310435_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
.,
Department of Environmental Quai

llivisloiirof:Wate Resou
k,
Type of Visit: (DTompliance Inspection Q Operation Review ❑ Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: t Routinc ❑ Complaint ❑ Follow-up ❑ Referral ❑ Emergency ❑ Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: O "] Departure Time: ( 7 County: Region:
Farm Name: ��} ��[{'1�, /fpW�..�� Owner Email:
Owner Name: Gam. �S t go" C ' Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: /'eu!5 & e{Jarw Title:
'e2oJn mac" Phone:
Onsite Representative: 5'oY-4e� Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number: /p ' 73
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Design Current
Des[gn
Current
Designo urrent,
Swine
Capacity Yop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle
Capacity Pop,
�,,,iuitenn.,, uniu�,
Wean to Finish
)airy Cow
Wean to Feeder
airy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
❑ P,ault
Ca aci
Pop.
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
ILayers
I
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
I
Pullets
113eef Brood Cow
Turkeys
1
Other
Turkey Pouets
Other.
other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other: _
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (]ryes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
[-]Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[]Yes
No
❑NA
[]NE
❑Yes
No
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
SkNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

F Facili Number; - pate of ins ection: --►
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. 1s storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? [] Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 43 6-;-11
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): / ,.sue
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes Callo
[] NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes D4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes W[ No
❑ NA
❑ N1
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [&No
NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes IQ No
❑ NA
[] NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
1 l . Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ 1leavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): 1�i]crye���i!'S' �-•—r ...
_,
13. Soil `fype(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes [Z No ❑ NA 0 NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? 0 Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
®' No
[] NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
[:]Yes
IR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[25.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? Ifyes, check
❑ Yes
[Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ENo
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis 0 Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes Q No
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 54 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: mInspection: I ]
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 0�g-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a PDA for sludge Ievels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ®No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes & No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose oI'dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
1�"o
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
E�JNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
Fg] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
Cj�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other;
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP7
❑ Yes
5' No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[}�,I No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
0 Yes
5LNo
[] NA
[] NE
Cottiintents refer`ty uesiion # Explain: ,IYES'answers and/or, an addltional'rerommendations'or-iin .other.,comments.!':;!:
( q �,l, . p. y, Y Y
Pi `7 •1 'i'I":+.!]^11 I ii': '•.1, s, 4.�hE"N�ri .1s .. :,I�• i. :.r.,. s .l, .Sf.'nl':' •' I :�!.:':'':FI;: ,,,;:: li;'l"I I Il,�l::;s41i!!i`::•:!;, fEi:; -i.
Use,drawin s:of ficility;.to;better ex Esin,situations (use.addit�onal ages;as,neeessa .. ,. ; ,i, .71� s,l� l.11 ,. ,:.ill ; ,, ,:i+,I!I ? :�+.:1 , rs „i i�l•I ii:.
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/inspector Signatui
Page 3 of 3
Phone: s�3 —C31
Date:m
21412015

�W WZW
Type of Visit: C)rComp once Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: outine C) Complaint Q Follow-up 0 Referral Q Emergency Q Other 0 Denied Access !I
Date of Visit: 130rrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: vim- �} 3 ,2 t� Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number: %
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current
Design
Current
Dcsign Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pap.
Wean to Finish
Layer
I
Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
I I
Calf
Feeder to Finish
174 4
17,40
Dai Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D Foult .
@a acit
P,v P.
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other: _
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c, What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
[:]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
❑No
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
D.Ncr
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
["-iq'o
[DNA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: t 0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc,)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes CZ/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ❑--NN ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No D NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ff No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need D Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crap Window D Evidence of Wind Drill ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes o
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ YesrVN,0o
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes ❑
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
ENE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
[] Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
EIN E
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? Ii'yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
6 NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Surve
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
E
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
Page 2 of 3 21412075 Continued

FaciIi Number: jDate of Inspection: 73 P
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA u N
25. is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a PDA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? [:]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No �NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately,
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tiie drains exist at the facility? Ifyes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [ (No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
do ❑ NA ❑ NE
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
No [DNA ❑ NE
M
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:'Date: (0 z 20 IL5—
Page 3 of 3 2/4614

Type of Visit: ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: QY Rout€ne 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: a. County: a +iln Region:
Farm Name: L K-)w 0' ' :*� a Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Title:
Certified Operator: L Qier � 0 . A�,1a1�
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Phone:
Integrator: `
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
]Non -Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Daia Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Dr. P,oultr.
Ca acit
Po
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Dther
Turkey Poults
Dther
Other
D€scharp-es and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes �Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes [:]No
[:]Yes e No
❑ Yes [�fNo
❑ NA ❑ NB
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page I of 3 2141201I Continued

F9cilit Number: - � Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 7No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: -4.}��
Spillway?:
Designed Frceboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): —�
5. Are there any inunediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes R1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
CZ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an Immediate public health or environmental
threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
[TNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
;Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
A No
[DNA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved
Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
7] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Rertuired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
j"No
❑ NA
NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
7o
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps [] Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 4PINo
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? I . ❑ Yes �No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 1 'Z:1- 21412011 Continued

. FUeili • Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes Vf No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below,
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑Yes
ZNo
[3 NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
Qf No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
Pn No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes JZNo ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes Fj No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes V1No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes Z No
❑ Yes Zj No
Cl Yes Zf No
❑NA ❑NE
[]NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question 0): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.. .
Ilse drawings of.facili to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name: LhS Y� ® Phone: )L-1-71- �7
Reviewerllnspector Signature: r Date:�� 1�
Page 3 of 3 21412011

Type of Visit: Acompliance Inspection Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: outine 0 Complaint Q Follow-up Q Referral Q Emer enc 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: ® County: Region:
Farm Name:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Onsite Representative:—Louts0'owa� Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design
Current
Design . Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
I
ILayer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
I
JNon-Layer
I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D • P.oultr•
Ca aci
I'o P.
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
OtherI
ITurkeyPoults
IL[2t—herI
10ther
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other: _
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes �`"'L No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[] Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes f
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 nj3 21412011 Continued

F clli Vumber: - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
NE
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): , eJ
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
(] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
Y�
6. Are there structures on -site which are not property addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
K
No
❑ NA
❑NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
[] NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement`?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
Linlk 12. Crap Types}: �6 6i�) ❑� ag, po �ifm Ccw 69�/V
13, Soil Type(s). STnp/ •�
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA [] NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes o [DNA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes kN0o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUF ❑Checklists [] Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements E] Other.
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes JkNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Q Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard E] Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ jbl ste Transfers E] Weather Code
Q Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield [] 120 Minute Inspections 0 Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections Stud a Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. 1f selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

F'acili ;Number: 3 1. - Date of Inspection: �[
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check Yes ❑ No [DNA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
§4
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
36
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately,
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
No
4
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Revicwcr/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency`?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer.to question:#}::Explain;any:YES,answerslandlor any edditignal.iecvmtnendatiunsyur any: gthm.comments:. a:z ;b F
�. .. �..
w. AL
Logi/v 3 .
No WiNTE` ?1L',KL 'wc)
. No 9C� 1 C] S 01�
c��t.uG� Vj
G o� A 5 Na-U»U ( P r u UT i w� (Z� CC �y
�
t �, LD
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
21412011

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number ©- © a Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: 0.1compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review p Structure Evaluation a Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: outine Q Complaint Q Follow-up Q Referral a Emergency Q Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit:UM]Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: f Region:
Farm Name: ry-ki s Owner Email:
Owner Name: }(A 15 �-�[ `� �1{� _� Phone: ZA�) Q9 (0_ (Ss� &t-tt_
Mailing Address: n
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
_L4?!AI -!> mow'��
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator:
91
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -La er
Pullets
Pouets
Design Current
Discharges and Stream Im acts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dg Cow
,Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
[:]Yes j;dNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: j - Ll Date of Inspection: ISM 9777
Waste Collecilon & Treatment
4. 1s storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S Structure 6
Identifier: 1'960o)y
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): �, S
Observed Freeboard (in):
S. Arc there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA �] NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes $No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs.
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window
12. Crop Typc(s);
13. Soil Type(s): %►�(�1�5 7ir7
❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
CP P&Act! M1" 7TCP
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20, Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ YestNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
Q WUP []Checklists Q Design 0 Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑ Other;
21, Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Waste Application El Weekly Freeboard Q Waste Analysis Q Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Trans crs ❑ Weather Code
[] Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield Q 120 Minute Inspections 0 Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections 0 Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes tN
NA ❑ NE
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yeso ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: 3-L4 3 5 Date of in eetion: $
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a PDA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes �4
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
[:]Yes ❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
Other Issues
�[
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
T
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern`?
❑ Yes ] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
�C
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes No
r] NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tilt drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
�[
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE.
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comrrtepts;(refer.to.ques(ion ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommertdations;or3any'other4corpmen.h
U`se:drawIngs of facility tv hettcreteplaln situations (use additional pages as necessary): ; ; ;_ ;F �. ;: t , . i
V 14('- Sol L d �E'J 3 13) 1 1 15 C-aQ- 90 - T A1-'C ON671466Z TA/K?LE Fa ?- 11, 1
1-3 )11 q
glal►o
5), q) 10
Reviewer/Inspector Name: 6 R l`r� S' Phone: Clio- �(p--:)d1
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: _ Date: `J o` 41 i
Page 3 of 3 21412011

Division of Water Quality
.Facility Number , � I H=_ Division of Soiland Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit X Compliance Inspection a Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 30 Routine 0 Complaint n Follow up 0 Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: d� (Departure Time: County: N Region:
Farm Name: S �� �1�"-ice OL Owner Email:
w1gK3- 9[�o�a Exr►
Owner Name: _ t S �� � Phone: lad 9&3-a89-145$
Mailing Address: r �F1t�EC7A 1�-' 'KeN1416UILLE NC___DR399
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: IIIL I Integrator:
15 ��0
Certified Operator: Operator
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wcan to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phone No:
Certification Number: 6�
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = 0 0 ` Longitude: = ° = g
Resign Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La er I I =dl
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Puults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Daia Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beel' Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: d1
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2, Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes El No El NA El NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes J�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes a ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facll:4,Number. 31 -t,IS S Date of Inspection S
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a, if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: GGR
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): S
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which arc not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
Cl Yes ' No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑.NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste.AlRAlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/i m pro v ement'!
❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
1 l . Is there evidence of incorrect application? 1 f yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) 1[.uaC_ 1V) i C-
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes %No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes �6 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16, Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
[3NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yeslo
o
El
El NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment`?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments [refer.: to.questinn #}: Explain any:YES. answers aitdltr"any recbinmeiidtinns ot...`an";oilier rmments:` �5.=.;; �. 5-•r..':
..: :: ..: :.::. :...: ... s. .. .. i'v .: a< <..;„ :!i.'.: .. ..:a: ..:R....,:. •I:i: 2..s;;:}._,r"u'.�:y=- .[f1..r.'A;� .n.z..:
Ilse drawl n �s; of facilit to better,ex lain situations.. use additional a es;as necessar -P
6 Y P � 3 LP g Y}���. - xis ���a�py� 33
x• ��t iw� =.5 :1W- !i� s. �p � ..dE s.qi >>s f.Wi�,
A.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
ls:,
��'•-
(nip 04,Phone:
AIN
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — 35Date of Inspection„
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP 0 Checklists ❑ Design [] Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[l Waste Application El Weekly Freeboard Cl Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑,Vaste Transfers 0>1 nual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield 0 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections 0 Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25, Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28, Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
34. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
CAVDI7F wCAP 1awr-� wRd7TGiv r4ar6 S Att> F6SCJ,&G
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes �iNo
❑ yesNo
❑Yes [I No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
[I NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ONE
El NA ❑NE
'qNA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
;q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
V,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a 1 9 S (_(A�°t-? T
CA 9NIA T�C-W Sul_ A"o�l
w•A-
ow/10 9"4
BOO 1.9
111D50 3
GSC-C r� i HD l
�0 -1-09 VJQOtk614
of to9 Sol L �..Ft:W--r V Ccce s'
12128104

Type of Visit Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for VisitRoutine Q Complaint Q Follow up a Referral ❑ Emergency ❑ Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 1000 Departure'Time: County: )�QAI Region:
Farm Name: Le. ) .li �a��� m- Owner Email:
t! bLILI Phone: S T'1� W
Owner Name: nn �� r�
Mailing Address: 1W GN S 1 LLE C. � 5 �7L)� `
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: �� C Lpw/ lay _ I Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = e 0 ` = `f Longitude: 0 0 0 6 Q
Design
ice'..
Current
Ueslgn Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity
>E'�npula ion
Wct Pouitry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La er
❑Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
(j
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
El D Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
ElNon-Dai
❑ Farrow to Finish
La ers
El Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑Non -Layers
El Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
Turkeys
❑then
Turkey Pouets
Other
Numiser of Structures:
❑ ❑ther
Discharges &Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
71
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
kNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12128104
Continued

F'acllity Number: 3 Date of Inspection !]q
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? []Yes []No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: _14noc�Kl _
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of'the structures observed? ❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improverent?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement'?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application'? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
kNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Pending ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate
Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ElApplication
Outside of Area
fW
12. Crop type(s) SCt�F_ P CLL. 1 ' , i LLE7 T
f- C['�
13. Soil type(s) j:_a(L4_STrQA_1
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
10No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA [I NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment'?
❑ Yes
.XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Tf4T-E °iS;,":�-.. ■.i:5 µD.Y, �..'e� :�': ,.�y 1.Si:. %uiAA1 ..k.S u"S irR� TT.-.r.3�:T�".5• is i �. 5r '6.iP .iSk'Rl+- •P%.jw:3.'�36& .�NM y,{
y ,omments (retertto�questioon-I : �Expluin unylylE � veers ttdln any re nmme�ndattinits or any other comments.
Use drawings al'tfaycility to hetter explairijsituations: (use additionat pages as,necessarv}�
�$ �: x�.ZTu . 'i+': §4,i "m4n.?4. tv
]UC? .�
8jal �0Q6
Reviewer/inspector Name ��. - _ - - - Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: - Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: '31 Date of Inspection
Rectuired
Records & Documents
19.
Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check
❑ Yes
*Io
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropiiate box. El WUp El Checklists 0 Design 0 Maps ❑Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
0 Waste Application [] jyeekly Etee aard 0 Waste Analysis 0 Soil Analysis ❑ V�aste Transfers
❑)&ual Certification
0 Rainfall ElStocking ❑ 9�op Yield 0 120 Minute inspections ❑ Monthly and 1"
Rain Inspections []
Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
[:]Yes
)4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
NrNo
❑ NA
Cl NE
26,
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
tKNA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
-[�-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
4.No
❑ NA
Cl NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
f-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
o
1I
El
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
.
"'did"" 0Cdmmi 6i s and/"r.I)ruw11 s:+ .w f.L,,; s ., 7 t ' r .:, 7777
MZ
0p-TC__ lA] Lk�) r 4 4Nf.7 wRA rrFN MUTE S CAN 03L! LAA/
&V'-1- Of 'dal C]�e- G��n �' �u; �� ��.oC�-DS - �1C❑ �1 m5
D1 c PIGTIVe_
r NIA 1 n! 07 f3oo lC
er
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit QD Compliance Inspection 4 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit )� Routine Q Complaint d Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: } j
Owner Name: L4�tw S,
Mailing Address: _
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: —
Back-up Operator: _
Title:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [= n = i ❑ is Longitude: = e =1 ❑ 1t
Design Current
Uesign Current
Dcsign Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry Eapity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
Laver
❑ Dairycow
❑ Wean to Feeder
Non -La er I I
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
❑ Daia Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dr y Poultry
El Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
Layers
El Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
NEl on -Lay
Non -La ers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Doars
Pullets
El Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
❑ Turke Puults
❑ Other I
Q_0ther
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[ kNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
C�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge'?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: L14C%WN
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 44 L4
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes [XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes OfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? 97
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below, ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
9�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
1� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
1�1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application'!
❑ Yes
9�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):... .
F # 14GAL
iquG A41VNk4L 5 i OUCI A16 __ QuT to/
ReviewerllnspectorName
/1f s �� Phone: 91C� 9C� "+39�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: O f 93j10S
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number; ?� Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Pen -nit readily available? ❑ Yes JkNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available7 if yes, check ❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall 0 Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
�NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30,
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
['No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
LL
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12129104

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number .�Jr Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit /11 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: [ D Arrival Time: 'pD Departure Time: �Dunty:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: _- L-a S W a /9 Phone: _
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 6AO= Title:
Onsite Representative: N��
Certified Operator: ,O
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
0 1)
Integrator:
�G= _ Region:
Phone No:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Longitude: 0 e 0 I =
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Fecdcr to Finish
11 Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Puuets
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
7r,
Design Current .
Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifej
❑
Da Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocket
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cowl
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State`? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑NA
❑NE
[:1 Yes El No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & 'treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ElNA ❑ NE
a, If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 5�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc,)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environme tal threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes ANo
❑ NA
❑ N.E.
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
[] Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes P1,
No ElNA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ElNA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ElHydraulic Overload ElFrozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop W' dow ❑ Evidence o Wind Drill ❑ Application Outside or�44-7_t5-
13.
12. Crop type(s) I ,_44 j 14(��CRI55 I . Ar rue
Soil type(s) F� l"5=/,/
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes /�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17, Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application" ❑ Yes ym No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? El Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YF,S answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as neces'sary��
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YF,S answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as neces'sary��
Reviewer/Inspector Name PhAA Phone: /� � 1�3� 7�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 Continued

facility Plumber: — Date of Inspection/ /I
Re
uired Records & Documents
19.
Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
Cl NA
❑ NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
X
❑ NA
❑ NE
ElEl❑ Design ❑Maps ❑ Qtherthe appropirate box. WUP Checklists
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
R(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I"
Rain Inspections ❑
Weather Cade
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
/f
0 NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
I
I� NA
`❑
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
,.❑_JNo
I� No
NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ NoZ�INA
❑ NE
Other Issues
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
, �(
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
I
32,
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
r�
ne A/r)
12128104

Type of Visit t9 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: �.. {J� Arrival Time: ; Departure Time: County: �PLa� Region:
Farm Name: qge Owner Email:
Owner Name: Z YZ6 D Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: ____ _Z- 041e�
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
r
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = O = I =Ig Longitude: = 0 = j 0
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine CapaLity Population
Wet Pauitry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
IQ Layer
❑ DairyCow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
❑ DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
❑ DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
pry Poultry
❑ D Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non-Daity
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ La ers
El Beef Stocker
Non -Layers
❑ Gifts
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Soars
Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turkey Poults
Other
Number of Structures:
Disc. homes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached Waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
[—]Yes
[:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2, Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
121281104
Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4• is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
❑ Yes XNO
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
El NA ❑NE
Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes f No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
I
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an Immediate public health
or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit'?
❑ Yes
No
ElNA
ElNE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
I
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require El Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? I
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 1 Q lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable C,fop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outsidepf Area
12. Crop types)
13. Soil type(s) IV.
car
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
16, Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
rr�. No El NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
El yes
�J No ❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
[IYes
VNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other cum eats.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):.. .
Reviewer/Inspector Name i Phone: a�
Reviewer/inspector Signature: pate:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Re aired Records& Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes Xo
ElNA
ElNE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ElChecklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes No
ElNA
ElNE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V
Rain Inspections ❑
Weather
Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes 9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes ❑ NoleNA
❑ NE
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit'?
ElYes XNo
El NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit'?
El Yes X
El NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes 7fNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (ALAI) certification?
❑ Yes ❑ No
;ZNA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
I
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 Qj3 12129104

4
L
N
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine Q Complaint ❑ Follow up Q Referral 0 Emergency
Date of Visit: 1&12a d Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: 4 Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: _Z_az-5 _ A g2 &0_
Certified Operator:
Back —tip Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Q Technical Assistance
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Phone No:
of
Integrator: 6K"__aS
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Region: "0
Latitude: =0 = t Longitude: = 0 0 1 = "
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Opacity Population
❑ La cr
f ❑ Non -La el
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifei
❑
D Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocket
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
e. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ N❑ ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
J6 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

h
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus stonn storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes PdNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) 04
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify OWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes [XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
S. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ;lNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes I
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA El NE
maintenance/improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes /0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[:]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)62:�,_q7-4 ■1 rile & Rt__�6 rolgoj
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination',[]
Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
)ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
e No
❑ NA
❑ NE
.r
J6 ylrw -�aau­
Reviewer/inspector Name C- - -` - — ,. f,. F . VVIWT4:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — date of Inspection
Required_ Records_& Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ WLFP El Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑ ether
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
;tNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
J� NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
•••�No
Cl NA
❑ NE
El Yes
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

W A jE iahael F. Easley, Governor
OHO RQGL.FVED William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
F MAY 2 Q ? l� h Ca Iina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r Alan W. Klimek, P. E., Director
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
fa9a) "C M.v. �, .. , .... ,
May 28, 2004
Louis Howard
Louis Howard Farm
715 Sarecta Road
Kenansville, NC 28349
Subject: Certificate of Coverage No. AWS310435
Louis Howard Farm
Swine Waste Collection, Treatment, Storage
and Application System
Duplin County
Dear Mr. Howard:
In accordance with your Change of Ownership notification received on April 28, 2004 we are hereby
forwarding to you this Certificate of Coverage (COC) issued to Louis Howard, authorizing the operation
of the subject animal waste collection, treatment, storage and land application system in accordance with
General Permit AW G 100000.
This approval shall consist of the operation of this system including, but not limited to, the management
of animal waste from the Louis Howard Farm, located in Duplin County, with an animal capacity of no
greater than an annual average of 1760 Feeder to Finish swine and the application to land as specified in
the facility's Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP). If this is a Farrow to Wean or
Farrow to Feeder operation, there may also be one boar for each 15 sows. Where boars are unneccessary,
they may be replaced by an equivalent number of sows. Any of the sows may be replaced by gilts at a
rate of 4 gilts for every 3 sows
The COC shall be effective from the date of issuance until October 1, 2004, and shall hereby void
Certificate of Coverage Number AWS310435 dated May 1, 2003. Pursuant to this COC, you are
authorized and required to operate the system in conformity with the conditions and limitations as
specified in the General Permit, the facility's CAWMP, and this COC. An adequate system for collecting
and maintaining the required monitoring data and operational information must be established for this
facility. Any increase in waste production greater than the certified design capacity or increase in number
of animals authorized by this COC (as provided above) will require a modification to the CAWMP and
this COC and must be completed prior to actual increase in either wastewater flow or number of animals.
If your Waste Utilization Plan has been developed based on site specific information, careful evaluation
of future samples is necessary. Should your records show that the current Waste Utilization Plan is
inaccurate you will need to have a new Waste Utilization Plan developed.
The issuance of this COC does not excuse the Permittee from the obligation to comply with all applicable
laws, rules, standards, and ordinances (local, state, and federal), nor does issuance of a COC to operate
under this permit convey any property rights in either real or personal property.
Upon abandonment or depopulation for a period of four years or more, the Permittee must submit
documentation to the Division demonstrating that all current NRCS standards are met prior to restocking
of the facility.
Per NRCS standards a 100 foot separation shall be maintained between water supply wells ny
lagoon or and wetted areaofa smay_field`�
Non -Discharge Permitting Unit Internet http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ndpu
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Customer Service Center Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Action Employer 50°% recycled/10 % post -consumer paper

Please be advised that any violation of the terms and conditions specified in this COC, the General Permit
or the CAWMP may result in the revocation of this COC, or penalties in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.5A through 143-215.6C including civil penalties, criminal penalties, and injunctive relief,
If you wish to continue the activity permitted under the General Permit after the expiration date of the
General Permit, an application for renewal must be filed at least 180 days prior to expiration.
This COC is not automatically transferable. A name/ownership change application must be submitted to
the Division prior to a name change or change in ownership.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this COC are unacceptable, you have the right to
apply for an individual permit by contacting the staff member listed below for information on this
process. Unless such a request is made within 30 days, -this COC shall be final and binding.
This facility is located in a county covered by our Wilmington Regional Office. The Regional Office
Water Quality Staff may be reached at [phone]. If you need additional information concerning
this COC or the General Permit, please contact Duane Leith at [phone] ext. 370.
Sincerely,
14--51 1 lei
for Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Enclosures (General Permit AWG 100000)
cc: (Certificate of Coverage only for all cc's)
(:::Wi�t ngton Qioti" f icu, Water Quality'Sect
Duplin County Health Department
Duplin County Soil and Water Conservation District
Permit File AWS310435
NDPU Fifes

(Type of Visit f Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review D Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 7Rout€ne ❑ Complaint O Follow up 0 Emergency Notification Q Other p Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: 3 Time:
❑ Not Operational a Below Threshold
Permitted Cejrttifiied © Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated
� or Ab a Threshold: .........................
Farm Name...........1+ 1 �i .....t�1�4+�!P!C .........�'e .�r................................... County:.....1.1{1>P.....................................................
OwnerName: ........... . ................ .................... ................... . ........ .................... . ......... ......... Phone No:......................................................................................
NfailifngAddress: ................. . ............................................. . ................ ............................. .... ..................................................................................... ..........................
FacilityContact: ................................... ..............................._... Title: .................... ........................................... Phone No: ..........i........................................
Onsite Representative:.. ........11FI&D ...................................................... Integrator: ........ !d��5:..............i.................................. Certified Operator: ............................................... . .. ....... ... ............... . ... . ..... . .................... Operator Certification Number:........................................
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • 4 96 Longitude • 6 9(
...: Curredt b i rl Design fi; i Cui rent ~ a i si �"'
1]esign'' #
Swine. "- .•Ca aci Po ulatiors " 'Poui ry • ::''; ,.:Ca 'ci $Fo "tdatiair CaWe aci 'P11 ulatinii .'
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑Layer ; ❑ Dairy
- eeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
.00
❑ Farrow to Wean
;• ..Other
:
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ '�
.,r F' `j'; I; .°i]
Farrow to Finish n � -"�� .
;ti _ F TG' W Desi (Ca �: It'
Gilts 'r R. ;= .., :. F.i�. ., r , ;� ....� ..g i l . �Y i
` Jr„r , F
❑ ..... g 4.
Boars ,k F i
i.'Yr1,` - `.� - ,s,, ,l iYyTotaI5SLW"
... is . . a' ".. ,:H . !':i:: '!la.ti:•
-
r
y ,�
r
of Lagoons
Discharges & Streann Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes /NO
Discharge originated at: [ILagoon [3Spray Field [IOther
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Roes discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if ycs, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes o
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes o
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes a
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure
Identifier: ................ I................ .......................... ...... .......................... .... ...... ...... ............................. ......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): a,l
12112103 Continued

Faciliiy Numher: '� _ q3 Date of Inspection
Rcuired Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
7Ngel
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
El Yes
o
❑ 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
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
tie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
Z
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
'FNNo
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
NPDES Permitted Facilities
:No
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (if no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After I" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
12112103

Facili#y Number: — 3, j Date of Inspection 1
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ) �,�
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? Cr es 7N9
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes No
elevation markings?
Waste AjRpjication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 7NO
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type 15T ►Z G
13, Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes NV
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes N
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No
Odor h%sues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ yes No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes jNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes;/No
Air Quality representative immediately.
... �..;:..�.:..,...:x: _.:.:1•-�;�.:�!s;r..�.x,^- ^:..: -7[�✓- .•.-y.:enirnrs....-...`=ttKrei.. ':.....�..y.��;«,r v+...:.. Mt....�� r��;uq• � ^.::€:.tn�e.:rir•:i!nu»r.���m. �#!d#sr .'!'��i !.:m3�F.
Cvmluents:(reier to�questian #jE'xpiain any:YFS:answers and/or any.<recnmmendabions or.sny,ot>tier.camine>ats:° t;t€n.�,.,ri,4s';:;';';;"
..y s. .rle t o NI i - •Yfi ={I.[ xf+.iW �"" �r9 .H•Cn i r:mi» ...acw.A, W»�. �«- S
ii3se drawiags of Facilityrtu better.expiain sittiatioas. (addiltianal'pages as. s�ccessary}:+
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes�''t
r., N .ti.fiir#,I •.,y. ,.! i �=n �,. 0RUM"
.#. ,V,5l9..;u�'., 7�i:� ;, ro
a.n4i'B'ki71{ns. %f:��1.r�.- -.r,5 .'i .. ???p�.z c.u=.i`ssi?i.'•;��i.:.�#rI L�s.4' r6..,1- .1"�`?ttli �"'u",c..�
„:.i::• I_ i 9p n?s:.,:+.; r: ,� i"ff�;Ql'�"'I�77ik7+f�.. 1""`�'"";il�"n�.
? �] �l ❑ M a TE+J�rJC-E MEN
apj Gp"-,,s Co j ER. 5 F b zKf_ W A LL9 ,
ow Er?_-T�c.
v rJEw'-) CeG r � �aT g e 5T y\
APO ��,.v
0 EQ
W to
w.rr-4L R-Y�. N' b r XU_4. 1 GC-�� & NEo
C00 �- C"P
AS
reig. 70CY4.
1ZE c o"S foals- GM o .
Reviewer/Inspector Name L _ '
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
12112103 Continued

Type of Visit to Compliance. Inspection ❑ Dperation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine Q Complaiint Q Follow up ❑ Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Q Time:
❑ Not ❑ erational Q Below Threshold
© Permitted ❑ Cc ified 0 Condit' na11y Certified © Registered
Farm Name:..............
...:....�... �... r.........................
OwnerName:................. .....................................................
Mailing Address:
Date Last Operate _ .. r Above Threshold: .......................
County:..... W.....„........................................
Phone No:
FacilityContact: ................ ............................... ............. Title:.....,,......................................................, Phone No:...................................................
I
Onsite Representative: .... i�a ��SJ`......�.,.L.... Kfo ...... � ............................... Integrator:.... �5....................... ..........................
Certified Operator:...........................................................,,............................................... Operator Certification Number: ........ ......... ........ »..............
Location of Farm:
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Q0'r_�� Longitude • 6 «
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
CeIIT-11
Subsurface Drains Present II❑ Lagoon Area ILI Spray Field Area
No Liauid Waste
DischaMes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon 0 Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (Ifyes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes IZ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
gNo
❑ Yes
;jfNo
❑ Yes ZNo
Structure 6
Identifier: .................. ............. ............ ..... ..,........... ................................... .................................... ..... ..... ..... ..................... ....................................
Freeboard (inches): 9

Facilitr Number: Date of Inspection
5. Are there anv immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed7 (ie/ trees, severe emsim ❑ Yes IND
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site wbicb are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? 0 YesXNo
(U any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situationposes an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancefimprovement? 0 Yes �No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancehmprovement? ❑ Yes �No
v• 9. Do any sn=ures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes )dNo
Waste Application
10. Are there anv buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes No
11. Is there evidence of over appfica 'on? ❑ Excessive Ponding PAN l-Ivdrauhc Overload
❑ Yes No
1
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste anagement Plan (CAWMP)7
0 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 XNO
Required Records & Documents i
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes /No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
[]Yes 2fNo
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
XYes ❑ 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? r
ElYes �eNo
2.2. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) , -
❑ Yes /No
23. Did Reviewer/hispector fail to discuss review/mspecian with on -site representative?
❑ Yes III�No
24. Does facility require it follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes No
?5. Were airy additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ,
. ❑ Yes �Na
No violations or deficiencies -were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence aboutfhis-ASIL
rit �� .`�` AS,. y�.. .-:i:a.. i.. k i��• ,}� _ �•�. -,.:i: EPEE,. ` "yk' • E{:r •. c-rir:-?'.`Y'i
�F.Z•._�,' Cti..-: +� i i!_i2�"i�:i2--- ^r"R�%c`� 'tt<•.yv}['?kLi X'• .,��.:i,.a�.�nwcc
-
.2 .'-3t�.ii ..[: i'��,:i.. ,�:,..
i
• ..•.32.-::.� `
s`- Field Co 0 Final Notes
?2i -- iix may._ •�:- Ki[aa
-,[G>-
';7'�:;3Lr.-3� .Ls-� �i-'•t-,� �z.=etc---,... f . x.
.' L ,.f F -
raw a�7�7F. n�TS
r
_ .. .7� .;fy: r:if:4:✓av-ac;c•'.�::{•:^0??fMfM�YiR: i !'.Y �M1. +,+.ii +MY h
.,K. 4fi•:ii'ii':_:: J/r� `ini•--<"%:'E',��..1 ,- .. CC ,:� 1 -:.' .'",t. ;'�. �,,..:
Review /Ins
er ecto Name p r� � �- ,t.��io`.:: t�2' . �:v:.:<:��
Foc :+�x.:«4:>..,if}rF-.-:...•;;%�E..,.>>-- : �:>:•»:>:;r' �:::>:,<>,
Reviewer/Impector Signature: Date: ��.

` Facility Number: Date of Inspection l `tom
v
QdU issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover!
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a per manentltemporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes Z`0
ElYes d No
❑ Yes /11No
❑ Yes ,_ fNo
❑ Ye j(� No
El Yes /❑ No
Additional Comments. andlor Drawln gs; :: JI�..- _ .;!f 19; li
`j B l?rnt OF4 NOD F&SCA 6 F� FLDS, NEF-D �rn Plf�Dv C nlr ErJ�
,bFAr^LL0N F-zFZD Hots 6 EP UxSK>wD. 0W0F,A 3�5 X-a ��lE
PROCE-5-S �� I�ESP�z�c�IJG- ��E �nn�E�o. Ln�� NQ-T
�r M�SF_ D��. m aLz�
F rE SCL F F�FnLDS k-F-Q d $� n
-
F, t�4"R-r r 5
�F 6!F
Gk k5 s.
��3� I F-��DuG-. � � rs �t�?Al ��5 E-j � p �►� �� C
i} FPRrn 5
rp, o m ���� �lou�t�Rp �o �,�u�5 �l�r�Pr��►
SF �AvE��CiCZGS�S -:rN EC7� DbaRl �4l�T Lc r ��-r►-i
�F� ��E R€co�fl Rum 71�4E FAR ny•S�Po�:,5re<<I
J EQA Q A-7 C- a 7E Ba�KS� . _
E)URRDLj
�RaRo R
qR [,--Il`tE�B�C c
1�G-ovh�. I oS 5z8Ly �Jff
�j --ll
W�c►�ZJ� AJ20Lta19 ���t7[]I'•
�1� -EkU-J F7g E
� b1��� ke AD f�kr �r
ff6
a J��� {� 1 ��4�
(-[ 1 \ir � D f, 1
Anew,
05103101

,- Division"of Water Quality -
`" ( Division of Soil and Water,Cnnservat ' n
a Utlier Agency �:sw..k • �' ;` A
r
Type of Visit )qCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for V€sit )� Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: �' - l 'rime: E� PH Wed on: 7/21/2000
Q Not O erational Q Below Threshold
'6Permitted'Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
FarmName: ........ ...." ...S.\.. -..................................................................... County:... r '. L.....................................................
Owner Name:
Facility Contact:
Mailing Address:............................................................
Onsite Representative: Lt-Aj..�14 r�!.....
Certified Operator:
Location "of Farm:
Title:
Phone No:
PhoneNo :...................................................
.................................................... .........................
�-
..-G, S .
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' �� ��� Longitude '
Design Current
C,Mnacitv POEM, tiO[I
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
1� Farrow to Wean
` Farrow to Feeder
,r : Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle. Ca.. .d ' Pa ulation
I[] Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Nan -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design .Capacity
Total SS -LW
ii "` ` ent Subsurface Drains Pres❑ Lagnon Area Spray Field Area
Numtberaf goon
's+:.6'c'is'-:e�,•z:z.:Ti�K.....:..-:I'... .. r..
S6l1d Tiraps, ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impac
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (Il' yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min"
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the: State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
❑ Yes 9No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes MNo
❑ Yes R1 No
❑ Yes t<No
Structure 5 Structure b
Identifier: ........................
freeboard (inches): 3IF
5100
Continued an back

Facility^Number: Date of inspecticut 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 KNo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes VNa
(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?
XYes
❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
9 No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
)O'No
Waste Application
10, Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
XNo
11, Is there evideneof over application? Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
R10
0
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
XYes
ONo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
WNo
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
Reauired Records & DocuruenLs
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
WNo
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
Ycs
❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & sail sample reports)
9Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in cffeet at the time of design?
❑ Yes
No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative`?
❑ Yes
kNo
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
XNo
25,
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
gNo
0: i •viol � r>�s vjr ¢e�ejeja0es •wvre oo(W- il0fig th!s'v}s}t; • Y:oo Al I-rs oO*(e fjo ru
co' i res a dei & abauC this visit.:
Comfin"nit's" refer. to'' uesdo"n`# 'Eii` laln an' YES'aoi3wers and/or au'- icecon tnehidat%ens'or an' 'o,1 er;corriiitien161 y" •l,. " !;'
x .., }' - y y
. •—i�:: �s +'-ee'+i...lz�"�,. .i p.- . y .r-:i�:'t e'�'. �:. .:. x•.� .r.•!�
[]se drawls of facili to 6e#ter e [ lair situations: 'u§e aildiliunal, a es.as ptce;% a
.....:.................:.......�... ......tYr_�............._:.......P(.....�.....�__..,..m...-,.P...g......a.._..._..__......._�:i')%;,E
���►Per , �a �, tee. ��+ �i r��-�r�. � ��- t�,��r •
a�oo-ems �� Pees e ��� y4
• � �' ��' ` `..•. sty w1� � �� � .mot � �� V
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: S--Jt f.Q 1 5/00

Facil%ty Number: . 'i Datc of Inspection � Printed on; 7/21/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below )(Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation'?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
VNQ
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]
Na
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
�(N❑
Additional ornmen and/or Drawings:
-�
'f cxcs-Q t Z cs f� , vte cI r�
V—A
Cie+_ %l _r<i��
Ve-
A�'L
5
J
5/00

r
Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
• O Other Agency
Type of Visit 9Q Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review D Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit A Routine O Complaint o Fallow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ ❑enied Access
S: 3e7 14: irl
Facility Number
5 Date of Visit: ^ a�� Timi: t,nrl an: 712112flt70
❑ Not Operational C Below Threshold
© Permitted Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified E3 Registered t7 Date last Operatedorrlhor•e Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: 1I66.1 (............ ��C ... • �+C ....... ' County:........J ,11....................................6%........
r .
Owner Name:
Facility Contact:
Phone No -
Title:
.........J�j/ r ............................... Phone No:
MailingAddress: ............. .............................................................................................................................................
ew.
4
Onsite Representative. ..B ...........y.......................... ... ....... Integrator:.............. ........r IIIS........................................
r�
CertifiedOperator:... ..... _ .................. ...................... ......................................... __ ............. Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
�1
5wine []Poultry [:]Cattle []Horse Latitude �' �i �6 Longitude �' �6 46
Design Current
Swine C'anacity Panulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
70
❑Par -row to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I 1 ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I Ir-1 Nun -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑,Subsurface Drains Present I0 I,ag.... Area JOSpray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Im�acLS
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 1K No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If' discharge is observed, was the crm vcyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
h. If discharge is nhscrved. slid it reach Water of the Stater Of yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. [I'dischar-c is ubscrved. what is the estiMalcd flew in gal/min?
d. I)oes discharge hyp:sss a lagoon system? {lf yes, notify [7WQ] ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes P!�No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to tite Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes XNo
Waste Collection & 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes VNo
Struc;turc I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure b
idenliFier:..........e�................................................................................................................................................................................................
Frechoard (inches):
5100 Continued on buck

Facility Nurhber: — &I Date of inspection Printed on: 7/21/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures obser ed? icl 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 VNo
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify OWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need amaintenancc/improvement? ❑ Yes 0,No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes KNo
v"9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ANo
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes gNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes VNo
12. Crop type AR. ��dj E9
i
tI13. Do the receiving crops differ w (h those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)`? ❑ Yes gNo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes WNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes RNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes 9 No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? X Yes ❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment'? ❑ Yes P(N❑
Required Records & documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes XLNo
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
kfNo
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
kYes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
KNo
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge'?
❑ Yes
VNo
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
KNo
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an -site representative'?
❑ Yes
XNo
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
Nb-via1ati0ris;or dt hc' lertc{es were noted i3taring#his:�isit; Y00:wi1j-ree0iye lid t'uefte ;
' Correa otideir><ce. ab' k this .is't.. • "
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary);
uP rrrr�s 99 irri in cle, kl,41 Q tlel pit r.,�.3,� `d,�V.
R)Air a t '�� i � j a's e, err c JK s ' k.s 'PAC
r� /-1i_V 't w — rill 's dr l-•.► �- �,,� A� ,�C.� o cam. sx-c►�.�
6t cot e" A, C - r�-s; - •�►rktr ,Nt -'I,ra - +r Ac�wc+ --c_
I( acts .
Reviewer/Inspector Name L - e r-
Reviewer/Inspector 5ignatur_w-_Q—='- �— -Z Z 7'Yl Date: !, 1 r 5/00

I Fiacflityiiumber: Date of Inspection
T
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building tot a sto age pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below ❑ Yes dNo
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes KNo
28. Is there: any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes )6 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 16 No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan biade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes toNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes 06 No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged Fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes O No
ona : ommen en rr ra n . , .__ L [� . ... .._.........._. ._......._ ..... ... ...... .... CY'. ... ... .. .. .�. ..t. d. ..:.:��:'a. ..�:�. i:, �; i.�.'�ir.:lii�':"�hli��: .�I..�r�. �`� '. .9+1'�: ii����'e
y `
�� c,�- • w�vfrr 1N�r, oL ]�a�'r yqze—d
ASS
e,. hv�) tv c
S P
Ilaw - s1 e asp- w; !t �x d� by wl +� >�>c#- Sew

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B.'Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Bobby Howard
Bobby Howard Farm
PO Box 205
Kenansville NC 28349
Dear Bobby Howard:
1 � r
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
December 30, 1999
Subject: Fertilizer Application Recordkeeping
Animal Waste Management System
Facility Number 3 l -435
Duplin County
This letter is being sent to clarify the recordkeeping requirement for Plant Available Nitrogen (PAN)
application on fields that are part of your Certified Animal Waste Management Plan.
In order to show that the agronomic loading rates for the crops being grown are not being exceeded, you
must keep records of all sources of nitrogen that are being added to these sites. This would include nitrogen
from all types of animal waste as well as municipal and industrial sludges/residuals, and commercial fertilizers.
Beginning January 1, 2000, all nitrogen sources applied to land receiving animal waste are required to
be kept on the appropriate recordkeeping forms (i.e. iRR1, 1RR2, DRY1, DRY2, DRYS, SLUR1, SLUR2,
SLD1, and SLD2) and maintained in the facility records for review. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
compliance inspectors and Division of Soil and Water operation reviewers will review all recordkeeping during
routine inspections. Facilities not documenting all sources of nitrogen application will be subject to an
appropriate enforcement action.
Please be advised that nothing in this letter should be taken as removing from you the responsibility or
liability for failure to comply with any State Rule, State Statute, Local County Ordinance, or permitting
requirement.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Sonya Avant of the
DWQ staff at [phone] ext. 571.
0
cc: Wilmington Regional Office
Duplin County Soil and Water Conservation District
Facility File
Sincerely,
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled110% post -consumer paper

0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation -'OperationReview . 7 �i
© Division of Soil and Water Conservation - ComplianceekInspec on
ivisi
W ali
.�'13 on of ater Qu ty- Cairripliance •inspection. .. �
Other Agency - Operatiain.Review:. ;
r
bpe
outinc Q Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ ins ection Q Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number 3 3
Date of Inspection 9
--- -- Time of Inspccliori 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Permitted Certified ©Conditionally Certified ©Registered Not O crationalh Date Last Operated:
FarmName: � ... ..................................... County:......4?' .. L ......................................................
Owner Name:
Facility Contact:
Mailing Address:
Phone No: ,,,,,,...
Title: ...................................
Phone No: ................
Onsite Representative: $ �¢,;�] Integrator vt_ -
Certified Operator: ................................................... ............................................................. Operator Certification Number: ,.I.Rja.`.7-3.............
,.....
Location of Farm:
x
......... ..... ........ ............ ... .....................................................
Latitude ' ` o., Longitude 0 4 «
Design Current
Swine Canacity Ponnlatinn
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts,
❑ Boars
Design., 'Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population . Cottle Capacity Population.
❑ Layer 91 Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Tatal Design Capacity.
Tota1.SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ 1,agoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
F .
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Streaut Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ;dNo
Discharge originated at: []Lagoon ❑ Spray Field []Other
a, If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes 0No
h. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the Slate? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes g'No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes gNo
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 eNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus Storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes KNO
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure, 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
It
Freeboard(inches): ....... .n...........................................................................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Numher: { —y3S Date of IEispection e I
b. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ZINo
(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 Z No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenarice/improvement? ❑ Yes XNv
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes XNo
Waste Anolication
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
ONO
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN%qG
❑ Yes
ONO
12.
Crop type Sc_u V__ C . ❑i4 N .6 ge .'
13,
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
`�es
tN
14.
a Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
ob)
Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
JZNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination'?
❑ Yes
,f No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
eN❑
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
,�Io
Requi ret1-Records _ &_Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
Z'No'o
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
ZNo
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
ONO
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
9fNo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(icl discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes �No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes 2No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes PNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes J" <
a y1pl0>Tmns .or• . caepvwi -wore 0004• 00609 Ois'visit, ;Y;oi will t�ec�iye oo fu; thor
corresnndence.o a�itVi t this sit... . ...... . . . ... ....... .
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any reco, mm' eiidatians or any otlier conaaits.,N;, �I.;
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additronal pages as necessary}; € ' ; ;';;i .r ki ,� �,. -
5J R-Ece,jrLjr 1+�3r�41.+-�f� I�YDPcrtr1'r ti rCE �A•Sv ►� -ram sNAP� �••1� ��e,o'T�r A,
�S-rtjt4Eo OVA- +,•sW L� ss�tA9c.E Gftdi,t; "�G t s,fp"rrb�.s'
+3) c j. pf*W .>CrjTc,,4 J��t�. y� �^rC,,uocs C. ecQrtt,.wA- 8,sr „raft yer sM'UGC
►s) Pcsuu v, 4v_4v,- Ly "ecOLP im'P Dvf�"EA) .
,�Itr s�+� Pert tagt: �s
Reviewerllnspector Name - m M
Reviewer/Inspector Signature; �]�/ +,f - �• � Date: g / 17 79-
3/23/99

Facility Number:35
Uatr of Inspection 1
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
4Yes
❑ 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
ONo
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
[:]Yes
P�rNo
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
ZNo
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
O'No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
�/rNo
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a perrnanent/tentporary cover?
❑ Yes
�o
Additional Comments an or rawings:..---
z�J AAfl Q ; pe. c-rTtj4r,,a ^1S 1;JS74L\-i�p iRerr NJA vE 9En'%AL, =O- "gyp
A.,tP s� as���e �y FALLt-,.j- C>FF .
3/23/99

Revised April 20, 1999
.JUSTIFICATION & DOCUMENTATION FOR MANDATORY WA DETERMINATION
Facility Number 31 - YZ6" Operation 1s flagged for a wettable
Farm Name: Gana v �,M a A,g-;s acre determination due to failure of
On -Site Representative: gbesac ,4d tijPart 11 eligibility item(s) F1 F2 F3 F4
Inspector/Reviewer's Name: _r 4J o Jl'
Date of site visit:
❑ate of mast recent WUP: 2,5
Operation not required to secure WA
determination at this time based on
exemption ET U2 E3 E4
Operation pended for wettable acre
determination based on P1 P2 P3
Annual farm PAN deficit: 95. 2 pounds
Irrigation System(s) - circle #: 1. hard -hose traveler; 2. center -pivot system; 3. linear -move system;
4. stationary sprinkler system wlpermanent pipe; 5. stationary sprinkler system w/portable pipe;
6. stationary gun system w/permanent pipe; 7. stationary gun system wlportable pipe
PART 1. WA Determination Exemptions (Eligibility failure, Part 11, overrides Part I exemption.)
El Adequate irrigation design, including map depicting wettable acres, is complete
and signed by an I or PE.
E2 Adequate D, and D21D3 irrigation operating parameter sheets, including map
depicting wettable acres, is complete and signed by an I or PE.
E3 Adequate D, irrigation operating parameter sheet, including map depicting
wettable acres, is complete and signed by a WUP.
E4 75% rule exemption as verified in Part Ill. (NOTE: 75 % exemption cannot be
applied to farms that fail the eligibility checklist in Part 11. Complete eligibility
checklist, Part 11 - F1 F2 F3, before completing computational table in Part I11).
PART 11. 75% Rule Eligibility Checklist and Documentation of WA Determination
Requirements. WA Determination required because operation fails:one of the eligibility
requirements listed below:
F1 Lack of acreage which resulted in overapplication of wastewater (PAN) on spray
field(s) accordinglofarm's fast two years of inigation'Tecords. .
F2 Unclear, illegible, or lack of information/map.
F3 Obvious field limitations (numerous ditches; failure to deduct required
bufferlsetback acreage; ❑r 25% of total acreage.identifed in CAWMP includes
sma11, irregularly shaped fields - fields less than 5 acres for travelers -or less than
2 acres for stationary sprinklers).
F4 WA determination required because CAWMP credits field(s)'s acreage in excess
of 75% of the respective field's total acreage as noted in table in Part Ill.
r

Revised April 20, 1999.
Facility Number
Part lit. Field
by Field Determination
of
75% Exemption
Rule for WA Determination
TRACT
NUMBER
FIELD
NUMBER'.2
TYPE OF
IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
TOTAL
ACRES
CAWMP,
ACRES
FIELD,J
%
COMMENTS3
' 4
I I
i
;I
AL
FIELD NUMBER' - hvdrant_ oull: zone_ or point numbers may he used in place of field numbers
denendinn ❑n CAWMP
and type of irrigation system. If pulls, etc, cross more than one field, inspector/reviewer will have to combine fields to
calculate 75% field by field determination for exemption; otherwise operation will be subject to WA determination.
FIELD NUMBER2 - must be clearly delineated on map.
COMMENTS' - back-up fields with CAWMP acreage exceeding 75% of its total acres = having received less than 50%
of its annual PAN as documented in the farm's previous two years' (1997 & 1998) of irrigation records,cannot serve as the
sole basis for requiring a WA Determination. Back-up fields must be noted in -the comment section and must be -accessible
by irrigation system.
Part IV. Pending WA Determinations
P 1 Plan tacks following information:
P2 Plan revision may satisfy 75% rule based on adequate overall PAN deficit and by
adjusting all field acreage to below 75% use rate
P3 Other (ie/in process of installing new irrigation system):
ff

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, N.C. 28445
Dear Mr. Wrenn:
RECEIVED JUN 2 4 1998
3% -q3%-
This is in reference to your last visit to my farm. We continue to be in the process of
clearing more land. We have hired someone to complete the work on the new ground and
we will have the WUP changed to match the cleared land upon completion. We also will
reseed the outside dike as you requested.
If there should be any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Bobby G. Howard

- .
'
FIELD
bfta
CROP
FEELD
DATE HOURS
'ACRES
GALLONS N
SAMPLE
N PER AC
1
411198 -
7
6.25
100800
292.32
2.9
46.7712 FESCUE
1
411198
7
6.25
100800
292.32
2.9
46.7712 FESCUE-
2
6128
6
5
.86400
250.56
2.9
50.112 COASTAL
2
7115198
6
5
86400
250.56
2.9
50.112 COASTAL
3
715198
6
5
86400
- 181.44
2.1
36.288 COASTAL
3
719198
6
5
86400
181.44
2.1
36.288 COASTAL
1
915198
7
6.25
100800
211.68
2.1
33.8688 FESCUE
1
9/20/98
7
6.25
100800
211.68
2.1
33.8888 FESCUE
2
9121198
4
5
57600
120.96
2.1
24.192 SMALL GR.
3
9/22198
4
5
57600
120.96
2.1
24.192 SMALL GR.
0
0
2.1
ERR SMALL GR_
ERR SMALL GR.

. .. ...... .. .
Vi
Division of Soil and Water Conservation 0 Other Agency
Division of Water Quality
Jo Routine 0(.oniplaiiit--OFollow-up (jfl)l-%"Qinspc-ctioii 0 Follow-up OrDSWC review 00ther I
Date of Inspection
Facility Number 3Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh-.mm)
13 Registered -MCerfified E3 Applied for Permit UPermitted j[3N(jtOperationaI I Date Last Operated: ........................
FarmName:.......... ........ L-.�gwe,4 ....... &nvrn ..................................................... County. ........................................ .......................
OwnerName: ............... .................. ... ............ .............. 1. .............. Phone No.- .............. I ............................
FacilityContact .............................................................................. Title . ................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
MailingAddresS ' NA.40.�, .............. .......... . ............................................... .... ..................................... .........
Onsite Representative.* ........ &b� ....... op.wj .................................................. 1ntegrator...-Cs!.yx-.qJ1i ...........................................................
......... ................................. Operator Certification Number ...........
Ceirtified Operator, ... . .. ................
Location of Farm:
Latitude Longitude'
oign .Current, Design Current. :Design Current;
.' ,.
Swine •0 o w Capaciq.:,:V4pulati w,": Poultry: Capacity:� 6ulatio,n• ;..,;Cattle. Capacitj,'�,Pop a on..
0 Wean to Feeder I[] Layer ❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish .1160 ❑Non -Layer 10 Non-Dairyj
El Farrow to Wean
. .........
F0 other
El Farrow to Feeder
0 Farrow to Finish . ... ..... iotal Design Ca :
04ii�7 (ate
Boars Z3
Gilts . ... ..
-7y
otal SL
F3
, �ii
er of Laggons H41din, g", Po"n
Subsurface Drains Present
10 Lagoon Area
10 Spray Field
Area
. . ....... .. v,�c 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
r CA
1.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
0 Yes
No
2.
Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
El Yes
No
Discharge originated at: 0 Lagoon' [:1 Spray Field D Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
0 Yes
M No
b, If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
D Yes
No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gaUi nin?
d. Does dischaige bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
0 Yes
0 No
3.
Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
4.
Were (here any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
No
5.
Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
1P Yes
0 No
maintenance/improvement?
6.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
0 Yes
VO No
7.
Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
0 Yes
00 No
7/25/97
Continued on back

Facility Ndmbc•r; S I S
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponel5 on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes No
Structures (Lagoons.11o]ding Ponds, Flush Pits, ete.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freebocird (fty .......... 1,t4 ................................................................................................ ...............................
10. is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is erosion, or anv other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑Yes No
12, Do any of the structures need ntaintcnancelimprovemerit? ® Yes ❑ No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify ❑WQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or inaximum liquid level markers? ❑ Yeti MNo
Waste Aianlicadon
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
21 No
(If in excess of WIV1P, or runoff entering waters of the: State, notify DWQ) _
15.
Crop type ...............riv:P+f,1Cl.% .......,...................SthRt L�.....D�Yi�tys...........,.....:...........................
16,
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
raw'Aycs❑
No
�.
17.
Does the facility have a iack ofadequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
AYes
�4No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
KI No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
COYcs
❑ No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
MNo
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
Yes
❑ No
For
'crtilted r Permitted Facilities Only
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Aninial Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
No
24.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance; of the Certified AWMI'?
V5Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
Db Yes
❑ No
0 No.violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit.- You.will receive no further
: correspondence Aoid this visit:- :
Comments.(refer to question #): -Explain any YES answers and/or any recomniendations or pny otfier..6tT1T6en&t .
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. [use additional pal;t,.s as necestirry):.
s. "nJ is bet+ ��7(,LAa4 rev e�{�fir` p etptae�Q r �tr ctlSco T�(h, Gt?c�t k�Lt U� peirrda�
Gw :�[+1trK td� 1n('SC tnt►Dry yQS iYYigrpt aIY� ISjYSkTLY+,�, j�F t p �] j f 7
6iYO F.i G ^, 4 ate` _N tar, t rW_ f i, r�lV►W CI t � G.J�i]l S ko,) I d b e_ 'i"t 1 Lf.t} cJ~ Y� � `01 L� j Jt -t tJd.a,r e( -�1
W-LOJ) ,kDj l d 6 ¢.. ft v -,W . 6 YbSiO CA& a r� 00�^ � t � OJO. i [ 5 tV �f� e t � 1 {�4I � ►'��Ld+�O�'
��t �sg. i S FJ .. �. , hQtrwt.sl�a�5tt��il to;v its �fr�{� ��„. }�CSt11�
. Wa%� S.o.,,, LL O%ej e � +f►.. (era SI f� lo-�- ckdM 6 9,, LjL))1,_
?Aju. OY44eYne��i�arlo�- �� n1�1^0�@�.- �-lujjk,SrdcG. Q y►r�ut3 s1.o�s� ht r1Ge.. (3 ,tip. l r* �o �or� Wi
clt4v�itS PWew) or LOO Skaul d11 h¢ C1• y�r�yy f%f In,+�+�ueJt.►1A- 5 omYn� (VbP t-pr' �mP�Itia urx�i)125197
`[�►x vLru1 around ,o n`e��,�r1 lw�r� A�D4.ti.[} �W►i'� kit .
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date;

Brian L. Wrenn
Environmental Specialist
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845
Dear Mr. Wrenn;
R E C E V E D NOV 4 6 19974ovembec 3,1997
On October 8, 1997 you visited my farm, Facility Numbe 31-43 r an
inspection of my animal operation and the lagoon serving the operation. This letter is in
response to the letter you sent to me dated October 16, 1997 on deficiencies you found at
my operation.
On the lagoon you found some erosion problems due to improper seeding. We
have been correcting the erosion by hauling dirt to fill the washouts. I have seeded the
lagoon with rye to prevent further erosion.
I am starting to reseed my fescue pasture and moving my fence off of the lagoon
wall.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me at the following numbers:
Home 910 296 1489
Farm 910 296 1632
Sincerely,
Bobby G. Howard

.. .. .............. .... 7 t
DSVWC Animal Feedlot Operation Review ' �.: ��: "��iii� iii'ii:. �,� '.tiii..���e i`?. :!�iii•'r.. iii ei
.............. .
®DWp Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
e:s.£
Routine ❑ Complaint ❑ Follow-up of I311' inspection ❑ Foliow-uI p of DSWC; review• ❑ Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection � ?A hr. (hh:mm)
13 Registered 0 Certified © Applied for Permit © Permitted JE3 Not O er:Itional I]ate Last Operated:
Farm Name: .......... go. .I.......N"j.......... A4.:...................... ... County:......... D41.irx............................
OwnerDame:....... t�4? I�........ C@�rl�_ aQA........................................................................... Phone \'rt:... ...��!�.4.�--,���e.' �.� ��........................................
Facility Contact: ......4.�41......l ... Title:...... ?0!ur........................ Phone No:0.1 1 z � 1.6.1z ............
MailingAddress:........ ....DNA.. . Mz................................................................................. ��'�•y+....0A-;. k-j-Psr....................................... ... 345......
Onsite Representative.,.......".6. ....."6wtrej........... Integrate,r:...... Carf*81..................
Certified Operator........In U-A ........0a ..... 1mtaud ..... ....... operator C'eritftcattu:t Number,
Location of Farm:
�iti .P ..:. � .....fJA.F. Qifk►..... .4.YsC�41S.V.l��.�... Ui h.... 1l� ...�rf1....5 Di....�. Q......11<f CC1...� ..... �.. ...m! S.....i'in........... .
�]
...... ................. ......................... ................................................................. ...... ........... ............... .........................................
Latitude �a � �it I.onghude 4
41
Design Current. Design Current Design , Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity:.:Population:.
❑ Wean to Feeder P Layer ❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish 10 Non -Layer 1E1 Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder Other
❑ Farrow to Finish 'Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars rvtal SSLW
Number of Lagoons/ Holding Ponds Subsurface Drains Present ❑ l,agcm)n Area Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
General
I. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimpr[ivement? ❑ Yes CZNo
1 Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'? ❑ Yes ESNo
Dischan,e originuted at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge. is observed, was the conveyance man -mane? ❑ Yes f'No
b. li•discharge is observed, dirt it reach Surlace Water'? (If yeti, 1 itj+ DWQ) ❑ Yes I�No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallnrin?
d. Dues discharge bypass a lagoon System? (lf yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes lid No
3. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes P No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes WNo
S. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require W Yes ❑ No
m ai ntenanceli m provement?
5. is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes Jallo
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes RNo
7/25/97 Continued on back

rr
f Facility Number:
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
'tru tures (Lagounsj folding Ponds Flu sh fits etc.
9. Is storage capacity (Freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure 1 Structure 2
Identifier:
Freeboard (ft): ..,.......�.:. ..................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures'?
Structure 3 Structure 4
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improveiiient?
(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 minimunt or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14, Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
C9 No
Structure 5 Structure
.................................... ........ I ...
6
............
❑ Yes
CW No
® Yes
❑ No
15. Crop type .............. .
{mud ......................................... ....................................... ..............................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17, Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20, Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/inspector Fail to discuss review/inspection with on -Site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Cetlitied or Permitted Facilities (Icily.
23. Does the [facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP'?
25. Were any additional problems nosed which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
C1 No.Violatit}ns or. deficiencies Were noted during this.visit.-.Yod,.vill receive nti ftirther
eorlrwpbndehO about this visit: .
K Yes ❑ No
Rj Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑Yes ®No
MYes X No
H Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
.Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
RYes ❑ No
❑ Yes [51 No
❑ Yes [� No
❑ Yes [W No
Cottinients;64er,to question #):;,:Explain any YES answers and/or any rect�mmendations or any other com,'m" ents
Use:drawin g of tins flit to fitter explain situatiuris! use additionaal a` es as`:necessar :s's,��,FF? il`s?s; 1€sill s
f
E..
$.CtRarih �fait'�Gr�a Sp�CwV YT�t(f3 �r Cev+ tt[at-f0q.
►'e�tec]QcJ . ► 11
II'�L, Eras�o�• aj„1tr,`� or.;nr1�r wfali S�ovQ Le, AI(<r} 4j,{gx elpi a,► rewdeJ, �fc 8v r�'wwA1C
0 15CC K s w[.1 I V v L A f � V !.-i i i'�X 0� �y $�� -d ed . R iw IAWA5 56)� r r~ rtsc edej ` 't Wa�z
S60t d tie mo td. F'c cc stirs h� jx+yaVp �Pf if saw[ WX11
l3. Mar4r S o,1�t} ffsS ►'1. e rC
1?. CCt�►� a�rr txM1a� ae er Ccr^� �{1CaY►
�tf• FGic�::��rou� � � m�e `{
Zz., se3 1 It WAst Savnp� a>-'aly ses s�'10A 6e_ 7>r25/97
_..
Reviewerllnspector Name i , R) w li €slE` ' I,Fss=
.� _.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: w _.% l._.-..-_...-- -- Date:

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr.. Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
November 13, 1996
Bobby Howard
Bobby Howard Farm
PO Box 205
Kenansville NC 28349
SUBJECT: Operator In Charge Designation
Facility: Bobby Howard Farm
Facility ID#: 31-435
Duplin County
Dear Mr. Howard:
Senate Bill 1217, An Act to Implement Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Study
Commission on Agricultural Waste, enacted by the 1996 North Carolina General Assembly,
requires a certified operator for each animal waste management system that serves 250 or more
swine by January 1, 1997. The owner of each animal waste management system must submit a
designation form to the Technical Assistance and Certification Group ,which designates an
Operator in Charge and is countersigned by the certified operator. The enclosed form must be
submitted by January 1, 1997 for all facilities in operation as of that date. Failure to designate a
certified operator for your animal waste management system is a violation of 15A NCAC 2H
.0224 and may result in the assessment of a civil penalty.
If you have questions concerning operator training or examinations for certification, please
contact your local North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service agent or our office.
Examinations have been offered on an on -going basis in many counties throughout the state for
the past several months and will continue to be offered through December 31, 1996.
Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions concerning this requirement please
call Beth Buffington or Barry Huneycutt of our staff at 91gn33-0026.
Sincerely,
A. Preston Howard, Jr., . ., Director
Division of Water Quality
Enclosure
cc: Wilmington Regional Office
Water Quality Files
P.O. Box 27687, N7AW#
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 r� An Equal opportunity/Afflrmative Action Employer
Voice 919-715-4100 - 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

REGISTRATION FORM FOR ANIMAL FEEDLOT DPE TIO 'A'
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Re roes 0�, 'A
Division of Environmental Management T `
water ' Quality Section o .0
4�-Qr
If the animal waste management system for your feedlot o tios c.
designed to serve more, than or equal to 100 head of c]c�er �175;ti
horses, 250 swine, 1,000 sheep, or 30,000 birds that are se V
a liquid waste system, then this form must be filled out and mailed
by Decamber 31, 1993 pursuant to •15A NCAC 2H.0217 (c) in order to be
deemed permitted by DEM. 'Please print clearly.
r•
Farm Name: c] �'i_ HO11d-qrd
Mailing Address: E U o X a 0t)
ZIP
County: Phone No.'
Owner (s) Name: _ ��j � N o wsk ed
Manager (s) Name
Lessee Name:
Farm Location (Be as
pecific a
possible: road n
es direction,
milepost, etc.):
ee
D
� n tA
Latitude/Longitude if known:
Design capacity of animal avast anagement system (Number and type
of confined animal (s) ) : w,--;n a -
Average animal. population on the farm (Number and type of animal(s)
raised) : 54-�09
Year Production+ Began : �ASCS Tract No. �d .1
Type of Waste Management System Used: Y' 6f
4 ec c.t S
Acres ;YAV­ailabTe ' for,•Land Application vf: Waste:
Owner (s}.Signature (s),,;, e� �7•�t _ DATE .�
DATE

S; ate of North Ccrolina
❑epartment of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
,fames 8. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.. Director
February 17, 1994
Bobby Howard
P.C. Box 205
Kenansville NC 28349
Dear Mr. Howard:
This is to inform you that your completed registration form required by the recently
modified nondischarge rule has been received by the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM), Water Quality Section.
On December 10, 1992 the Environmental Management Commission adopted a water
quality rule which governs animal waste management systems. The goal of the rule is for
animal operations to be managed such that animal waste is not discharged to surface waters
of the state. The rule allows animal waste systems to be "deemed permitted" if certain
minimum criteria are met (15A NCAC 2H .0217). By submitting this registration you have
met one of the criteria for being deemed permitted.
We would like to remind you that existing feedlots which meet the size thresholds
listed in the rule, and any new or expanded feedlots constructed between February 1, 1993
and December 31, 1993 must submit a signed certification form (copy enclosed) to DEM by
December 31, 1997. New or expanded feedlots constructed after December 31, 1993 must
obtain signed certification before animals are stocked on the farm. Certification of an
approved animal waste management plan can be obtained after the Soil and Water
Conservation Commission adopts rules later this year.
We appreciate you providing us with this information. If you have any question about
the new nondischarge rule, please contact David Harding at [phone].
Sincerely,
p
/,,n Steve Tedder, Chief
edc; Water Quality Section
P.O. Box 29535, Rdelgh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equd opportunity AfNrmntive Action !Employer 50`!b recycled/ 10%post-conasurner paper

Site Requires Immediate Attention: No
Facility No.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: `� 3 d , 1995
Time: I A 1 Q
Farm Name/Owner:. _ . ?.Noq Lj rm.
Mailin Address• e w +-1 z r 3
County: - u C L�--�
Integrator. L4N-MreA3 LA-,S Phone:
­
On Site Representative: ,�t3bY�-�+rw' _ Phone: �01 16) Dl t 6 1$ 161
Physical Address/Location: (L r._• Ytnr. ` c,. r
Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: ^I(-'r __ -- - Number of Animals on Site: ?
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: 3 4 S _- L " Longitude: '7? ' S4146 " Elevation: Feet
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches)Ye r No Actual Freeboard: = tt. Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoons}? Yes or No Was any erosion observed? es r No
' Is adequate land available for spray? err o Is the cover crop adequate? es r No
Crop(s) being utilized: _ C G A 17y c. - - -�a� t p 5 Z T-
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings? j br No
100 Feet from Wells? Yes or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line? Yes or No
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes oe(� If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)No Gs
Additional Comments: 1,0 N i U.f 4-..
Inspector Name Sign ture
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.