Animal Waste Lagoon
Washington County
Dear Mr. Martin:
On August 2, 1995 staff from the Washington Regional Office of the Division of
Environmental Management inspected the lagoon serving your animal feeding operation.
It was observed that the lagoon had an insufficient amount of freeboard, water level in
relation to the lowest point of your dike wall. You should maintain a minimum of nineteen
inches of freeboard in the Iagoon.,This letter is written to bring your attention to this
situation and to ask you to, begin spray irrigating wastewater or take the appropriate
action necessary to reduce the level of your lagoon(s) immediately. Please note that a
buffer of twenty-five feet must be maintained while spray irrigating from any drainage
system (ditch, swale, canal, stream, etc.).
Please be aware that it is a violation of North Carolina General Statutes to discharge
wastewater to the surface waters (farm ditches, creeks streams, etc.) of the State without
a permit. The Division of Environmental Management has the authority to levy a fine of
not more than $10,000 per day for the unpermitted discharge of wastewater into the
surface waters of the State. At some point in the future, staff will reinspect your facility.
Lagoon dikes should be mowed so they can be visually inspected.
If you have any questions regarding this letter I can be contacted at [phone].
Sincerely,
Scott Jones
Environmental Technician
cc: Dianne Wilburn
AFO fi I e
1424 Carolina Avenue, Washington, North Carolina 27889 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

./UL. --au inu iC is bob-UVLV68UKUNU
JU1.-12-86 WED 16:32 USDA SCS NDI
l�7Ct1 ea+�a fiU 1 L6i�77T.q TO +
h x Nut I d 1 u t35U848 P, UB
FAX N0, 0197902881 P, 02/03
9lwrOO2 " Is"MP& -" espVMVa #awl P.0l2AM
Biwa k,PgaW Immodfeta Attantloa+
P&OR ly Naa s
9171a PISM"
))AM: �,e,----.1995
Owner; J2LC,C.
Asult Vb!!MS � . � c?a /144 e- phal
ajPOCitlh[: pb011e:
Oft Duo Rgxr, "
14q*toat A4dmwa
i
TyM! Of OV aativn; $Who ,. Poultry ,..Y_ tht o
NUmlxx otAMnob on fZfte:
TM of Inspc Ium OromadA&W
Dm fire Aw&tW Wmw Lagatm Iuim m daaut bond d 1 21 3w 94 bout •lofm event
(approklmMety 1 Foot+7 bdO Yet a Na AatndRM&W;,.,,..,. ,�i�rtaaea
Pa McLtWea with man WO am I"li pfeuo edema & Aet3Apom' rmdmatJ under its
cvamrfuiist#c�. '
WN aq oea a p cbmrved from ticIsDau1Q1 Yee a am gom eV*" of do dam1; Yana c4M
)l ROaquaM fund avalatle for hud ept.+tkuksa Yc as Ho t%* anvtw Mp ad6pataT Vaal of No
Adfilonel Oomwm taa - UP
t .
# ! . -
Fu to (Dig) 713-"30
WASHING ON OFFrc�
JUI 2 << 7
Q.F— M.
arp.w
A7-0- �I I