250042_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NURTH CARULINA
Department of Environmental Qual

INSPECTIONS,
INSPECTIONS
INSPECTIONS

0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 250042
Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS250042
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine
County:
Craven Region
Washington
Date of Visit: 05109/2017 Entry Time: 10:00 am Exit Time: 11115 am Incident #
Farm Name: Cedar Springs Farm
Owner Email:
Owner: William J Hill
Phone:
919-527-8814
Mailing Address: 2986 Tram Rd
Deep Run NC 286259676
Physical Address: 320 Avery Rd
Dover NC 28526
Facility Status: Compliant El
Not Compliant Integrator:
J C Howard Farms
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
35" 13' 43" Longitude:
77' 26' 56"
SR1267 just west of Dover
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other issues
Certified Operator: William J Hill Operator Certification Number: 19765
Secondary 01C(s):
On -Site Representative[s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name William Hill Phone
On -site representative William Hill Phone
Primary Inspector: Megan H Stilley
I nspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit AWS250G42 Owner - Facility : William J Hill Facility Number: 250G42
Inspection Date: 05/09/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Analysis
4-13-17
.84 1.1
2-8-17
.57
.72
11-18-16
.70
.81
8-1-16
72
.89
Soil Test 7-2-15 wI highest lime 0 tons
-Zinc levels elevated on several fields
Calibration complete 12-29-15 w169 GPM
Sludge Survey 12-20-16 #1 Thick-2.3'
LTZ-3.2'
Pump intake-6.5' ) 38°% Sludge Ratio
#2 Thick-2.4'
LTZ-3.2'
Pump intake-6.5' ) 38°% Sludge Ratio
Crop yield grazed
Freeboard & Rainfall complete & correspond wl irrigation
page: 2

Permit: AVVS250042 Owner - Facility : William J Hill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 05/09/17 lnpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Wean to Feeder 7,680 51800
Total Design Capacity: 7,680
Total SSLW: 230,400
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
1
19.50
24,00
Lagoon
2
19.57
21.00
page: 3

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William J Hill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 05/09/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges $ Stream Impacts
Yes No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at.
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
[]
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑0
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
M ❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
M ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na He
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.eJ large
❑
■ ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
5. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed andlor managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
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
❑
❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks andlor wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Applicatiion
Yea No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ M ❑ ❑
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)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS250042 Owner- Facility: William J Hill Facility Number:
250042
Inspection Date: 05/09117 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 2
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 3
Fescue (Pasture)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Norfolk
Soil Type 2
GoldsborD
Soil Type 3
Lynchburg
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 andlor land application site need improvement?
❑ ❑
❑
16- Did the facility fail to secure andlor operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ M ❑
❑
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?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
[]
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 5

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility . William J Hill Facility Number. 250042
Inspection Date. 05/09/17 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?
❑
■ ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker an irrigation equipment
❑
❑ N
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? if yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
❑ ■
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
ME][]
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
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 ❑
❑
CAWM P?
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
page: 6

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number.
250042 Facility Status:
Active permit: AWS250042
❑ Denied Access
Inppection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Craven Region:
Washington
Date of Visit:
10/20/2015 Entry Time: 10:00 am
Exit Time: 11:00 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Cedar Springs Farm
Owner Email:
Owner:
William J Hill
Phone:
9197527-8814
Mailing Address:
2986 Tram Rd
Deep Run NC 285259676
Physical Address:
320 Avery Rd
Dover NC 28526
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Integrator: J C Howard Farms
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 35° 13' 43" Longitude:
77' 26' 58"
SR1267 just west of Dover
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: William J Hill Operator Certification Number: 19765
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Re prose ntative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name William Hill Phone:
On -site representative William Hill Phone:
Primary Inspector: Megan H Stilley Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s)-
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility : William ,1 Hill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Hate 10/20115 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Analysis 8-31-15 .95 .65
6-29-15 .65 .72
5-21-15 1.57 1.78
3-19-15 1.81 1.86
Soil Test 7-2-15 wl highest lime 0 tons
-zinc levels elevated on all fields. Field 7 2300. If level gets to 3000 facility ran not irrigate on that field.
'Lagoon 2 Level was 20' on 7-18-15 and on 7-25-15 level recorded was 44". Big drop with no irrigation until 7-30-15. Make sure
level recorded weekly and all irrigation is recorded.
Crop yield complete & grazed
Calibration due 2015
Sludge Survey complete 10-20-14 #1-27% Sludge Ratio
#2-24% Sludge Ratio } next one due 2015
7)Mow tall vegetation on outside of lagoon banks and manage weeds in sprayfield
page: 2

Permit: AVVS250042 Owner - Facility: William J Hill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 10/20/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
in Swine - Wean to Feeder 7.680 5,700
Total Design Capacity: 7,680
Total SSLW: 230,400
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
1
19.50
24.00
Lagoon
2
19.50
30.00
page: 3

Permit: AWS250042
Owner - Facility : William J Hill Facility Number. 250042
Inspection Date: 10/20115 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na Hg
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
[]
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
M ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
M ❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWO)
❑
M ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, 5torane &_Treatment
yes
No Na Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 []
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed {I.e./ large
❑
❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, 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?
0
❑ ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? [Not applicable
❑
❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks]
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
yes No Na He
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
maintenanoe or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overtoad?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
[l
PAN?
❑
Is PAN n 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: 4

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William J Bill Facility Number:
Inspection Date. 10/20/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
250042
Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 2
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 3
Fescue (Pasture)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Lynchburg
Soil Type 2
Goldsboro
Soil Type 3
Norfolk
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ M ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ E ❑
❑
15. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ M ❑
❑
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 No 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?
❑ M ❑
❑
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 [] []
1:1
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page:
5

• Permit: AWS250042
Owner -Facility: William J Hill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 10/20/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na He
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
N ❑
❑
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?
❑
E ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate boxes) 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?
❑
❑ E
❑
Other Issues
Y"
N9 N@ Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
❑ ❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
E ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
E ❑
❑
page. 6

0
0
0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ other Agency
Facility Number:
250042
Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS250042
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County:
Craven Region:
Washington
Date of Visit:
1210312014 Entry Time: 09:00 am Exit Time: 10:00 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Cedar Springs Farm
Owner Email:
Owner:
William Steven Hill
Phone:
252-527-8814
Mailing Address:
3020 Tram Rd
Deep Run NC 28525
Physical Address:
320 Avery Rd
Dover NC 28526
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑
Not Compliant Integrator:
J C Howard Farms
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
35' 13' 43" Longitude:
77' 26' 56"
SR 1267 just west of Dover
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Wiliam J Hill Operator Certification Number: 19765
Secondary OiC(s):
On -Site Representativelsy: Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name William Hill Phone:
On -site representative William Hill Phone :
Primary Inspector: Megan H Stilley
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Calibration due 2015
Sludge Survey completed 2014, but results not returned
Crop yield complete & grazed ; However, cows now off sprayfields
Waste Analysis 11-1-14 1.2 1.22
9-18-14 .8 .8
7-30-14 .86 1.03
6-11-14 1.08 1.01
Soil Test complete 8-20-13 wl highest lime 0 tons
Cu & Zn values Win range
'4 inches of rainfall on July 4th and no change to lagoon level - no irrigation before hand
'Make sure to get new CDC & Permit in records
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility : William Steven Hill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 12/03/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Wean to Feeder 7,680 7.100
Total Design Capacity: 7,680
Total SSLW: 230.400
Waste Structu
Disignated observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
1
19.sfl
40.00
Lagoon
2
19.50
42.06
page: 2

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility : William Steven Hill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 12/03/14 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?
❑
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)
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed {I.e./ large
❑
M ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
fi. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
■ ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
S. ❑o 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 NQ Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10°Io110 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: AWS250D42 Owner - Facility : William Steven Hill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 12/03/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes_ N9NNa Ne
Crop Type l Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2 Fescue (Pasture)
Crop Type 3 Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 5
Soil Type 1
Lynchburg
Soil Type 2
Goldsboro
Soil Type 3
Norfolk
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 5
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 ❑
❑
15, 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 He
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?
❑
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?
0
❑ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility William Steven Hill Facility Number:
250042
Inspection Date: 12/03/14 lnpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
YelNo
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?
[]
0 ❑
❑
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
❑E
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
[]
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑0
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
1:10
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
❑ ❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
E ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
E ❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 250042 Facility Status: Actives Permit: AWS250042 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Boutine County: Craven - -_ Region: WWaahinutoo
Date of Visit: 03/12J2013 Entry Time: 01:00 PM Exit Time: 02:o0 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Cedar Springs Farm_ _ _ Owner Email:
Owner: William Steven Hill Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 3020 Tram Rd _ _ , Deep Run NC 28525
Physical Address: 320 Aveiy Rd - lover NC 28526
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: J C Howard Farms _
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35'13'43" � — Longitude: 77°26'56"
SR1267 just west of Dover
Question Areas:
Dischrge & stream impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Apptication
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: William J Hill
Operator Certification Number: 19765
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name William Hill
Phone:
On -site representative William Hill
Phone:
Primary Inspector: Megan H Stilley
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

Permit: AWS250042 Owner • Facility: William Steven Hill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 03112J2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Waste Analysis 1-31-13 .81 1.06
12-23-11 1.4 1.8
10-31-12 J4 .79
9-6-12 1.02 1.03
*don't irrigate over vegitated waterway until vegitation is established
Soil Test 4-17-12 wI highest lime .8 tons
Cu & Zn values wlin range
Calibration complete 12-10-11
Sludge Survey 12-27-12 #2 Thick-2.0'
LTZ-55
Pump intake-5l 20% Sludge ratio
#1 Thick-2.4'
F_TZ-2.6'
Pump intake-6.5') 43% Sludge Ratio
Crop yield complete & grazing
Freeboard & Rainfall complete
Page: 2

Permit: AWS250042 Owner • Facility: William Steven Mill
Inspection Date: 03/12/2013 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 250042
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Wean to Feeder 7,680 5,999
Total Design Capacity: 7,680
Total SSLW: 230,400
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start. Date Freeboard Freeboard
goon
1
19,50
25.00
goon
2
19,50
22.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 03/12/2013 inspection Type: Compliance inspection Reason far 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, not'ly 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.el large trees, seven;
❑ ■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑ ■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
facility Number. 250042
Inspection bate: 0311212013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
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 Lynchburg
Soil Type 2 Goldsboro
Soil Type 3 Norfolk
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
W L1P?
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWS25OG42 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
Facility Number: 25OD42
Inspection Date: 0311212013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
Q
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: AW5250042
Owner - Facility:
William Steven Hitt
Facility Number : 250042
Inspection Date: 03/12/2013
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?
❑
❑
■
❑
Otherissues Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Did the facility fail to property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report
❑
■
❑
❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional
❑
❑
❑
■
Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge,
❑
■
❑
❑
freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
Lagoon / Storage Pond
Other
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 7

. A
0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 250042 Facility Status: Active Permit: AW, 250042 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comollance Inspection _ _ _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine „ _ County: Craven _ Region: Washington _
Date of Visit: M0412012_ Entry Time: 11:00 AM Exit Time: 12:00 PM
Farm Name: Cedar Sorinos Farm
Owner: William Steven Hill
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 3020 Tram Rd Dggp Run NC 28525
Physical Address: 320 Avery Rd Dover NC 28526
Facility Status: N Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: J C Howard Farms
Location of Farm:
SR1267 just west of Dover
Latitude: 35°13'43" Longitude: 77_°25'56"
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, 5tor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: William J Hill Operator Certification Number: 19765
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Chase Mackey Phone:
On -site representative William Hill Phone:
Primary Inspector: Megan H Stilley Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Mill
Inspection Date: 041D412012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Inspection Summary:
Waste Analysis 3-12-12 1.8 2.1
2-23-12 1.4 1,9
1-20-12 1.2 1.3
12-23-11 1.4 1.8
Soil Test 8-5-11 wl highest lime .8 tons
'Zinc levels elevated 1034-Feld 1 and 2785-field 2 } previous year levels low
Freeboard and Rainfall complete & correpsond wl irrigation
Crop yield complete
Calibration complete 12-10-11
Sludge Survey 11-2-11 thick-2.1'
t-TZ-2.9'
Pump intake-6.5') 38% Sludge Ratio
'Be careful when irrigating aver vegetated waterway - very wet today
Facility Number: 250042
Reason for Visit: Routine
Page: 2

Permit: AW525DO42 Owner • Facility: William Steven Hill
Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 04/04/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
O Swine - Wean to Feeder 7,680 7,025
Total Design Capacity: 7,680
Total SSLW: 230,400
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
agoon
1
19.50
25.00
agoon
2
19,50
24.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWS250042 Owner • Facility: William Steven Hill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: D410412012 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? 00013
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? Cl ■ ❑ ❑
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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
I 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.aJ large trees, severe
❑ ■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
B. Are there structures on -site that are not property addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑ ■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
Hydraulic Overload?
Frozen Ground?
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑■❑❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 04/04W12 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA HE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN n 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 Fescue (Pasture)
Crop Type 3 Small Grain Dverseed
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Norfolk
Soil Type 2
Lynchburg
Soil Type 3
Goldsboro
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 13
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
ONO
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWS250042 owner . Facility: William Steven Hill Facility Number : 250D42
Inspection Date: D41a412012 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?
❑
124 Minute inspections?
Cl
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
Cl
■ ❑ ❑
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: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
Inspection Date: 0410412012 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection
Records and Documents
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Facility Humber : 250042
Reason for Visit: Routine
❑ Cl ■ ❑
28. Did the facility fail to property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andlor document and report ❑ ■ ❑ Cl
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concem? 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 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 Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
IS
Cl ■ ❑ ❑
Cl ■ ❑ ❑
Cl ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 7

0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 250042 _ Facility Status: Active Permit: AAWQZ50042 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection „__•••,__ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Craven _ _ Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 04/12/2011 Entry Time:10:3Q AM Exit Time:
Farm Name: Cedar Springs Farm
Owner: William Steven Hill
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 3020 Tram Rd Deep Run NC 28525 _
Physical Address: 320 Avery Rd _ Dover NQ 28526
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: J_C Howard Farms
Location of Farm:
SR1267 just west of Dover
Latitude:25*13'43" Longitude:
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: William J Hill
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 19765
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Chase Mackey Phone:
On -site representative William Hill Phone:
Primary Inspector: Megan H Stilley Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

Permit: AWS250042
Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
Facility Mumher : 250042
Inspection Date: 0411212011 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
COC and Permit in records
Waste Analysis 4-4-11 1.7 2.0
2-7-11 1.7 2.3
10-14-10 .82 .75
8-24-10 1.2 1.2
Soil Test 3-29-10 wl highest lime 2.1 tons }need lime
Cu and Zn values within range
Crop yield complete
Calibration complete 10-21-09 wl fig GPM }Next one due 2011
-Need to do calibration not just use gun chart value
Sludge Survey 12-21-10 #2 Thick-3.2'
LTZ-3.5'
Pump intake-5.0' }40% Sludge Ratio
#1 Thick-2.2'
LTZ-4.3'
Pump intake-6.5' )28% Sludge Ratio
'4" drop in lagoon in Mid March wl no irrigation
Page: 2

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: Wiliam Steven Hill
Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 04/12/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current Population
Swine
Q Swine - Wean to Feeder 7.680 4,105
Total Design Capacity: 7.680
Total SSLW: 230.400
Waste Structures
Type identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
1
19.50
29,00
Lagoon
2
19.50
33,00
Page: 3

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Bill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 04/12/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
DischaMes & 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?
❑
■
Cl
❑
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?
❑
■
Cl
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le] large trees, severe
❑
■
Cl
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
Cl
■
❑
❑
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
Cl
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application Yes
No
NA
NE
10, Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
Cl
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS250OL42 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
Inspection Date: W1212011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 250042
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA
NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN a 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?
Cl
Crop Type 1
Small Grain
Overseed
Crop Type 2
Coastal Bermuda Grass
[Pasture]
Crop Type 3
Fescue (Pasture)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Goldsboro
Soil Type 2
Norfolk
Soil Type 3
Lynchburg
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?
❑ ■ ❑
❑
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?
❑ ■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP? ❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: D411212011 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?
Q
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
Q
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
Q
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑ ■ Q
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑ Cl
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
Q
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
25. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

Permit: AWS25OD42 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 04/12/2011 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?
❑
❑
■
❑
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
❑
■
110
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.
M Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge,
❑
■
❑
❑
freeboard problems, over -application)
31. ❑o subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field ❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond Cl
Other ❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
33. Did the Reviewerlinspector fail to discuss reviewhnspection with on -site representative? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 7

Division of Water Qua Iity
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 250042 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS250042 _ �1 Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Dane:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: GravenRegion: Washinaton
Date of Visit: 02/09/2009 Entry Time.03Q0 PM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: Cedar Smogs Farm Owner Email:
Owner: William Steven Hill _ _ Phone: [phone]$14 -
Mailing Address: 3020 Tram Rd „ Deep Run NC28525
Physical Address: 320 Avery Rd _ Dover NC 28526
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: J C-How-ard Farms
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°13'43" Longitude: 77°2 '56 _
SR1267 just west of Dover
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: William J Hitl Operator Certification Number: 19765
Secondary OiCisj:
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Chase Mackey Phone:
On -site representative Janice Hill Phone:
Primary Inspector: Megan H Stilley Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspectortsj:
Page: 1

Permit: AWS250042 owner - Facility: William Steven Hill Facility Number : 250042
Inspection Dane: 02/09/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Waste Analysis 12-23-OB 1.1 .95
8-28-08 1.1 1.5
3-10-08 1.5 1.6
Soil test 1-20-09 (2008 sample) with highest lime 1.5 tans ) need lime
Cu and Zn values within range
Crop yield complete
Rainfall and Freeboard complete and correspond with irrigation
Calibration 12-30-08 } next one due 2010
Sludge Survey 10-27-08 #1 Thick-2.0'
LTZ-3.0'
#2 Thick-2.6'
LTZ-3.6'
Pump intake pipe measurment - 6.0'
Page: 2

permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
Inspection Date: 02109/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 250042
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Deslgn Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Wean to Feeder 7,680 5,800
Total design Capacity: 7,680
Total SSLW: 230,400
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Data Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
1
19.50
31,00
agoon
2
19.50
36,00
Page: 3

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Mill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Data: 02/09/2009 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
Cl
Application Field
Cl
Other
Cl
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
Cl
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed andlor managed through a waste management ❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
Cl
Cl
& 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?
❑
■
❑
Cl
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals {Cu, Zn, etc}?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS25OD42 Owner - Facility: William Steven HIII
Inspection Date: 02/0912009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 250042
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN a 100/6110 lbs.?
Cl
Total P205?
Cl
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
Cl
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Fescue (Pasture)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Goldsboro
Soil Type 2
Lynchburg
Soil Type 3
Norfolk
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? 1101111
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
1 B. Is there a lack of property operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ E ❑ Cl
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWS250042 Owner- Facility: William Steven Hill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 02JO912009 Inspectlon 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?
❑ ❑
■
❑
Other Issues
Yes No
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑ ■
❑
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
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: 6

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
Inspection Date: 02/09/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Otherlssues
31. Did the facility fall to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32, D[d Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number. 250D42
Reason for Visit: Routine
Page: 7

Division of Water Duality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 250042 Facility Status: Aoive Permit: AWS250042 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Cgmoliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Cr v n Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 01/25/2008 Entry Time:08 00 AM Exit Time:
Incident #:
Farm Name: Cedar springs Farm Owner Email:
��►■Ttut��i�;nl
Mailing Address: 3020 Trarn Deep Run NC 28525
Phone: [phone]
Physical Address: 320 Avery Rd Dover
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: J G Howard r
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°13'41" Longitude:
SR1267 just west of Dover
Question Areas:
Discharges & stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: William J Hill
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 19765
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name William J Hill Phone: [phone]
On -site representative William J Hill Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Megan H Stilley Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspectors):
Page: 1

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
Facility Number : 250042
Inspection Date: 01/28/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
COC and Permit 2009
Waste Analysis 12-4-07 #1-1.1 #2-1.5
8-8-07 #1-1.3 #2-1.6
5-21-07 #1-2.2 #2-2.4
Next calibration due 2008
Sludge survey 11-26-07 #1 Thick-1.91' LTZ-321'
#2 Thick-1.96' LTZ-3.67' } Putting Consume in lagoon and
operating on sludge POA
Soil test 5-7-07 with highest lime 1.7 tons } need to apply lime on field #7
Cu and Zn values within range
Field 2 - could use lower waste analysis if needed for 11-1-07
Freeboard and rainfall complete and correspond with irrigation
Need to get lagoon design in records
Page. 2

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 01/28/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current Population
Swine
Swine - Wean to Feeder 71680 6,485
Total Design Capacity: 7,680
Total SSLW: 230,400
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
1
19.50
39.00
agoon
2
19.50
39.00
Page 3

n
Permit: AWS250042 owner • Facility: William Steven Hill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 0112&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? ❑ ■ 0 ❑
Discharge originated at
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other n
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWO) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
S. 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?
00011
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? n
Page: 4

Permit: AWS250042 owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 01/28/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA
NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P2O5?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare sail?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda
Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type e 2
Fescue (Pasture)
Crop Type 3
Small Grain
❑verseed
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Lynchburg
Soil Type 2
Goldsboro
Soil Type 3
Norfolk
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?
❑ ■ ❑
❑
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: 5

4
Permit: AWS250042 owner - Facility: William Steven Hill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 0112812008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? n
Design?
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ■ n n
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
n
Weekly Freeboard?
n
Transfers?
n
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
n
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
n
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?
n
■ ❑ ❑
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?
❑
❑ ■ n
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
❑
■ 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
C!
❑ 0 0
Quality representative immediately.
Page. 6

0
Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill Facility Number : 250042
Inspection Date: 01/28/2008 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? - 0 ■ G n
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? 0 ■ it
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
n■❑0
Page: 7

0 Division of Water quality
n Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 250042
Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS250042 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine
County:
Craven Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 03/02/2007
Entry Time:08:00 AM Exit Time:
Incident #:
Farm Name: Cedar Springs
Farm
Owner Email:
Owner: William Steven Hill
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 3020 Tram F2d
Deep Run NC 28525
Physical Address: 320 Avery Rd
J.
Dover NC 28526
Facility Status: n Compliant
❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 35113'41" Longitude: 77°26'54"
SR1267 just west of Dover
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Waste Collection & Treatment
Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other Issues
Certified Operator: William J Hill
Operator Certification Number: 19765
Secondary OICjsy:
On -Site Representative[s]: Name
Title Phone
On -site representative
William Hill
Phone:
24 hour contact name
William Hill
Phone:
Primary Inspector: Megan Hartwell
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

Permit: AW5250042 Owner - Facility. William Steven Hill Facility Number : 250042
Inspection Date: 0310212007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
COC and Permit 2009
WUP 2-13-09
Waste Analysis 1-17-07 #1-1.5 #2-1.6
9-28-06 41-.93 #2-.86
7-27-06 #1-.74 #2-1.0
Soil test 4-26-06 with highest lime .1.5 tons on field 8 } need lime
Cu and Zn values within range
Crop yield complete 2006
Sludge Survey complete 9-20-06 #1 thick-1.3' LTZ-4.15' }compliant
#2 thick-2.45' LTZ-4.39' -
Irrigation records complete - make sure to use current waste analysis
Freeboard and Rainfall complete
Calbrations complete 9-16-06
Page: 2

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
Inspection Date: 0310212007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Humber : 250042
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Wean to Feeder 7,680 6,370
Total Resign Capacity: 7,680
Total SSLW: 230,400
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
1
19.50
22.50
agoon
2
19.50
22.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill Facility Number. 250042
Inspection Date: t1310212007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason far Visit: Routine
Discharges !� Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? D ■ 0 D
Discharge originated at:
Structure D
Application Field D
Other D
a. Was conveyance man-made? D ■ D D
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) Fl ■ D D
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
D
D
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
D
■
D
D
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
D
■
D
discharge? ,
Waste Collection Storage &. Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
D
■
D
D
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
D
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 D
■
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
D
■
D
n
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
D
D
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
D
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
D
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
D
n_
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
D
Hydraulic Overload?
D
Frozen Ground?
D
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
n
Page: 4

Permit: AW5250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
Inspection Date: 03/02/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 250042
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NIE
PAN?
D
Is PAN a 10%110 lbs.?
El
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsiudge into bare soil?
D
0utside of acceptable crop window?
D
Evidence of wind drift?
D
Application outside of application area?
Crop Type 1
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 2
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type e 3
Fescue (Pasture)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Lynchburg
Soil Type 2
Goldsboro
Soil Type 3
Norfolk
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
D ■ D D
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application Site need improvement?
Q ■ D D
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? D ■ D D
17, Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
D ■ D D
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
D ■ D D
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
D ■ D D
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
D ■ ❑ D
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Page: 5

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill Facility Number, 250042
Inspection Date: 03/0212007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
Checklists?
Design?
fl
Maps?
fl
Other?
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
n
n
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
Q
120 Minute inspections?
Weather code?
fl
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after a 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
Waste Analysis?
Annual sail analysis?
fl
Crop yields?
Stocking?
fl
Annual Certification Form (NPDFS only)?
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
n
■
n
n
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
i1
■
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
D
■
n
El
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?
Q
■
❑
Q
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
n
n
■
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 animals within 24 hours andlor 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
D
n
n
■
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 6

Permit: AW5250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
Inspection Date: 03/02/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 250042
Reason for Visit: Routine
Other lssue5
Yes No
NA
NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
n ■
n
D
32. Did Reviewe rllnspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
n ■
D
n
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
n ■
n
n
Pag e: 7

0 Division of Water Quality
Lj Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 250042 Facility Status: Active _ _ Permit: ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comoiianca Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine __ County: Region: Washinaton
Date of Visit: 0211412006 Entry Time:Qq:30 AM Exit Time: 11:00 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Cedar Sprinas Farm Owner Email:
Owner: William Steven Hill
Phone:[phone] _
Mailing Address: 3020 Tram Rd _ DeW Run NC 28525
Physical Address; 320 Avery Rd Uover NC 28526
Facility Status: ■ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator.
Location of Farm:
SR1267 just west of Dover
Latitude: ,a5'13'41" Longitude: 77°26'54"
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: William J Hill Operator Certification Number: 19765
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative William Hill Phone:
24 hour contact name William Hill Phone:
Primary Inspector: Megan Hartwell Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

Permit: AW5250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
Facility Number : 250042
Inspection Date: 02114/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
WUP 2000
Waste Analysis 11-4-05 #1-1.1 #2-.94
7--05 #1-1.4 #2-1.8
3-14-05 #1-1.4 #2-1.8
Soil test 3-30-05 with highest lime 0 tons
Cu and Zn values within range
IRR-2 Forms complete
Freeboard and rainfall complete
Sludge survey 2-26-05 #1 thick-2.73'
LTZ-3.7'
#2 thick-2.6'
LTZ-4.2'
Need to complete a Plan of Action for lagoon #1
Page: 2

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Data: 02/14/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed bate Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
goon
1
M50
24M
agoon
2
19.50
23.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 02/1412006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed andlor managed through a waste management ❑
■
Cl
❑
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,
❑
■
i]
0
dry stacks andlor wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
Facility Number. 250D42
Inspection Date: 02/14/2006 Inspection Type. Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA
NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 tbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Small Grain
Overseed
Crop Type e 2
Fescue (Pasture)
Crop Type 3
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Goldsboro
Soil Type 2
Norfolk
Soil Type 3
Lynchburg
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ ■ I]
❑
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 fall to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■ ❑
Q
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page. 5

Permit: AWS250042 owner -Facility: William Steven Hill
Inspection date: 02/14/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance lnspection
Facility Number. 250042
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?
f 1
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after n 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
Q
Waste Analysis?
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
n
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? Fl ■ ❑ n
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment tNPDES only)? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
m
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?
❑
❑
❑
■
Dther Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■
❑
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑
■
❑
❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? if yes, contact a regional Air
❑
❑
❑
■
Duality representative immediately.
Page: 6

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
Inspection pate: 02 1412DO6 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 25OD42
Reason for Vlslt: Routine
Page: 7

Division of Water Quality
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number. 250042 Facility Status: Active, Permit: AW5250042 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Qompliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Craven Region: WashinuIgn
Date of Vislt: 0810?J2005 -- Entry Time: 08:30 AM Exit Time:
Farm Name: Cedar Sorings Farm _
Owner: Vill[grn Steven Hill
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Mailing Address: 3020 Tram fedDeep Run NC 26525
Physical Address: 320 Avery Rd Dover NC 28526 _
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant integrator: -J C Howard Farms
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°1S41" Longitude: 7Z°26'54"
SR1267 just west of Dover
Question Areas:
® Discharges & Stream Impacts ® Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
® Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: William J Hill
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 19765
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative William J Hill Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Janice Hill Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis: Ibs N per 1000 gal
#1 #2
1.4 1.8 7-6-05
1.4 1.8 3-14-05
1.4 1.3 1-21-05
sail test 3-30-05
Remember to harvest the hay!!
Phone:
Date:
Phone:
Phone:
Page: 1

Permit: AWS25OD42 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hifl
Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: 08102/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
■ Swine - Wean to Feeder 7,680 7,300
Total Design Capacity: 7,680
Total SSLW: 230,400
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Lagoon
1
19.50
34.00
Lagoon
2
19.50
28.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill Facility Number: 250042
Inspection Date: OW0212005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes Nix- _NA NF
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ M ❑ ❑
b, bid 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)
❑
0 ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
00
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
00
Yes
❑
No NA
❑
NF
Waste Collection_ Storage & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
Cl
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 property addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑
❑
❑
closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks
❑
0 ❑
❑
andlor wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
0 ❑
❑
improvement?
Yes
No NA
NF
Waste Appllcatbn
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance altematives that need maintenance or improvement?
❑
n ❑
❑
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 n 1OW10 lbs.?
❑
Total P2O5?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
1
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Fescue (Pasture)
Crop Type 3
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley,
Oats)
Crop Type 4
Page: 3

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
Facility Number. 250042
Inspection Date: 0810212005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Goldsboro
Soil Type 2
Lynchburg
Soil Type 3
Norfolk
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving craps differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan(CAWMP)?
❑
0 ❑
❑
15, does the receiving crop and/or sand 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?
Records DocuMents
❑
yes
❑
No N&
❑
NF
and
19. bid 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?
Other?
❑
21. Roes 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?
❑
M ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
0 ❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS250042 Owner - Facility: William Steven Hill
Inspection Date: 08/02/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Drds and Docents
27. Did the facility fall to secure a phosphorous loss assessment {PLAT} certification?
Facility Number: 250042
Reason for Visit: Routine
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAW MP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andlor 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 Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss reviewrnspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ M ❑ ❑
❑ M ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 5

Type of Visit ®Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for visit ® Routine O Complaint O Folfow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 2S 42 Dace of Visit: Tine: 1115
NNot O erational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: CAdAr.SJ1riUPXa A................................................................................. County: C=Uk.._......................................... W. AR ]..
Owner Name: Wilda.,I.............................. Hill................................................................ Phone No: 25:527.4814.4fs1rmO... ............... ,.......................
MailingAddress: 29.86.r.aM.R0.8d................................................................................ l valid►.xc..................._................................... 215215.............
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone No:
Onsite Representative:,fhmkP...H1J1.................................................................................... Integrator, LCADLwA `d.Farms.............................................
Certified Operator:..W..1J111#lx J.............................. Idilk..................................................... Operator Certification Number: 19T65.............................
Location of Farm:
iR1257 just west of Dover A.
T -,rt-�3�
N Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ' 13 41 « Longitude F 77 • 25 S4 u
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity population Cattle
CMcity Population
® Wean to Feeder
7680
ID Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
JE1 Non -Layer
I
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow tn_Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total! Design Capacity
7,680
❑ Gifts
Total SSLW
230,400
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 2
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 D WQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
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: ............ Frnat........................ BAck---......... .................................... ................................... ......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 27" 27"
12112/03
Continued

Facility Number: 25-42 Date of Inspection $-24-2444
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, 0 Yes N No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes N No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes N No
elevation markings? ,
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Small Grain Overseed Fescue (Graze)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes N No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes N No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of property 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 N No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Comments [refer to;question.#]'--Explain .apy YES answers and/or' any reeommendatiuns orany other comments. ,•-
Use drawings of facility to better explain'situations. (use additional pages as neeessary): ❑Field Copy El Final Notes
Left message - no one was @ farm at time of inspection -
There was a misunderstanding to inspection date (DWQ)
Irrigating from one riser to the right of path entering farm, behind last trailer
ractice weed control in spray fields
;cords reviewed on 8-30-2004
aste analysis
# 1
# 2
6-4-04
1.91bs
2.21bs
5-4-04
2.2 ibs
2.3 lb
2-19-04
1.6lbs
1.9lbs
10-16-03
1.21bs
1.61bs
7-9-03
1.3lbs
1.8lbs
2-26-03
1.81bs
2.1lbs
Reviewer/Inspector Name Lyn E. Hardison
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 25.-A2 I Date of Inspection 5-24-2044
Reguired 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
N No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
N 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
N No
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
N No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
N No
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
N No
2$. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
N No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
N 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.
Cl 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
❑ Stacking Form ❑ Crop Yfe€d Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After I" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Additional Continents and/or Drawings: _ - ..
Soil analysis - dated 6-9-04 & I 1-10-a3 T
Irrigation records are complete and balanced out.
Freeboard levels are recorded weekly
Rainfall. data is also kept.
Overall, the farm is well managed.
orNew forms go to www.h2o enr.nc.us.com, then go to DWQ Section, Non -discharge compliance unit, then
animal - The forms are in the animal section
Consult with your Technical Specialist for assistance or us @ 252-946-6481.
12112103

Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Departrnent of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
To: Producer
From; Daphne B. Cullom
Environmental Specialist
Washington Regional Office
Subject: Animal Compliance inspection
Year 2002
Enclosed please find a copy of the Compliance Site inspection (as viewed in the 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, 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 2110217, 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; and (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or runoff
As a reminder, please note the following comments, which are conditions of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan and the
General Permit; therefore, these items must be implemented:
qi The maximum waste level in lagoonslstorage ponds shall not exceed that specified in the CAWMP. At a minimum, maximum waste
level for waste for lagoms/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
T 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. Lime is to be applied to each receiving crop as recommended by the soil analysis.
cp The following records are required: off -site solids removal, maintenance, repair, wastelsoil analysis and land irrigation 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 _rgtse shall land Miication rates exceed time Plant Available
Nitrogen TAM rate for the receiving crgp or result in runoff during Ky given pplimfion. -
q) All gassed waterways shall have a stable outlet with adequate capacity to prevent podding or flooding damages. The outlet can be
another vegetated channel, an earth ditch, stabh7ization structure, or other suitable outlets.
cp It is Mizest A not a requirement, 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.
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, 200 L
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation during the inspection. If you have any questions, please contact me at 252-946-6481, ext.
321 or your Technical Specialist
Cc: WaRO
DBC Files
943 Washington Square Mall Washington, NC 2T889 252-946-6481 (Telephone) 252-946r9215 {Fax}

$Type of Visit Q Compliance inspection 0 Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
J# s
Reason for Visit D Routine C)Complaint Q Fallow up Q Emergency Notification Q tither ❑ Denied Access
3 Date of Visit' 9-25-ZDa2 Thar: 11:47 atn
Facility- Number 25 42
O Not Operational Q Below Threshold
U Permitted S Certified O Conditionally Certified - Registered Date Last Uperate€! or Above Threshold: ..................... ...
Farm Name: Udar.5pirim.k:a m.------ ............ _.......................... Count'°:Cravm.............................................. VYARO.......
•••• Hlll..................... Phone No: t]►r�ner Name: �.ill�iauu �.........................---._...................................... 752:52.?.:8RU.{faraot)F...........................................
Mailing Address: 2-9..$ft.1r�am.Road...... _........................................... ..................•.... D0epLRun.NC....... ............................ ................... 7,Mft.-.........
Facility Contact:
Title:................................................................ Phone No:
Onsite Representative. p a'„And.Mrs..Hall.................................................. ............ _... Integrator:,T..C.D.QTx»tL[i.k.axmx............ ....... ..........................
Certified Operator:W.Iflimj,............................. Hill.................................................... Operator Certification Number:19.70 .............................
l.,ocation of Farm:
SR1267 just west of Dover
®Swine ❑Poultry ❑ Cattle �❑ Morse Latitude wF 3 ' I _13 m •Y W41 _� LongitudeI 77 ,"- 2 54
_ L
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
1 Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
CRacity Population
® Wean to Feeder
7680
7684
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
9
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
?s
❑ Farrow to Feeder
10 Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
7,580
P.
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
230,40Q
❑ Boars
g
—--i
Number of Lagoons 2 1 10 Subsurface Drains Pre-%e,:t�jjll Lagoon Area ❑ Spray FZ Area
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps Waste Man! ement System
2isciiargvs & Streat-P i x k
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discliargi-- originatcd ate 0 Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. ]f disel3at'ge is ohtiet� ed. �+a• ilat c�}ttt r► auce t3tact-made'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If di,;L;harLc is obsvii-ed, did it reaeh Water of the Statc'? (Ti'�e;, ttatih' DWQ; ❑Yes [I No
c- if discharge is observed, what is the cslijnated MlV in ralliuiii'?
d. Doe; diselim-ge 6vpass a ]agoon syslern? (Il'res. no lilt' DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ER No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
W'astr �,fht]yc:ioA c frr.i.An eni
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
sn'uchav I Strijenirc; 2 Structarc ± 4tru4:ture 4 Sirmiure 5 Strucitire 6
ictcxitilivt'..............fL4nI........ .... ............. liwk............. ............................. ...... ............... ........ ............ ........ .................. ._.........................................
35 40

e►xyv Vv2
: Facility Number: 25-42 Date of Inspection 9-25-2002
- 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 mamtenancehmprovement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
9. Do any strctums lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
W &Oy jrmliclatkon
10. Are there any buffers that need mainteuance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop" Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Fescue (Hay) Small Grain Overseed
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 Revorsls & Dor►s;i=.eiit;
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
I& Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel 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?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency'?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
[I Yes 21No
❑ Yes 9 No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes 19 No
L Yes 25 No
❑ Yes N� No
[i Yes 9 No
❑ Yes 5D No
[i Yes M No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ® No
j© 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 facilityto better explain situations, (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
Lagoon levels adequate.
7. Lagoon 41 - Tree saplings & broadleaf vegetation removed; grass establishing well. Continue efforts to eliminate further growth if tree
saplings & broadleaf weeds. Lagoon 42 - Broadleaf weeds removed; grass establishing well.
15. Continue efforts to monitor weed growth in all sprayfields. The receiving crops will be reviewed for improvements during the next
inspection to ensure compliance with the General Permit and CAWMP.
11. 18, & 19. Please submit the following records to the DWQ Washington Regional Office for review: IRR-I & IRR-2 forums, Waste &
Soil Analysis for 2002, and freeboard level records.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Daphne & Cullom
RP%iawarlfngnPrtnr Ci►rn
4,3 . Cx" - ' C- 4% - _
nAtw 3113 �o 3

0510310I Confinued
FaciliRy Number: 25-47 hate of Inspection 9-25-20U2
Odor issurs
2b. Does the discharge pipe from the con%uement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below ❑ Yes [j No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly withiD 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i c. 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? Q Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fau(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blades), 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 permanentftemporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
CAWMP records were submitted to the WaRO for review on 10/21 /2002: no violations were noted in the review of the records. D.

o�OF wArEq� r� l V Easey
Govemor
� William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
o
Department of Environment and Natural Resources -�
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Wafer Quality
October 9, 2002
Mr. William J. Hill
Cedar Springs Farm
2986 Tram Road
-Deep Run, NC 28525
SUBJECT: Animal Feedlot Operation Compliance Inspection &
Request for Information
Facility No. 25-42
Craven County
Dear Mr. ' Hill:
On September 25, 2002, 1 conducted an Animal Feedlot Operation Compliance Inspection at the referenced facility. The
Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP) was not readily available for review at this facility. Therefore, the
records and documents of the CAWMP could not be reviewed during the inspection.
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 2H.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, andlor
runoff.
You are requested within 10 days of receipt of this letter to send a copy of your last two waste analysis reports, the last soil
analysis report, freeboard level records and complete copies of your IRRA and IRR-2 forms for the last receiving crop and
current receiving crop. Once this infomabon is received in the Washington Regional Office, it will be reviewed and the
Compliance Inspection completed. If this in _rmation is not recenred within 10 days by the Washington Regional
Office, this facilltv will be in violation of its General Permit and subiect to an appropriate enforcement action. The
requested information should be mailed to the fallowing address:
Daphne B. Cullom
Division of Water Quality
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
The recommendations andlor 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 ooneems, as soon as
possible.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. Should you have further questions or comments regarding this
inspection, do not hesitate to call me at [phone], ext. 321.
Sincerely,
.kBv��
Daphne B. Cullom
Environmental Specialist II
oc: Animal Compliance
943 Washington Square Mali Washington, NC 27889 252-946-Ml [Telephone] 252-946-9215 (Fax)

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review ❑ Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit *Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up d Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Faeilit - Number 25 42 Date of Visit: 9-Z5-2002 Tune: 1I:47 am
Q Not Oterational. Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditional}- Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold. ..... ...
Farm Name: Cr&br.5paaugaArm.._---.-.............._......--•---.._.........---•--.---..._.._......_ County' Cimm................... ......... ........... WAROL.—
Owner Name: �.i1�jm�„-........_.____ �i11 m. Phone No:
Mailing Address: 29.8b.Tr':atn.RMd.......... ...... —...... _... _..... . ..... Ds�p�Run1Y�.. __._.......................... .._ �_....---
Facility Contact: ...... ...... _....... ............. ............. Title: ...»..... ................. ........,...»........... ...... . Phone No:.... ........�._.._ ..._.w. „....
Onsite Representative: Mx..And.MM.Hiil..... ........ _ ... _................................... Integrator: J.f.1tavardYarm.................. ....... ........... ........
Certified Dperator: M�t[Iia1�,X.__.. ...___. .. UML..._..._ ....... ...... ...... _... ..._.--- Operator Certification Number: 12770.,...... -._.....m... .
Location of Farm:
3R1267 just west of Dover +
® Swine ❑ Poultry
❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 3s • 13 6
41 66 Longitude 44
.........
II::
.i...
......t
-------:::-----.::-.::....
......::::::;:'::::::
II
...- .
ilrelt................................................. .:-:-t.=: :
....
::Swinc.
......
Pautr:C........................
:;' i--
a aritv;;P ot..i...:.
® Wean to Feeder
7680
7680
`
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
... .
❑ Non -Layer
; _
❑ Non -Dairy-
Farrow to Wean
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::
::: :::::::::::::::::.:::...............::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
..
Farrow to Feeder
Other
DW
w Farm to Finish
:.. . ::::::.. :. ..
fly Ilesi � n - g a
T a�- �...-.-..--.P...... ':::
7 680
,
Gilts
Boars
::::::::::...::::::::.::::::.:::::::::: ::::::::::::::.
. :Tot[aL SSLW
2 30 4t1D
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I - Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ' ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the com eyanc:e man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b_ If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ) n Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If Fes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard phis storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Ct::�t'w 1 Ghry _fi; v_ 2 sinicture 3 Stnir_hire. 4 sii� Cture z - Stnla hlre. 6
Identifier: .. ............ ------. .... hark ....... -.... ....... _ ......................... ..... ...._ _ ......_..._ ._......._..------......_.....--.............. ..................
Freeboard (inches): .......... _...',r5......... ...................4.0...............

V.b v✓I v2
i Facility Number- 25-42 Date of inspection 9-25-2002
5. Are there any immediate heats 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 yea, and the situation poses an
Immediate public /wealth or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need mamtenanceJimgrovement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelmiprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, ganged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancefunprovement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop" Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Fescue (Hay) Small Grain Overseed
[I Yes NNo
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
[]Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ❑ No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes N No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WCIP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of desigu?
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?
(id discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewhinspecticu with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
EM►140,
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes N No
0 No, violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
❑ Field Copy dual Notes
Lagoon levels adequate.
7. Lagoon #1 -'Tree saplings & broadleaf vegetation removed; grass establishing well. Continue efforts to eliminate further growth if tree
saplings & broadleaf weeds. Lagoon #2 -Broadleaf weeds removed; grass establishing well.
15. Continue efforts to monitor weed growth in all sprayfields. The receiving crops will be reviewed for improvements during the next
inspection to ensure compliance with the General Permit and CAWMP.
11, 18, & 19. Please submit the following records to the DWQ Washington Regional Office for review: IRR-1 & IRR-2 forms, Waste &
Soil Analysis for 2002, and freeboard level records.
Review'erllnspector Name
12'va.inwa�lrns..s.ntnr Cinna4�ira 6 - C ■'� V6^— not^. 1 /. — q — 0 Z

Eno 3oe;ed pease find a cagy of`t ie Caanpeliance Sits Inspe r ian.(as .dewed in Elie DWQ database} cpsi3r Goad at fhe
HNC �^� ilf w8tei �� froraa s ., a a.�-� q>. ,,� i Ad 1(jI7S �:on i.�� 1J17.�.flri '�y �C W ortal.Uff oe_ Z�esBC _ � 8�$
.�'a_� �f.r-�Lc�i^A'� K-.r — �1� ` .� 4- > "�3 'v�si� f'.—��J:1b�-- w'+� '�+•.-. :.. iN "
�►ai�LAL� �1 esd_OCn_ _ S pC g �0 �Y 7i SOII �f'pI�e IaSpCC�OAS.k 'g` '�"-•:: �.:
in general, these insjxzdons included verifying tut (1) the farm has a Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP);
(2) the farm is complying with requirements ofthe State Rules 15 NCAC 2110217, Senate gill 1217, and the Certified Animal
Waste Management Plan; (3) the farm operabm`s waste management system is being operated properly under the direction of a
CertifGed dperaw, (4) the requited records are being kept; and (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or runoff,
Asa reminder, please note the foll owing cmunents, which are conditions of the Certified Animal Waste himiagern ent Plan and
the General Permit; therefore, these items must be implemarted
op The nnaximum waste level in lagaansbAW4gepoods shall not exceed_ that specified in the CAVA P_' At a mimmum,
_ - mum waste level for waste far h%oons/starage ponds mustnot exceed The level that provides adequate storage to
contain 25 year, 24 hour storm event plus an additional foot of structural freeboard
op 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 steal] include the following parameters:
Nitrogen, Pbosphomts, Zinc and Copper.
op Sod analysis is rewired annually. Lime is to be applied to each receiving crop as recommended by the soil analysis.
op The following records are required: oft site solids removal, maintenance, repair, waste/soil analysis and land irrigation
records. These recards should be maintained by the facility owner/manager in chronological and legible form for a
minimum of three years.
op Land application rates shall be in accordance with the CAWMP_ In no case shall land Uplicaaon rates exceed the Plant
A-milabie Nitroeen (P rate for the receivine crap or Tmmh in runoff dLn ing anv given awli`cation.
(p All grassed imtrways shall have a stable oudd with adze capacity to prevent pending or flooding damnaoges. The outlet
can be another vegetated dmaneL an earth &tom, stabilization stnxMre, or other suitable outlets.
(p It is suggested not a regaturmen to kmp.crop yield'mfornrmioln far future use to updatcyqur waste mamagemea plan_
;4: 7:. , You wi]I need threeyears of aopyield dais befibreycxsglam can beitpdaind' '
:• i ' Y.. _-�;"ar' _ - •r ,go-. a .,��,_ =^ir- w ::k- . _ i ✓` :}�.'r!-�; F.�.::�:
- `-� "+.-c.r±.,�;_r:`-'.y:,tixi*.. d'."T .. .� _., _ .:e.. w.,:�".:z -- •�'' .,'�._. ��.3..Y-y,}s..a�'9f',7r �r�-:�:„
.:r�n,: = J !`•- .;.-tic-` •-,�:::._ . � - ._.,� ;k�;� � ." v- J'� is'_ r. ��' +r
ss' ai r;a.�'c.
r. L� For your infctiinaotaon, eery swmc sty fist has a diarherge in fox water �f 9is State /;awe io apply for a Naionel Y
�, n; _ Pnl3 at'D ge S ty 64DES) O&ii& W& Division Wader ty r +e 3aDetsary l; ZDOi:�-=s ;
Thank you for yob assisiamce and cooperation during the inspertioa .If you have any questiaos, please contact meat 252-94&-
6481, M 321 or your Tedmical Specialist.
Cc: —wercr
DBC Files
943 Washington Square Man WastMgan, NC 278M 252-946-6481 (Telephone) 2s2-946-9215 (Fax)

}
Type of Ytsit- Came frit;pection� n RevieNi Q ta9aoR Evaluation -
Reason fir Ytsit ® Routine :o Complalitt� o Folow tip Q Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 7 Z4-2011] Thw: 11:00 am Printed on: 8/3/2001
Facility Number 25 42
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certiried 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: --......
Farm Name: r 51113no
County:y
Owner Name: milli T Hi1L - - --- --
Phone No: Z52_-=,M40J
Mailing Address:- 29.M Tram Road
285M......
Facilit►' Contact: ......,, Tide:. _ .. _ » _ _. ..» ... » Phone No:. .... ._. ..
Onsite Representath,e: ICS,.Il iliiam Hill
Integrator: d C TdlRlaaL 1Eailpl&-
Certified Operator. !W.1liiw&_ ._.......... Ht71 _ ___ _._.
Operator Certification Number.
L.acation of Farm:
[SR1267 just west of Dover
A� i.
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 3S 13 i
41 longitude 77
---------- -- ----- ....... ... ........::::: . .......... :::....-1:--------.-....-,.....--......... .... ..
::::::::::::.::::::::::::::: .: Des'
:::::::::::::::::.::::::: : ::::: .Design::::::: Cnrrept......... :: .:::::• •:::::::::::::::::-........::----------urrepi.:::::::::...-:::::::::..,-.-:-::::::......
:;:::.:::::::::::::::.::::::..:::... -Current ..- .
.......-.....
.........
_:Capacity, Po ulafyvn ::: oilRrv.::::::;: : C.-... acitc Po itlation :::: attle i "': Ca acitv:: Population
Wean to Feeder 7680 800 ❑Layer
Dairy
FC1
❑ Feeder iv Finish ❑ Nan -Layer
Nan-Dain
{ ❑ Farrow to Wean
E ❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other I-
f Cl Farrow- to Finish _• ..:::.::::: ..:.. :....
io—W Design Capacity 7,fi8Q �
❑ Boars
TotaiSSLW, 230,400
Nomaher.ot i:il owns. ;=:;:::': 2 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ElLar►xin Area ❑ Slira. Field Area
>`:Haiding.Pndsl50vd T �
.Noli uid Write Manag
ement t System
Discharges & tream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed. from airy part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is obsen.i4 was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
h- If discharge is ob_wmed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes- notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is obsenvA what is the estiinated flog iu gallrntin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If v es, uotifv D W [ 3) ❑ 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 d Treatment
4. Is storage capacity- (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Struen re 2 Stnicttu e 3 Strocttu)e 4 Structure S StnLaury 6
Identifier:
Freebwud(inches:): _..__� .�9..................... ........ 32............... ...... .....-__ .._......_..._...........

r' F Number. 25-42 hate of Inspection 7-24-2KI I Printed on- EV312001
5. Are Were any date &=ft to the imrie" of rmy of the struct,um observed? (wJ trees, severe er)siM
seepage, etc.)
6. Arc ass o Re are oat p+ropei3y itdd ssod and for managed through a waste managenicM or
closure plan? (Uany of qua 4-6 was answered yes„ and the situation poses an
mzmediou public health oreaviranmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any odthe s"Ctures need ement?
8. Does any part of the waste managemennt system other than waste structures require mamtenancelimpmvement?
9. Do any stuctttres tack adequate, gauged markers with required *maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
'Waste Anlicatian
10. Are there any buffers that need mainteeanoefmprovement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pondmg ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (I -lay) Fescue (Graze) Small Grain
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes R, No
❑Yes ONO
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes 19 No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes X No
14. a) Does the facft, lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes l 1 No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre de(ermination? ❑ Yes 0 No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? El Yes C No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
I & Is there a lam of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have a components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readih• available?
(ie/ Wl]P. checklists, design, maps. etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard. waste anah•sis & soil sample reports)
20. is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback- criteria in effect at the time of design?
1. Did the facility fail to have a activeh- certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge_ freeboard problems, over application)
2 3. Did Reviewer/[nspector fat] to discuss review/hispection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Dyes Z. No
t❑ Yes R, No
❑ Yes g No
❑ Yes 0. No
❑ Yes [K No
1:3 Yes [KNo
Yes aNa
] Yes Z No
LF Yes 9. No
❑ Yes Igo No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ® No
© No viobdions or tieffkmmzm were noted during this visit. You win receive no further correspondence about this wait.
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
7. Lagoon #1 (front) - Broadleaf vegetation & tree sapling should be removed from the lagoon dike wall; braodleaf weeds on inside of dike AJ
wall and outside of south &. southwest side & tree saplings on lower southwest side of dike all. Lagoon -2 (back) - Braodleaf vegetation an
inside of di7:e wall should be removed. Braodleaf vegetation shades oul graa vegetation that should be established per the Operation &
Maintenance Plasm and General Permit.
19. Waste anahrsis 7/12/01, 0.90 lbs./1000 gals. & 1.1 lbs./1000 gals.; Soil analysis 7/17/01, Iime applied & tickets in CAWMP records,
Irrigation records complete with a nitrogeu balance. no overapplication noted_ however window for Fescue is September to May- (Several
Application events noted for Iuh•.)
If you have an}• questions concerning this inspection or your CAWMP, please tali me at 252-946-6481, ext. 321. w
Re. mewerllas or Name -—.:._,._:.: _F... _. , � -_ ___.-�----RIP
t:,...r,,,,,,.:__-::.:.,._:.:.,-;: �-_=�--=� r• � —:� r��i�- _-__^ � - � _T .
pest Daphae �uiiosnm ._
-3-ot
Re►•iewerlinspector Signatu l n�. Date: �

05103101 Confinued�
F aeality Number: 75-42J Bate of inspection 7-24-2if01 Printed on: M2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the dement bu&lmg to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge allot below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no atgitaofion?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposal of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind dry 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 g 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 permanenthemporany cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No

[Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit Q Routine 0 Complaint Q Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of visit: 1113t]IZO(30 Time- 17:tYU Printed on: 121412000
25 42
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: C dar.SUringF.k.A.t:M......................................................................... . ........ County: CrAy �.............................................. !s 0?.......
Owner Name: WA4iArl A.. ............................ Hill ............................................................... Phone No: �5�-��I-��14.�1Cax�.---.-----••--- ....................
FacilityContact: ..............................................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: � .Tx$lul.�iQ fll ........................................................................ T g.m.&RAlM.......................... ......... 285A5 .............
Onsite Representative: l21!illljsm..Oil!!JAAaAC.HjJJ........................................................ Integrator:J..CJ JyArid.k:ArMN..........................-----...--•----•-..
Certified Opera tor:.WjJJiam.................................. klild............ ......................................... Operator Certification Number:d.9:I.6S......... .....................
Location of Farm:
R1267 just west of Dover
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 13 41 Longitude
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes. notify ❑WQ)
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
❑ Yes ® No
Structure S Structure 6
Identifier: .........................................................
Freeboard (inches): 40 38
e inn

5100 Continued an back
Facility Number: 25-42 Date of Inspection 1113412a0U Printed on: 12/4/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
12. Crop type Bermuda Small Grain
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?
❑ Yes
® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
®No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
®No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
®No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
®No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
®No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
®No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
Rio violations=or deficiencies -were "noted "during this Visit:: You will -receive no further
.. curresnondenee about this.visit.. I • • . • • • . • • • • • ... . .
IReviewer/Inspector Name Carl Dunn Entered by Ann Tyndall ` - ^

L Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date_ _ . 5/001
Facility Number: 25-42 ❑ate of lnspection 11/30/2000 Printed on. 12/4/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atior below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ®No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
J
.smn

® Division of Water Quality
Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation _ _ -
�..-
Q Other Agency - -
-:
Type of Visit M Compliance Inspection Cf Operation Review 3 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine D Complaint ❑ Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Et
Facility Number 4 Z Date: of VisiI: f1-3�7- 4t% Time: 1?7r JJ Printrd on: 7/21/2000
�
d Not Operational Q Below Threshold
®"Permitted J9 Certified © Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .................
Farm Name: 6Z4........5 ..............Var County .......�•-",v................ `...............
V'j)�ot.. ll .l
OwnerName: -- ...---•----...-••••-••--••.............................................................. Phone No: ---------------------------- -------....----------------- ---
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone No:
Mailing Integrator:...... �
Address:.............................................}......................................................... .. .....................................................................
............:..................................................
Onsite Representative: , �.. I.. �M� � 1� . �... LL {{ �.......................................
............ ...i. I.� ►�''. .
. Operator Certification Number:. Certified Opera#or:........ .. ................� 4r T
Loeation'of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �' �� ��� Longitude
:F . ..... Desi p Current Design Current Desiign LtirirGnt
_:
-tanotCsofPoulaonaeCa ac._ Po uiacapacity Po lion
Wean to Feeder 7490 FLayer ❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish n-Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder El other
Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
Gilts
Boars Total SSLW
.Ni itber.otLttigvtiir� ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lag"an Area ❑ Spray Field Area
:_M.• ..
r. raps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
• - : � PaudR I Solid T
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 'A No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a- If discharge is ohserred, was the conveyance man-made`? ❑ Yes ❑ No
h. if discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State`' (If yes, notify ❑WQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observcd, what is the estimated flaw in gal/min?
d, Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify ❑WQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes MNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes 13 No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes *o
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:..................................................................
Freehoard (inches):
i'
SIUO Continued on hack

Facility Number: Z Z Date of inspection Printed on: 7/21/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ANo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes UNo
(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 J 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 Pending ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes 5d No
12. Crop type S6
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes D,No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land applica(ion? ❑ Yes VINO
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 [ANo
lb. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes EgNo
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes [A No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes MNo
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes P�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 Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'? ❑ Yes No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes 09No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes 19 No
.: �'Vc� •yiol��iQris or- d�fieie� dtrrfng {hjs:�is�ti • Yv� wi��-cee�iye �!4 iurt�t�r • : • .
'�•-.aries ��ence:a�aut:thts visit_-.....- - .-..--.-_-.- -...- - . .,- ---.- .--.- - . - - -.:•. . :•.•
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawhip of facility better explain situations. (use additional as nec J.p - - essary):
rz
Reviewer/Inspector Name �pir �. ❑1� n!j R..s .
..
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: $/00

Facility Number: �5 Date of inspection i{J-30-00 Printed on: 7/21/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge Wor below ❑ 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 RNo
28, Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes UNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? El Yes Rj 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 R No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes UNo
32, Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
,&I
5100

13 Registered © Certified Applied for Permit [3 Permitted 0 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name:..................... ............ .......---............ Count
Owner Name. �'"' `^ + Phone No:
Facility Contact: W'....................... Title: Phone No: • ..
MailingAddress:.............................................................................................................................................
OnsiteRepresentative: ......... - °`1.- .0 .t`r Integrator:... --C.. �'�a�'°'
. ...........................................
Certified Operator: ...... ............................... ................. ............ ....................... ..... Operator Certification Number ......................... ..............
Location of Farm:
Latitude =" =' ="
Design Current
5xvine. Capacity Population.
Wean to Feeder
"]G o
4 WO
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Longitude
Design Current Design. Current.- s
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population;,,
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer 1 10 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Totat SSLW , :
Number:of'Lagoons molding Ponds 2 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Na Liquid Waste Management System '
Genera I
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes H No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 19 No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray FieId ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes H No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
S. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes 18 No
maintenance/improvement?
G. 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 t9 No
7/25/97 Continued on back

Facility Number: 25
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
$ No
Sty res (I,aeoons.Holdine Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.3
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
IN No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (ft): .................-.
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
1KNo
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
8No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenancetimprovement?
❑ Yes
No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
►® No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
RLNo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ) .
15. Crop type ............................ _..................................................................................... --................... ........ ------...................... -...... -......................
......... ..........
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
®No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
(q No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
M No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
0,No
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
9 Yes
❑ No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Q&
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
IN No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0• No.vielatitinsor deFicieitcies:were nuted�dutt:ing this:visit:- You:wU i &ei i'v`ino-f&iher : -
: correspyndebee aihouf this: visit::. - ..
22. NQtk 4,,;� f'cvo-k i r-c��.,ilor. fel_n-- A5 . PAO 1 �r r2CD 114S ,l"t't.1, P_
A> 2-1 90 f �, N' aE . -r�, S
V�Rh rL4� occc r "' I k ire.J C/ rv_c d,
Sk�ti bL w�- i>AV •.��.hes
�57 00-k a New W"'lc
i 5 JJ f•1C�rit.7 QvCr !c�„�fp 1,cJ+jo^ q
^Lea4v
7/25/97
.. :. .. ..... .....:KY.:. yyy�, �q
vt w dins actor Name y ..:F.::: �.........._ 4;:...':q...
Re e e p s r .. s: e az .,;;
.:-.... ...--...- ::...� . -. - .- .:,--... ;. a:':: ; ..:," ,ice'
ReviewerllnspectorSignature: ; t,:— Daie: 10-7--41�

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Washington Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr,, Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
April29, 1997
Mr. William J. Hill
Mr. James Scott Hill
Route 1, Box 265
Deep Run, NC 28525
SUBJECT: Operation Review Summary
Cedar Springs Farm
Facility No.25-42
Craven County
Dear Gentlemen:
AIFIFAA
Aj 4 r**A
E>EHNR
Division of Soil & Water Conservation
wASN1NGTON OFFICE
APR 3 o 1997
D� E IfA.
On April 14, an Operation Review was conducted of Cedar Springs Farm, facility no.
25-42. This Review, undertaken in accordance with G.S. 143-215.10D, is one of two
visits scheduled for all registered livestock operations during the 1997 calendar year.
The Division of Water Quality will conduct a second site inspection.
During the Review, it was determined that waste was not being discharged to the
waters of the State, and the animal waste collection, treatment, storage and disposal
systems were maintained and operated under the responsible charge of a certified
operator. A copy of the completed review form is enclosed for your information. The
following observances, questions, and management deficiencies were discovered and
noted for corrective action or response:
• The lagoon 2 dike walls were noted for bare spots so please continue to work
at establishing vegetation in these areas.
• The following required records or documents are to be readily available at the
site for review: Hazard Classifications for all structures - please contact the
technical specialist who designed your lagoons to obtain a copy of this
document; Standard #633 Required Specifications - please have these included
in your revised Waste Utilization Plan (WUP).
• This was not required at the time of the Review but in preparation for your
farm's general permit, you will need to secure and provide the following
documents to the Division of Water Quality at some future date: Site Evaluation
[NRCS NC-CPA-17]; and the odor, insect and mortality checklists. You should
be able to secure these from your technical specialist.
943 Washington Square Mail, Washington, North Carolina 27889 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action i mpfoyer

Mr. William J. Hill
Mr. James Scott Hill
April 29, 1997
Page 2
As requested, Cedar Springs Farm #1, facility no. 25-42, and Cedar Springs Farm #2,
facility 25-43, were combined into one operation on the state database which is now
Cedar Springs Farm, facility no. 25-42. When your technical specialist, Andy Metts,
revises your Waste Utilization Plan to include the additional acreage, please have Mr.
Metts revise your certification form for facility no. 25-42 to reflect one operation by
combining the herd numbers, etc. from both sites.
The Division of Soil and Water Conservation appreciates your cooperation with this
Operation Review. Please do not hesitate to call Scott Jones or me at 919/946-6481 if
you have any questions, concerns or need additional information.
Sincerely,
?a-+ -flM7Fe4-'
Pat Hooper
Environmental Engineer I
cc: Craven Soil and Water Conservation District
Carroll Pierce, ❑SWC Technical Services Chief
Division of Water Quality - WaRQ
❑SWC WaRQ Files

D5 W CG C pe ro-4+on k ev;e-w
19 Routine p t.omptaint p ronow-up of uwy inspection p roaow-up of uawi;- review p Viner
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Q 'a
Farm Status: Certified
❑ eludes v ad rosessin -
r-
Farm Name: Cedar.Sprangs.Farm...................... County: Craven WARO
Owner Name: 1Yilliam.J....................... HUL............--.......—. ......................................... Phone Na: 14-5- ..... ...........
Mailing Address: R1.1.Bjux.265 .......................................................................................... D=I1Rum.YC................. ....................................... Wzs.. .........
Onsite Representative:dames..Scolt.Hiil.... ................ -....... ............... -.- ........ ............... Integrator: J.C..Howard.............. .................... .............. - ......
....
Certified Operator. William.,I,............................ Hill. ............ ....................... ............ Operator Certification Number: i9.?ba.............................
Location of Farm:
u
Latitude ©� ©°41 Longitude 0 ° �«
In Not Operational Date Last Operated: - ......... ........... -...................... ................... ........................................ -....... ...................... ..........
.........
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? p Yes ® No
2. Is anv discharge observed from any part of the operation?
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water' (Ifves. notify DWO)
c. if discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gaiimin'?
d. Does discharge bypass a Iagoon 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 anv pan of the waste management system (other than lagoons/hoiding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
© Yes ® No
[]Yes H No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® INC
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No

6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge (if inspection after 1 /1 /97)?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is structural freeboard less than adequate?
Freeboard (€t): Lagoon 1 Lagoon 2 Lagoon 3
.....-.... G.inches---....... .......... 3fl.inches.......... ...............................
10. Is seepage observed from any ofthe structures?
i 1. 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 adquate markers to identify start and stop pumping levels?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .............. Corital.$era.ud&j2rass..... ........ ..5[nail .�rraSxt (13 t�at,�axley.,.Milo>--
16. Do the active crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the cover crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available irrigation equipment?
For Certified Facilities Only
20. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
21. Does the facility fail to comply with the Animal Waste Management Plan in any way?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
23. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
24. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with owner or operator in charge?
Asa:dl aivi :.'i3i1`fci}i = :iaiet4ex:e is:sdtiaiioiis=: rise=idd�bvfrak es as=rime's
Cedar Springs Farm combmes Cedar Springs Farms #1 &2 under 25-42
James Scott Hill #19764 is hack=up"operator `max==`'
Lagoon Yis closest to-fai-rn entrance
12. Need to vegetate bare spots on Lagoon 2 embankment
Mr. Hill is working with Technical Specialist to have the WUP revised to include additional acreage
No'subsurfaceiirainage on -site according to Mr. HW
p Yes N No
p Yes M No
❑ Yes ® No
13 Yes ® No
Lagoon 4
13 Yes ®No
p Yes ® No
[]Yes N No
Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes Cl No
p Yes ® No
p Yes N No
pYes ®No
p Yes ® No
p Yes N No
p Yes ® No
p Yes H No
Yes ® No
Reviewer/Inspector Name :Pat oop 777
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:?at Date:

=�t
w-a
a..
DSWC Animal Feedlot Operation Review Y:
'DW 1 Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
w: »71
® Routine Q Com laint Q F ollow-u p of IM- ins ection 0 F ollo%v-u of DSi' C review Q Other
Date of Inspt-Ttion -f
LFacilitv ltiurnher
rime of Inspection I PO 24 hr. (hh:mm)
"Total Time fin fraction of'hours
Farm Status: ❑ Registered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:l?5 for l hr IS min)) Spent on Review , r
❑ Certified ❑ Permitted Or Inspection (includes travel and processing)
0 hot 0 ►erational Date bastOperated: ... . ..................... ............... ........................ ........ _ ........ ................... .....................................
Farm Name: Lc t .5 .ti S r.'^ CvuntF: _
Owner ltiast�c: �a�i��... N{ 1 1 Phone No:......? .... .�'�1 � 7 �G% 2 '
......................................................................................................................... ................ fi ................
Facility Contact: ....-a I ,,, ..... . Title: ............................... PhoneNo:..................................................... ... flailing Address: ............ ..........................
Onsite Representative: ......
an� � f 1 Integrator-......
Certified Operator: ........t'r�!l�.liti'^........... ?.'. �............... .. Operator Certification Number:
Location of farm:
Latitude Longitude �• �� C�.�
Type of Operation
Swine
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population.
��g O ❑ Layer I JE1 Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I ❑ Non -Dairy
IM Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
illninber of Lagoans`I Holding Ponds
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
1 is any discharge Observed from any part of the operation'?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a- €€ discliar_,e is observed, was the conveyance man-made'?
b. if discharge is obsen•ed, did it reach Surfcace Water:' (If yes, notify, DWQ)
c. If discharge is ifter►�ed. what is the estimated flaw in gaUrnin"
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system" (If yes, notify ❑WQ)
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'?
]. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
4130197 .
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ Yes
$No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
JdNo
❑ Yes
ONO
❑ Yes
)(No
Continued
on hark

Facility Number: 17-9 — 42
5. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes X No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lag oo its andlor IIolding Pon ds1
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
1=reeboard (ft): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
2.75 2
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12, Do any of the structures need mainteriancelimprovement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered }-es, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
I1 Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes %No
❑ Yes 9 No
❑ Yes XNo
Structure i Structure G
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(if in excess of WIMP, or runoff enteri�,�..G
waters of the State, notify DWQ)
L�
15. Crop type ............. .SJ!?s'^•`•. °'.........................---..................................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AW T)?
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 reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
For Certified Facilities Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23, Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
Reviewer/Inspector Name
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes EdNo
❑ Yes ;9 No
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes P(No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes IoNo
❑ Yes Wo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes X-No
Cl Yes 19No
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes XINa
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: LIS-- 97
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Asses.sme►►t Unit 4/30/97