070065_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qua

INSPECTIONS -
INSPECTIONS
INSPECTIONS

Type of Visit: 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review ❑ Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 10 Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up Q Referral Q Emergenty Q Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time; O Departure Time: County: Region:
S'a 4 _ r
Farm Name: wner Email:
Owner Name: _ f Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Phone:
Integrator: j y
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
1114,
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Pap.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pap.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Qd1,4 ZZ
I ILayer
Non -La er
I
Daia Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
D r y PouIt .
1widign
Ca aci
Current
P.o
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
(Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
TurkeyPoults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
❑ Yes [Z"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
FINE
❑ Yes
[:]No
❑ NA
[] NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? [:]Yes a* ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes [ f o ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

[4cility Number: 0 2 - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
D NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
r_
Identifier: i
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
�] Yes
No
[] NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environment
threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
D NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
FO/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 Annlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need [] Yes dNo ❑ NA D NE
maintenance or improvement?
i 1. 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 101bs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
Q. Crop Types):
13. Soil Type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
m No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
ErNo
❑ 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
U�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
E/N o
❑ 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
❑ 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 [(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facifi Number: jDate of Inspection: r/
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit. �C ❑ Yes [( No ❑ NA ❑ NE
025.sthe facility out of compliance w'th permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [B]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. ZAR ,40 ] 9
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
0 Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility`? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
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 dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [�6o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [�N0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
�] Yes [No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes EeNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (referpt(�questean.#} AExplain.a* YES..answers and/or., any additional reCon�mendahons organ other..<evmments: Y r �
Use drawings of t'acilityAo�bette'r=egplam" situations (use. additional; ages as necessary]
Ai
Reviewer/Inspector Name: �' Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 3 of 3 21412015

r
B Division of Water Resources
El Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number: 070065 Facility Status: Active Permit: AVVS070065
Denied Access
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date.
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Beaufort Region:
Washington
Date of Visit: 05/21/2015 Entry Time: 10:30 am Exit Time: 10:57 am Incident #
Farm !Name: L.H. Allen & Son, Inc. - Finishing Owner Email:
[e-mail]
Owner: Leamon H Allen III Phone:
252-935-5480
Mailing Address: 2007 Beech Rag Rd Belhaven NC 27810
Physical Address: 2007 Beech Rdg Rd Belhaven NC 27810
Facility Status: 0 Compliant Not Compliant integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
!-Oration of Farm: Latitude: 35' 39' 60" Longitude:
76° 39' 06"
2.5 miles north of Pantego on NC 99. Take a left after [tie second bridge onto private farm road and go 4 miles.
Question Areas:
❑ischrge & Stream Impacts ® Waste Cal, 5tor, & Treat S Waste Application
® Records and Documents ® Other Issues
Certified Operator: Roger V Klaassen Operator Certification Number:
19747
Secondary 01C(s)
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Roger Klaassen Phone :
❑n-site representative Roger Klaassen Phone :
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Dale:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Surnmary:
waste analysis: soil tested: 312014
5.13-15 = 1.57
12-10-14 = 1.45
6-24-14 = 2.12
IRR records complete & balanced out for canola Oct. 2014 - April 2015.
Reviewed: rainfalllfreeboard (19"inMarch). crop yield,
NOTEanother sludge survey must be taken before animals are brought back on farm or within 2015
page: 1

r
Permit: AWS070065
Inspection Date: 05/21/15
Owner - Facility ' Leamon H Allen III Facility Number: 070065
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
® Swine - Feeder to Finish 12.000 7,500
_ Total Design Capacity: 12,000
Total SSLW: 1,620,000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Tyne Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
FINAL
32.00
Lagoon
PRIMARY
Lagoon
SECONDARY 1
Lagoon
SECONDARY 2
page: 2

r
Permit AWS070065 Owner -Facility: Leamon H Allen III Facility Number:
Inspection Date: 05/21/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
070055
Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
®❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
M ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify ❑WQ)
❑
e ❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
M ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
B ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
®❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na Ne
d. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (LeJ large
❑
®❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
®❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
® ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
® ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
® ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑
❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
®❑
❑
if yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS070065 owner - Facility : Leamon H Allen III Facility Number:
070065
Inspection Date: 05/21/15 Inpsection Type' Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Y©s
No Na No
Crop Type 1
Corn,'A'heat,
Soytreans
Crop Type 2
Cotton
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
■ ❑
❑
Management Plan[CAWMP]?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
M ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
N ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
®❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
®❑
❑
20, Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
®❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
[]
Design?
[]
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
®❑
[]
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page' 4

Permit. AWS070065 Owner - Facility : Leamon H Allen III Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Date: 05/21/15 Inpsection Type. Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop yields?
[]
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
®❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(HPDES only)?
24. Did the facility Fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
®❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
■ ❑
❑
appropriate box{es} below. -
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
[]
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
E ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
®❑
r]
Other Issues
Yes
No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andlor document
❑
E ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
E ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
®❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
[]
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
®❑
❑
CAVVM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑
e ❑
❑
34. Does the Facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
E ❑
❑
page 5

t Division of Water Quality
j� Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 070065 _ Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS070D65 E) Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Beaufort Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 04/30/2014 Entry Time: 10:00 AM Exit Time: 11:00 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: L.H. Allen & Son, Inc. - Finishing Owner Email: angedl(msn.com
Owner: Learrion H Allen III Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 2007 Beech Rda Rd Belhaven NC 27810
Physical Address: 200713eech Rdg Rd Belhaven NC 27810
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°39'60" Longitude: 76*39'06"
2.5 miles north of Pantego on NC 99. Take a left after the second bridge onto private farm road and go 4 miles.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Cal, Stor, & Treat © Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Roger V Klaassen Operator Certification Number: 19747
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Roger Klaassen Phone:
On -site representative Roger Klaassen Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Waste Analysis:
1-18-13 = 1.93
7-30-13 = 1.61
12-11-13 = 1.13
4-4-14 = .56
soil tested: Oct. 2012
IRR records are complete & balanced out for 2013. Two irrigation events on corn are recorded for 2014 - not balanced yet. Calib.
done in 2013 SS Aug. 2013 Rainfall, freeboard, & stocking were reviewed. No hogs on site Sept. 2013 through Feb. 2014.
Note: need to check numbers on sludge calculations.
Page: 1

Permit: AWS070065 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III
Facility Number : 070065
Inspection Date: 04/3012014 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current Population
Swine
Swine -Feeder to Finish 12,000 12,000
Total Design Capacity: 12,000
Total SSLW: 1,620,000
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
agoon
FINAL
35,00
Lagoon
PRIMARY
15.00
agoon
SECONDARY 1
12,00
F-911n
SECONDARY 2
12,00
Page: 2

0
Permit: AWS070065 Owner -Facility: Leamon H Allen ill
Inspection Date: 04/3012014 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at:
Structure
Application Field
Other
Facility Number: 070065
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
n
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than
❑
■
❑
❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
Cl
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
i■
Cl
❑
improvement?
Waste Application Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or n ■ n ❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydrauiic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWS070065
Inspection Date: 04/30/2014
Waste Application
IL1►t
Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Is PAN n 10%/10 1bs.?
Total Phosphorus?
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Evidence of wind drift?
Application outside of application area?
Facility Number: 070065
Reason for Visit: Routine
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WlJ P?
Yes No NA NE
n
n
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Other
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑■❑❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑■❑❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 4

Permit; AWS070065
Inspection Date: 04/30/2014
Records and Documents
Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number. 070065
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
n
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
n
■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
n
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
Q
Sludge Survey
Q
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDFS only)?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate
Q
■ ❑ n
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:
2& Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ n ❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWS070065 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III
Inspection Date: 04/30/2014 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Records and Documents
Facility Number: 070065
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE:
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑
0
Otherlssues Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report
❑
■
❑
❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional
❑
■
❑
❑
Air Quality representative immediately,
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge,
❑
■
❑
❑
freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
Lagoon / Storage Pond
Other
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 6

Division f Water Quality
Facility Iliumber qDi ►isi;9IMC
ofSoiland Water CnservatOtliery
Type of Visit: 4& Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation ❑Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: O Routine ❑ Complaint Q Follow-up Q Referral Q Emergency ❑ Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: -/3 1 Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: dZZOwner Email:
Owner Name:�_ _. _ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �rp�����,p� _ Title:
Onsite Representative:
Region:
Phone:SV-d%'Jfp
Integrator:
Certified Operator:Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity
Pop.
Wet POultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
I
ILayer
I
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
I
jNon-Layer
I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
aVj)
�M
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D . Poult
Ga aci
P,o P.
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
on -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turke s
Other
Turke Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Imnvacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
M 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 the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
[No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facilii Number: Q2 - 6,67 1 Date of Ins ection: -- r
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus hearty rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes E�No
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Identifier:
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structlo Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
47
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 dNo ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ 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 2(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 dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): 6 ; /3e'�G2
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
I8. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Re aired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ Yes Q�No
❑ Yes E f No
❑ Yes K3No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes (No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [6o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes EZNo ❑ NA ❑ 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 Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Candnued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
• 24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? 00// ❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with p rmit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check [:]Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. Gp
❑ 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 dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
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 5(No
[:]Yes y f No
❑ Yes [;�No
[::]Yes dNo
❑ Yes ENo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [, No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations:or any other.comrnents
Use drawings of faciRty to better explain situations (use addid6nal a es as neeessa
►I�' = 11_ 1 6,-a- 2-
Reviewer/inspector Name:
Phone: a"-5-d -
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date: -3 - & — /_7
21412011

.0'
t
0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 070065 Facility Status: Active_ Permit: AWS070065 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ _ County: BpaufortRegion: Washington
Date of Visit: 01 /19/2012 Entry Time: 09:30 AM Exit Time: 10:15 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: L.H. Allen & Son. Inc. - Fini5hi08 Owner Email: anged1rdrssn_com
Owner: Le mon H Alien III Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 2007 Beech Rdg Rd —Belhaven
Physical Address: 2007 Beech Rdg Rd Behsslven hLC 27810
Facility Status: E Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 35°39'60" Longitude: 7§'3'06"
2.5 miles north of Pantego on NC 99. Take a left after the second bridge onto private farm road and go 4 miles.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & stream Impacts © Waste Col, 5tor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Roger V Klaassen
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
24 hour contact name Roger Klaassen
On -site representative Roger Klaassen
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer
Inspector Signature: _
Secondary Inspector(s):
Operator Certification Number: 19747
Title
Phone:
Phone:
Phone:
Date:
Phone
Page: 1

Permit: AW5070065 Owner • Facility: Leamon H Allen III
Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Date: 01/19M12 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis: soil tested: yes, but the results are not in the records, please add ASAP
2-21-11 = .86
5-13-11 = 2.6
7-25-11 = 1.3
10-26-11 = ,95
1-12-12 = 1.8
IRR2 records are complete & balanced out. Rainfall & freebaord are recorded. Looks goad.
Caliberation & SS done in 2011 W sludge Thick. _ #3-0 4-0 1-23" 2-17
LTZ = 24 15 48.5 54.5
Time for a new WUP!
Page: 2

y '
Permit: AWS070065 Owner - Facility: Leaman H Allen III
Inspection Date: 01/19/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 070065
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Q Swine - Feeder to Finish 12,000 7,200
Total Design Capacity: 12,000
Total SSLW: 1,620,000
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
agoon
FINAL
23.00
agoon
PRIMARY
12.00
agoon
SECONDARY 1
12.00
agoon
SECONDARY 2
12.00
Page: 3

Permit: AW5070065 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III
Inspection Date: 01/19/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at:
Structure
Application Field
Other
a. Was conveyance man-made?
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Facility Number : 070065
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
❑■❑❑
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
2, Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storag@ & Treatment Yes No NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 4

C
Permit: AWS070065 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III
Facility Number. 070065
Inspection date: 01/19/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
Q
Is PAN a 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2 Cotton
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility faif to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AW5070065 Owner • Facility: Leaman H Allen III Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Date: 01/19/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? Q
Maps? Q
Lease Agreements? ❑
Other? ❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
Q
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
[l
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
Q 01111
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a ralnbreaker on irrigation equipment {NPDES only}?
❑ ■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ ■
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate
❑ ■
❑
❑
box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels ❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon ❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

01
Permit: AW5070065 Owner • Facility: Leamon H Allen III
Inspection Date: 01/19/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
FacilityNumber : 070065
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes
No
NA
NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑
❑
Other Issues Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report
❑
■
❑
❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional
❑
■
❑
Q
Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge,
❑
■
❑
❑
freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field ❑
Lagoon I Storage Pond ❑
Other n
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 7

■ Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 07 Facility Status: Active Permit. AWS07QQ§5 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Beaufod „ , , Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 03/02/2011 Entry Time:09:_ 03 AM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: L.H. Allen & Son. Inc. -finishing Owner Email: anged1r&msn.com^�
Owner: Leamon H Alleo III Phone: [phone]
' - • i i Z - — -- 0M-F=ialiFPlTi>T►IfYU1
Physical Address: 2007 Beech Rdg Rd Belhaven 7 1
Facility Status: E Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Muo2hv-12rown LLC_
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°39'60" Longitude: 76'39'06"
2.5 miles north of Pantego on NC 99. Take a left after the second bridge onto private farm road and go 4 miles
Question Areas:
Discharges & stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Roger V Klaassen Operator Certification Number: 19747
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Roger Klaassen Phone:
On -site representative Roger Klaassen Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspectorfsj:
Page. 1

Permit: AWS070065 Owner - Facility: Leaman H Allen III Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Date: 03/02/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
#34. No drain tiles
Waste analysis
9-13-10 = 1.9 soil tested 1-25-11 levels all good
2-15-11 = .86
IRR records are completer and balanced out.
SS#1 LTZ48.5"&23"Th
2 " 54.5" 17"
3"24" 0
4 " 15 0 NOTE: It's time for a new WUPIan
Page: 2

Permit: AWS070065 Owner - Facility: Lea mon H Allen III
Facility Number. 070065
Inspection Date: 0310212011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
W Swine - Feeder to Finish 12,000 8,400
Waste Structures
Type
Identifier
Total Design Capacity: 12,000
Total SSLW: 1,620,000
Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
FINAL
25,00
agoon
PRIMARY
agoon
SECONDARY 1
agoon
SECONDARY 2
Page: 3

Permit: AWS070065 Owner - Facility: Leaman H Allen ill Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Date: 0310212011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e.l large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
Cl
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS070065 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen Ili
Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Date: 03/02/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 1 a%114 Ibs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
0utside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Cotton
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type a
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop andlor land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure andlor operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
1B. Is there a lack of property operating waste application equipment?
❑
Is
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have aii components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WILIP?
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWS070065 Owner - Faclltty: Leamon H Allen III
Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Date: 03/0212011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
Cl
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES
only)? ❑
■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
Cl
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. aid the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Cl
■
❑
❑
V..
MJ
NA
AIF
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? Cl ■ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 6

Permit: AWS070065 Owner - Facility: Leaman H Allen III
Inspection Date: 03/02/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss rev iewlinspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
34. Are subsurface drains present on this farm?
If yes, check the appropriate lox below.
Spray Field
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
Other
Facility Number: 070065
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
in
Page: 7

t
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 070065 Facility Status: Active Permit: AM07QQ65 Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection _ _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Beaufort Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 03/09/2010 Entry Time: 11-1 S AM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: L.H. Allen & 5on, Inc. - Finishing Owner Email: angedl msn.comT
Owner: LeaMgn H AllCnPhone:252-935-548Q
Mailing Address: 2007 NQ 27§1Q
Physical Address: 2007 Beech Rdg Rd Belhaven NC 27a10
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murohv-Brown, LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°39'60 Longitude: 76°39'06"
2.5 miles north of Pantego on NC 99. Take a left after the second bridge onto private farm road and go 4 miles
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents © Other Issues
Certified Operator: Roger V Klaassen Operator Certification Number: 19747
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Roger Klaassen Phone:
On -site representative Roger Klaassen Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis:
12-28-09 2.2
2-23-1 Q 2.0
Soil test 12-2009 SS 12-2009 Caliberation 9-09
Page: 1

Permit: AVVS070065 Owner - Facility: Lea mon H Allen III
Facility Number. 070065
Inspection Date: 0310912010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current Population
Swine
Q Swine - Feeder to Finish 12,000 8,000
Total Design Capacity: 12,000
Total SSLW: 1.620.000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
FINAL
34.00
agoon
PRIMARY
20.00
lagoon
SECONDARY 1
18.00
agoon
tsECONDARY2
19.44
Page: 2

Permit: AWS070065 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Date: 03/09/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Vlslt: Routine
Discharges &Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? [if yes, notify DWQ] ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
& Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AM070065 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen Ill
Inspection Date: 03109/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 070065
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN a 10°/a/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
Cl
Crop Type 1
Com,
Wheat,
Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Cotton
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
Cl
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑
■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
C)
Page: 4

r
Permit: AW5070065 owner - Facllity: Leamon H Allen III Facility Number: 070065
Inspection date: 03109/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for VisIt: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design?
Maps?
Other?
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall monthly?
Cl
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous toss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■
❑
❑
29. Did the facility fail to property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AW5070065 Owner - Fact ft. Lea mon H Allen III
Inspection Date: 03/09/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Other Issues
31, Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewerllnspector fait to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 070065
Reason for Visit: Routine
Page: 6

I
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 7 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS070065 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection_ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Beaufort Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 03/19/2099 Entry Time:09:00 AM— Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: L.H. Allen & Son. Inc. - Finishing _
Owner: Legmgn H Allen III
Owner Email:
Mailing Address: 385 Indian Run Rd Pantego NQ 278QO
Physical Address:
Phone: [phone]
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: L H Allen & Son Inc
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°39'60" Longitude: 76*39'06"
2.5 miles north of Pantego on NC 99. Take a left after the second bridge onto private farm road and go 4 miles.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other issues
Certified Operator: Roger V Klaassen
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 19747
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Roger Klaassen Phone:
On -site representative Roger Klaassen Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis:
1-16-09 = 3.2
Soil test fall 2008
Caliberation in 2008
Page: 1

Permit: AWS070065 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen III Facility Number : 070065
Inspection Oats: 0311 M009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
W Swine - Feeder to Finish 12,000 8,200
Total Design Capacity: 12,000
Total SSLW: 1,620.000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
FINAL
22.00
agoon
PRIMARY
12.00
agoon
SECONDARY 1
12.00
agoon
SECONDARY 2
12. 00
Page: 2

0
Permit: AWS070065 Owner -Facility: Leamon H Allen III Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Date: 03/19/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? 1101113
Discharge originated at
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ 0
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
Cl
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
fi. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Ap lip _cation
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWS070065 Owner • Facility: Leamon H Allen III
Inspection Date: 03/19/2009 inspection Type: Compliance inspection
Facility Number: 070D65
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
1101111
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
in
❑
❑
15, Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

0
Permit: AWS070065 Owner • Facility: Leamon H Allen III
Facility Number : 070065
Inspection Date: 0311912009 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
Cl
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
Cl
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES
only)? ❑
■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑
❑
rua..... ..........
ywc
No
NO
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page 5

Permit: AWS070065 Owner- Facility: Leamon H Allen III
Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Date: 03/19/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Via It: Routine
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
■
❑ ❑
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
■
❑ n
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■
❑ ❑
Page: 5

It
t
0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS070065 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection type: Comoliance Inspection
Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine
County: Beaufort Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 01/23/2008
Entry Time: 10 40 AM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: L.H. Allen & Son
Inc. - Finishing Owner Email:
Owner: Leamon H Allen II I Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 385 Indian Run Rd PQnteao NC 27860
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant
❑ Not Compliant integrator: L H Allen & Son Inc
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 35°39'60" Longitude: 76°39'06"
2.5 miles north of Pantego on NC 99. Take a left after the second bridge onto private farm road and go 4 miles.
Question Areas:
a Discharges & Stream Impacts
Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
jj Records and Documents
Other Issues
Certified Operator:
Operator Certification Number:
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name
Roger Klaassen Phone:
On -site representative
Roger Klaassen Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspectors):
Inspection Summary:
Waste analysis:
9-18-07 = 2.7
6-18-07 = 2.9
Soil analysis: 12-2007
#25
There is great confusion as to whether a sludge survey is required at this facility. I have written a letter requesting information from
Mr. Allen. This issue need to be settled.
Page: 1

4
Permit: AWS070065 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen Ill
Inspection Date: 01/23/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 070065
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
6 swine - Feeder to Finish
12,000
0
jj Swine - Wean to Feeder
3,500
0
Waste Structures
Type Identifier
Total Design Capacity: 15,500
Total SSLW: 1.725,000
Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
FINAL
49.00
agoon
PRIMARY
12.00
agoon
SECONDARY 1
12.00
agoon
SECONDARY 2
12.DO
Page: 2

0
0
Permit: AWS070065 Owner - Facility: Leaman H Allen Ill Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Date: 01/23/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
f . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe
❑
WOO
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
n
n
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

0
Permit: AWS070065 Owner - Facility: Leamon N Allen III
Inspection Date: 0112312008 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection
Waste Application
PAN?
Facility Number : 070065
Reason for Visit: Routine
Is PAN a 10%/10lbs.?
Total P205?
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Evidence of wind drift?
Application outside of application area?
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Yes No NA NE
11
n
n
n
Corn, Wheat, Soybeans
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
n
Page: 4

Permit: AWS070065 Owner - Facility: Leaman H Allen III Facility Number : 070065
Inspection Date: 01/23/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? Q
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
Q
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freehoard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
Q
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
21 If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■
❑
Q
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
n
n
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
■
❑
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
n
n
27, Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■
Q
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
Q
■
❑
0
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
❑
■
n
n
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AWS070065 Owner - Facility; Leamon H Allen III
Inspection date: 01/23MOS Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Otherlssues
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 070065
Reason for Visit: Routine
Page: 6

Division of Water quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 070065
_ Facility Status: Active Permit:
NCA207¢65 !^ f—� Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
County: Beaufort
Region: Washington_
Date of Visit: 05/0112007
Entry Time:09:00 AM Exit Time:
Incident #:
Farm Name: L.H. Allen R Son.
Inc. - Finishina _
Owner Email:
Owner: Leamon H Allen
III
Phone: [phone],
Mailing Address: 385 Indian Run Rd Pantecio
NC 27560
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant
❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 35'39'60"
Longitude: 76°39'06"
2.5 miles north of Pantego on NC 99. Take a left after the second bridge onto private farm road and go 4 miles.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Waste Collection & Treatment
Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other Issues
Certified Operator: Roger V Klaassen Operator Certification Number: 19747
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title
Phone
On -site representative
Roger Klaassen
Phone:
24 hour contact name
Roger Klaassen
Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary lnspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Waste analyses:
10-31-06 = 1.4 Soil test 10-06
2-27-07 = 2.7
Facility has 3 holding ponds and, all gravity fed to lagoon #4 with the freeboard maker being in #4.
However no irrigation occurs out of #4 only out of #3.
Follow up discussion with Roger K. suggested that he begin using #4 as the site of irrigation. He will call Rodney Woolard with NRCS
to discuss the maker and start and stop levels.
Page: 1

Permit: NCA207065 Cramer - Facility: Leamon H Allen III Facility Number. 070065
Inspection Date: 05101/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Q Swine -Feeder to Finish 12,000 5,000
Q Swine - Wean to Feeder 3,500 3,000
Total Design Capacity: 15,500
Total SSLW: 1,725,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
FINAL
50.00
agoon
PRI MARY
EE
12.00
agoon
SECONDARY 1
12.00
agoon
ISECONDARY2
12.00
Page: 2

Permit: NCA207065 Owner - Facility: Learn on H Allen III Facility Number : 070065
Inspection Date: 05/01/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ 0 0
Discharge originated at
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance mars -made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
OMOO
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e.l large trees, severe
❑
MOO
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed andlor managed through a waste management ❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10- Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding?
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

Permit: NCA207065 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen Ili
Inspection bate: 05l0112007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number. 070065
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN a 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
❑utside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type e 1
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑
■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
Cl
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page. 4

Permit: NCA207065 Owner - Facility: Leamon H PJlen III
Facility Number : 070065
Inspection Date: 05101/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
Annual soil analysis?
❑
-
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
Cl
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)? ❑
■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
26. Did the facility Fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
Q
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ■ ❑ Q
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ Q
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30- At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concem? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: NCA207065 Owner -Facility: Leamon H Allen III Facility Number : 070065
Inspection Date: 05 O 2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 6

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 070065 _ . Facility Status: Active Permit: N A207065 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: FRoutine County: Beaufort Region: Washinaton
Date of Visit: 060 K006 Entry Time:11:45 AM _ Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: L.H. Allen & Son. Inc,- Finishing — Owner Email:
Owner: Leamon H Allen Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: = Indian u Panteao NC 27860 _
Physical Address:
Facility status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
Latitude:35°39'60" Longitude:76°39'06"
2.5 miles north of Pantego on NC 99. Take a left after the second bridge onto private farm road and go 4 miles.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator:
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
On -site representative Roger Klaassen
24 hour contact name Roger Klaassen
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Waste analysis:
2-24-06 = 2.7
3-14-06 = 8.3 12.2 sludge
Soil test 10-6-05
Operator Certification Number:
Title
Phone:
Phone:
Phone:
Date:
Phone
Page: 1

Permit: NCA207065 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen
Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Date: 06/19/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Swine
Design Capacity
Current Population
Swine - Feeder to Finish
12,000
5,500
Swine - Wean to Feeder
3,500
2,700
Waste Structures
Type
Identifier
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
15,500
1,725,000
Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
FINAL
agoon
PRIMARY
goon
SECONDARY 1
agoon
SECONDARY 2
Page: 2

Permit: NCA207065 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen
Inspection Date: 06119/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 070065
Reason for Visit: Routine
©ischarges_& Stream Impacts
Yes No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ ■
Q
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
Q
Application Field
Q
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
Q ■
❑
Q
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
Q ■
❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. floes discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
Q
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.eJ large trees, severe
❑
■
Q
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
S. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
SOU
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
Q
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: NCA207065 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen
Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Date: 06/19/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
PAN?
n
Is PAN a 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
n
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Conn,
Wheat,
Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Cotton
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑
E
❑
Cl
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
m
❑
❑
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Cl
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
W t1P?
Cl
Page: 4

Permit: NCA207065 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Date: 06/19/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? Cl ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
Cl
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
Cl
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after a 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑
■
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
■
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑
■
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
■
❑
�..
Yoe
Nn
NA
NG
28, Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: NCA207065 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Alien Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Date: 06/19/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
r rl+kar lec, toe Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
32. Did Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss reviewrnspection with on -site representative? ❑ ■ ❑ Cl
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ IN ❑ ❑
Page: 6

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 07QD65Facility Status. Active Permit: NCA207065 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Beaufort Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 04/28/2005 Entry Time:1270Q EM Exit Time:
Farm Name: L.H. Allen $ Sgn, Inc. - Finishing
Owner: Leamon H Allen
Incident M
Owner Email:
Phone: 252 9� r-5151
Mailing Address: 385 Indian Run Rd PanPanteno NQ 27860
Physical Address:
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Integrator: L H Allen & Son In
Latitude: 35°39'60" Longitude. 76°39'06"
2.5 miles north of Pantego on NC 99. Take a left after the second bridge onto private farm road and go 4 miles.
Question Areas:
0 Discharges & Stream Impacts 0 Waste Collection & Treatment 0 Waste Application
0 Records and Documents Q Other Issues
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Roger Klaassen Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
Waste Analysis:
NFL3 NFL4 NF5
3/15/05 = 2.8 .34 4.9
9108/04 = 1.5 .65
5/11/04 = 2.3 2.9
2117l04 = 3.7 .24
Soil Analysis: 2004 lime was applied. Irrigation records are complete and balanced out.
Page: 1

Permit: NCA207065 owner - Facility: Leaman H Allen Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Date: 04/28/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
0 Swine -Feeder to Finish
12,000
8,000
Swine - Wean to Feeder
3,500
2,800
Total Design Capacity: 15,500
Total SSLW: 1,725,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Lagoon
FINAL
Lagoon
PRIMARY
Lagoon
SECONDARY 1
Lagoon
SECONDARY 2
45,00
Pag e: 2

Permit: NCA207065 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen
Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Date: 04/28/2005 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ M ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ 130 ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Cl ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑
Yes
0
No
❑
NA
❑
NE
Waste Collection, 5torace & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
Cl
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e.l large trees, severe erosion,
❑
0
0
❑
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed andlor managed through a waste management or
0
0
❑
0
closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ M ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks 0000
andlor wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste strudures require maintenance or
❑ N ❑ ❑
improvement?
Yes No NA NF
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance altematives that need maintenance or improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ moo
if yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
is PAN a 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1 Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Pag e: 3

Permit: NCA207065 Owner - Facility: Leamon H Allen
Facility Number : 070065
inspection Date: 0412812005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
No
NA NF
Waste Application
Crop Type 6
Yns
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan[CAWMP]?
❑
■
❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crap andlor land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
■
No
❑
NA
❑
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
■
❑
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
Design?
Cl
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■13❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
0
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
Transfers?
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after a 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil anatysis?
Crop yields?
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑
❑
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
1:1
❑
■
❑
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?
❑
0
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively cerbfled operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
■
❑
Page: 4

Permit: NCA207065 Owner - Facility: Leaman H Allen Facility Number: 070065
Inspection Rate: 04/28/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
Yes
❑
No NA
E ❑
NE
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those mortality
❑
■ ❑
❑
rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air quality
❑
❑
❑
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
❑
❑
32. bid Reviewerllnspectur fail to discuss reviewrinspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
❑
Cl
Page: 5

4
_:-..•,::'."4�h.:3�G�'.:.w�'"'3�:eJrr.'.-=�'r�__-'__-`'e �if�i�__ A___�ta...: �"s..:-"S �4�:=�e'.�'�:�:,;., e-air!. �:T�._"..:
4 : �..- •-.1=.:-'.— .'.7 •a• .w5,};; •,3:N: "W' - '� 6+ -"•.1 � Sri' wxl �. � =A-c. •Y'. _., .,'.Y .,..: - _ _ - ;u , __ �.^, �Y.'' . {i
:..�.:�:�;--.-�':�'....:.•5.�,.....��-,tom-,...: �.�,. �,=f�r-�` ��.�t'-�y.�_...�..�.:. -- �... , ._7.'�: ,��z���-.a.���.�lE
jType of Visit *Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Tech. Assistance ❑ Confirmation for Ren j
IReasonforVisit *Routine O Complaint O Follow up Cl Emergency Notification D other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 7 65 Date of Visit: 9R9ROIW Time; lU:3a
d Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:..............
Farm Name: . ............................. .......... .............. County: HCAPful.......................................... WARO.......
Owner Name: LCAMo][1.................................. Allen.............................. .. Phone No: .............................
Mailing Address: 3135..TRAjAll.l3,tim.Rd............................. g
FacilityContact:..............................................................................Title:............._,................................................. Phone No:.......................
Onsite Representative: ,faIRhCS.. gRlfmltYk.s Rge1CJ Aft Sie10. .............................. Integrator: LJL.A,111C Lj&..S.axt Ac................---...................
Certified Operator:Rpgcr..................................... Klussca.................. ........................ Operator Certification Number: J97.47.............................
Location of Farm:
5 miles north of Pantego on NC 99. Take a left after the second bridge onto private farm road and go 4 miles.
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 * 39 59.58 u Longitude F 76 • 39 6.30
Design Current
Swine Capacity Ponulation
® Wean to Feeder
3500 1
4029
® Feeder to Finish
12000
6142
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ soars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 15,500
Total SSLW 1,725,000
Number of Lagoons 4
Discharges & Stream Impact
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ElLagoon ElSpray Field ElOther
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} 0 Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes % No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ..-......Er:imaq ......... .....Secondat y. l ..........SecoadaryZ..... ............ Final............ I ........... -... ..
....... ......... ....................................
Freeboard {inches}; 15 15 21 45
fnny mued

Facility Number: 7-65 Date of Inspection 9/29/2004
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes N No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes N No
elevation markings?
Waste AvOication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes N No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc a 30(
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat Cotton
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes N No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes N No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes N No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes N No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes N No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes N No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Comments„[refer to guesti6a #}s EYplain,anyYES.answers andlor.any recommendations or any other com_ ment&
Use drawings'of facility to betteir eiplain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):. Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
* A new WUP by Jack Long dated 9/2/04.
Waste 5/11/04 NF-3=2.3lbsN11000gal. & NF4=2.9
2/17/04 NF-1=5.5, NF2=5.8, NF3=3.7, I%TF4=0.24
9128104 L3=1.5 & L4=0.65. (Sample is reported to be sent off on 8/18/04)
Soils sample viewed in Soil & Water review: test dated 3115/04, Cu,Zn, pH within guidlines.
Need to add copy of 2004 soils analysis to records.
Annual Certification dated April 21, 2004. Remember to send in the Annual Ceti. for 2004 by March 1, 2005
Sludge survey on 4/22104. Need to find the completed copy and add to records.
17) Need to mow lagoon again to allow for routine visual inspections. r1
Reviewer/Inspector Name Scott
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
r ?1r 7m i rand need

4
Facility Number: 7—G5 Date of Inspection 912912DD4
t
•Required
Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
®No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®N❑
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
OR No
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
®No
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
®No
NPDE5 Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under aNPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
® Yes
❑ No
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
Cl Yes
® No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
®No
34, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes % No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
12172103

Q OF W A E QG Michael F. Easley G
�+] ? William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
7. ..i Dgpartmerrt of Environment and Natural Resources
_:_, .•. Y KerrT. Stevens
:. Division of Water Quality
To: Producer
From: Scott Vinson
Environmental/niimeer
Washington Regional Office
Subject: Animal Compliance Inspection
Year 2003
Enclosed please find a copy of the Compliance Site Inspection (as viewed in the DWQ database) conducted at the referenced
facility by the Division of Water Quality from the Wasbi.ngtonRegional Office. Please read this inspection and keep It
with all other documents pertaining to your animal operation for future inspections.
in general, these inspections included verifying that: (1) the farm has a Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMFP ,
(2) the farm is complying with requirements of the State Rules 15 NCAC 2H.0217, Senate Bill 1217, and the Certified Animal
Waste Management Plan; (3) the farm operation` s waste management system is being operated properly under the direction of a
Certified Operator, (4) the required records are being kept; and (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or runoff.
As a reminder, please note the following comments, which are conditions of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan and
the General Permit; therefore, these items must be implemented:
cp The niaxanum waste level in lagoons/storage ponds shall not exceed that specified in the CAWMP. At a minimum
anaxitmun waste level for waste for lagoonsistorage ponds mast not exceed the level that provides adequate storage to
_contain 25 year, 24 hour storm event plus an additional foot of structural freeboard
cp An analysis of the liquid animal waste from the lagoon shall -be conducted as close to the time of application as practical and
at least within 60 days (before or after) of the date of application This analysis shall include the following parameters:
Nitrogen, Phosphoric, Zinc and Copper.
cp Soil analysis is required annually. Lime is to be applied to each receiving crop as recommended by the soil analysis.
cQ The following records are requimd: off -site solids removal, maintenance, repair, waste/soil analysis and land irrigation
records. These records should be maintained by the facility owner/manager in chronological and legible form for a
minimum of three years.
(p Land application rates shall be in accordance with the CAWMP. In no case land a lication rates exceed the Pl nt
vaiiable Nitro en rate far the eceivirt era tit result in tumor/ durinz any gbLen licati n.
q) All grassed waterways shall have a stable outlet with adequate capacity to prevent ponding or flooding damages. The outlet
can be another vegetated channel, an earth ditch, stabilization structure, or other suitable outlets.
cp It is stir ggg-eA not a reguirement� to keep crop yield information for future use to update your waste management plan.
You will need three years of crop yield data before your plan can be updated
(P The OIC has the duties to ensure that waste is applied in accordance with the CAWMP and General Permit by properly
irianagmg, supervising, and documenting daily operation and maintenance. The OIC also has the responsibility to certify
monitoring and reporting information. The failure of an OIC to perform his/her duties can result in a letter of -reprimand,
suspension, of certification, or revocation of certificates.
For your infomiation, any swine facility that has a discharge to surface waters of the State will have to apply for a National
Poliuiant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit with the Division of Water Quality, effective January 1, 200 L
Thank you for your assistance and Cooperation during the inspection.. If you have any questions, please contact me at 252-946-
6481, W. 208 or your Technical Specialist
Cc: C,WAO Files
SAV Files
943 Washington Square Mall Washington, NC 27889 252.945-6481 (Telephone) 252-946-9215 (Fax)

r
Facility Number 7 6S Date of Visit: fl81Z812Q03 Time: IQ:3tl
NNot Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted M Certified E3 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:.... .....................
Farm Name: ...................................................... County: agaufiRri........................................... WARQ.......
OwnerName: %r Amoja.................................. Alka ............................................................ Phone No: - , S-S.X 1...........................................................
Mailing Address: �#�.�ndi�>11.�dl�p.Rf�............................ ... l.'ll]pfggR..Nlk................................. . U.NAU ..............
Facility Contact:.............................................................................. Title:................... Phone No:
................................................................................................
Onsite Representative: B.Ujank.Dayi5..... ................ ........•--........---......................---- Integrator: L..&.AJkja..&,S.Q1u. A9d.....................................
Certified Operator: B.ryacL.K........ ........................ 1?i Xi&................----....----••--................ Operator Certification NumberjBWq.............................
Location of Farm:
1.5 miles north of Pantego on NC 99. Take a left after the second bridge onto private farm road and go 4 miles. A
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude F35 ` 39 59.58 °° Longitude F 76`F 39 ° 6.30
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
® Wean to Feeder
3500
3500
® Feeder to Finish
12000
12000
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer JE1Non-Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 15,500
Total SSLW 1,725,000
Number of Lagoons 4 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes M No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes N No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:.........Rrknazy .......... .... Secandary..# I........Secan4ary..#2................Final............ .................
Freeboard (inches): 16 16 20 31
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 7-65
Date of Inspection 08/28/2003
' 5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
t,
seepage, etc.).
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? -
Waste Apolication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat Cotton
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WCTP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20, Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? f
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23, Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No- -
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
r fer. to on # : »x' lsin:an : YE n and/or an recom ri r`an.`other com n -
Goniments:{ e ,.quesh ) , p .. y,. $ a savers y;.... men atio s o y: me is
5
_ :.. -
-
.,. better,
Usidrawings.of facility; fo explMii situations.' (use additi©nal pages'as necessary):. Field C -
El 0 Final Notes
Y ❑ P
* New WUP dated 2/5103 by Jack Long.
AL
* Waste report dated: 816103 NF-3 = 1.5 lbs NI1000 gal. for irrigation and broadcast
NF-4 = 0.18 lbs NI1000 gal, for irrigation and broadcast
5/15/03 NF-3 = 1.91bs NI1000 gal. for irrigation and broadcast
NF-4 = 1.3 lbs NI1000 gal. for irrigation and broadcast
Reviewer/Inspector Name Scott Vins Entered by: Portia Peaden
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: P q
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 7-65 Date of Inspection o8/2812003
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ®No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No
32. ❑o the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permaneuthemporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
A �ona .. r-
+tr::;.
mu.m,:_
P.�x -•o.. M
_
- -
* Waste report dated 2/19/03 with NF-1 = 4.5 lbs N11000 gal for irrigation and broadcast +
NF-2 = 3.8 lbs NI1000 gal for irrigation and broadcast
NF-3 = 2.8 lbs NI1000 gal for irrigation and broadcast
NF-4 = 2.2 lbs N11000 gal for irrigation and broadcast
* Soils analysis dated "Fall 2002". Need to make sure there is a specific date given for either the sampling date or the day the
analysis is done. Soils analysis are required to have liming suggestions/requirements for fields.
7. Try to get the inside banks of the Iagoons mowed to allow for routine visual inspections.
27. Incinerator is now onsite and will be used instead of burying.
T-
05103101

of w arF9
� r
To: Producer
From: Scott Vinson
Environmental Engineer
Washington Regional Office
Subject: Animal Compliance Inspection
YearaWIZraa-
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
Enclosed please find a copy of the Compliance Site inspection (as viewed in the DWQ database) conducted at the referenced
facility by the Division of Water Quality from the Washington Regional Office. Please read this inspection and keep it
with all other documents pertaining to your animal operation for future inspections.
In general, these inspections included verifying that: (1) the farm has a Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP);
(2) the farm is complying with requirements of the State Rules 15 NCAC 2H.0217, Senate Bill 1217, and the Certified Animal
Waste Management Plan; (3) the farm operation's waste management system is being operated properly under the direction of a
Certified Operator; (4) the required records are being kept; and (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or runoff.
As a reminder, please note the following comments, which are conditions of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan and
the General Permit; therefore, these items must be implemented:
q) The maximum waste level in lagoons/storage ponds shall not exceed that specified in the CAWMP. At a minimum,
maximum waste level for waste for lagoons/storage ponds must not exceed the level that provides adequate storage to
contain 25 year, 24 hour storm event plus an additional foot of structural freeboard.
cp An analysis of the liquid animal waste from the lagoon shall be conducted as close to the time of application as practical and
at least within 60 days (before or after) of the date of application. This analysis shall include the following parameters:
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Zinc and Copper.
rp Soil analysis is required annually. Lime is to be applied to each receiving crop as recommended by the soil analysis.
(p The following records are required: off -site solids removal, maintenance, repair, wastersoil analysis and land irrigation
records. These records should be maintained by the facility owner/managed in chronological and legible form for a
minimum of three years.
q) Land application rates shall be in accordance with the CAWMP. in no case shall land gMlication rates exceed the Plant
Available Nitrogen (PAN) rate for the receiving crop or result in runoff during any given application..
rp All grassed waterways shall have a stable outlet with adequate capacity to prevent ponding or flooding damages. The outlet
can be another vegetated channel, an earth ditch, stabilization structure, or other suitable outlets.
(p It is suggested, not a requiremai to keep crop yield information for future use to update your waste management plan.
You will need three years of crop yield data before your plan can be updated
For your information, any swine facility that has a discharge to surface waters of the State will have to apply for a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit with the Division of Water Quality, effective January 1, 2001.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation during the inspection. If you have any questions, please contact me at 252-946-
6481, ext. 321 or your Technical Specialist.
Cc: WaRO
SAV Files
943 Washington Square Mall Washington, NC 27889 252-946-6481 (Telephone) 252-946-9215 (Fax)

[Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation ]
Reason for Visit D Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up Q Emergency Notification ❑ Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1C15fZ002 Time: IU:�
Facility Number 7 b5
a Not Operational ❑ Below Threshold
■ Permitted ■ Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ---
Farm Name: County: itf k_ . _._ _ _. _ WARO
Owner Name: tnotsfn -- Alie - _ -_. _. Phone No: 25 .1-16024._......
]Hailing Address: 3103.EMghR�Ix �Lth. � _ . � _ PamLs�Sl 1!I� __ ._ ..._ _. _ x.T.WF
Facility Contact:
Title: ...... Phone No:
Onsite Representative: B1 1pl l ,a� _ r _ .. Integrator: j,,.jj,,AjIM&S.Qjj,,jBp__... _
Operator Certification Number:18A3Q________
LAxmtion of Farm:
12.5 miles north of Pantego on NC 99. Take a left after the second bridge onto private farm road and go 4 mules.
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 . Or 3971 $9.58 Longitude 76 • 39 fi.30 �'
ti
_ - Currier
-
t�vsrie. ` '"'
Po uft n
PonItr9 Olin
(�stt3e pip
® Wean to Feeder
3500
3360
;'s
Layer
❑ Liairy
❑ Non -Layer
❑Non -Dairy
® Feeder to Finish
12000
8000
=. 1�~�
❑ Farrow to Wean
f" Other
❑ Farrow to Feeder
r� �' ='
;�,_... d •�w� 'Tatal•DesignCapacaty� 15,500
Farrow to Finish'
❑Gilts
_
❑ Boars..
, .. - 'T 5 •W 1,725,40[I
Number of I.a�obas 4
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
HoIdimg Ponds.l,Sulid.Traps ass No Liquid Waste Management System
UischarQes & Stream Impacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify ❑WQ) ❑yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the'estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier.-----pmmaz�r •_-_-- .. secondar�c_ _.secnndat�r . _------£oral.._.._ .... ...........................
Freeboard (inches): 12 12 14 41
05/03/01 Cantlnurd

05/03/01
Facility Number: 7-65 Date of Inspection F 1/25/2002
Contnrund
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement9
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum Iiquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Aoolication
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving Crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records &_Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) -
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ® No
LP No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
Waste anlysis dated 9/17101 with 1.5 lbs.N/I000gal. in secondary lagoon.
with 1.41bs.N/ 1000gal. in final lagoon.
Needs to finish balancing PAN applied to wheat fields. Call me with balance: 946-6481
Soil analysis dated 11/26/01 with lime required is some fields and to be applied this spring.
Bryan Davis called WARD on 1/31/02 and gave a PAN balance of 0.51bs.PAN remaining on the wheat-
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

OSIV31VI Condnaed
Facility Plumber. 7-65 Date of inspection 1/2512002
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ®No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ®No
34. 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 IN No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate covet? ❑ Yes ® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No

r
Type of visit a Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
for Visit O Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up 0 Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 7 65 Date of Visit- 9117RDQ1 Time: 1:DD m Printed on: 9/17/2001
❑ Not Operational ❑ Below Threshold
® Permitted ■ Certified © Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: _................
Farm Name: g..... ..... ...... _..................... County: BCAU.Ort................. ....---... WARQ... ....
Owner Name: LcamoR....... ............. _........ Allm................... ....... ....... ........ ............. Phone No: 252-9�S5,304............ .... ......... ........ ..._....
Mailing Address: ..7.Q .1� 9 .�1.!IR�11.......................................................... Flaxtim.Q..NC.............. ....... ........... ...... -............... 22860_...........
FacilityContact: .............. -.... ...... .............. ..................................... Title:..---........................... ........................... Phone No:..................
Onsite Representative: JDnALnL ayi5...........�.................................................. ..... Integrator: L,..�,.e°�luen.�.Sun, Uq�,...... -....... _..... ........ ..._.
Certified Operator:B-C Ajj.................................... DaYA................... ........... ...... ... _..... Operator Certification Number:18$39...... ....... ............
Location of Farm:
.5 miles north of Pantego on NC 99. Take a left after the second bridge onto private farm road and go 4 miles, +
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35�' 39 59.58 Longitude 76 • 34 630
® Wean to Feeder.
3500
3500
® Feeder to Finish
12000
12000
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Discharzes & Stream impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: [ILagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? El 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 gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ..........primary! ......... ...... -secondary ....... .... ... secondary ........ ..-......... ftnai........... ...... ... ....................... .....................................
Freeboard (inches): 16 I6 19 50
6.5m_3m1 rantinned

05103101 Continaed
Facility Number: 7-65 Date of Inspection 911712001 Printedon: 9/17/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste A e"lication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Com, Soybeans, Wheat
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes R No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes R No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fait to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems; over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
is :reef r qu tE E an a e an reco en a
I. Zsdra ng o faci to explain t i n a ❑ Field Copy [I Final Notes
01
* Waste analysis on 6/4101 Lagoon 3 @ 2.71bs.N/1000ga1. Irrigates out of 3 & 4.
Lagoon 4 @ 2.3 lbs.N/ 1000gal.
* Soils analysis on 12/15/00 with little to no lime required. Current years soils are being taken now.
Name Reviewer/Ins ector
p .SCQit.Viii50IIa a:w. :. r is•�'` s _x u:vxa :
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

0510.3101
Facility Number. 7-65
DRtc of Inspection 9117R(}Q1
Continued
Printed on: 9/17/2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
29. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ®No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ®No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ®No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ® No
.► I

�F WATF�
O G
CO
Tv: Producer
From: Scott Vinson
Environments Engmeer
Washington Regional Office
Subject: Animal Compliance Inspection
Year 2001
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
❑Wmion of Water Quality
Enclosed please find a copy of the Compliance Site Inspection (as viewed in the DWQ database) conducted at the referenced
facility by the Division of Water Quality from the Washington Regional Office. Please read this inspection and keep lit
with all other documents pertaining to your animal operation for futare inspections.
In general, these inspections included verifying that: (1) the Farm has a Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP);
(2) the farm is complying with requirements of the State Rules 15 NCAC 2H.0217, Senate Bill 1217, and the Certified Animal
Waste Management Plan; (3) the term operation's waste management system is being operated properly under the direction of a
Certified Operator; (4) the required records are being kept; and (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or runoff.
As a reminder, please note the following comments, which are conditions of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan and
the General Permit; therefore, these items must be implemented:
The maximum waste level in lagoons/storage ponds shall not exceed that specified in the CAWINP. At a minimum,
maximum waste level for waste for lagoons/storage ponds must not exceed the level that provides adequate storage to
contain 25 year, 24 hour storm event phis an additional foot of structural freeboard.
(p An analysis of the liquid animal waste from the lagoon shall be conducted as close to the time of application as practical and
at least within 60 days (before or after) of the date of application. This analysis shall include the following parameters:
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Zinc and Copper.
cp Soil analysis is required annually. Lime is to be applied to each receiving crop as recommended by the soil analysis.
(p The following records are required: off -site solids removal, maintenance, repair, waste/soil analysis and land irrigation
records. These records should be maintained by the facility owner/manager in chronological and legible form for a
minimum of three years.
(P Land application rates shall be in accordance with the CAWMP. In no case shD land application rates exceed the Plant
Available Nitrogen P rate for the receiving cr ar result in runoff during any given gpLhcation.
q) All grassed waterways shall have a stable outlet with adequate capacity to prevent ponding or flooding damages. The outlet
can be another vegetated channel, an earth ditch, stabilization structure, or other suitable outlets.
rp It is suggested, not a requirement, to keep crop yield information for fuhae use to update your waste management plan.
You will need three years of crop yield data before your plan can be updated.
For your information, any swine facility that has a discharge to surface waters of the State will have to apply far a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit with the Division of Water Quality, effective January 1, 2001.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation during the inspection. If you have any questions, please contact me at 252-446-
6481, W. 321 or your Technical Specialist.
Cc: WaRO
SAV Files
943 Washington Square Mail Washington, MC 27889 252-946-6481 (Telephone) 252-946-9215 (Fax)

IType of Visit D Compliance Inspection, Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Q Routine O Complaint O Fallow up Q Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
- Facility' Number - - Bare of Visit: 5-7-2t1[Fl Timm 81Q Printed on: 9/13/2001
7 65
. - -- Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
FarmName: .................. .................................... Count►•: BrA dod..---...----.................---........... WARO.......
Owner Name: Leaman .................................. ARM ................................. .......... .......... ..... Phone No: 7.51-9.35-53............... .......................................
.....
Mailing Address: 3ZR3. iC.9 Ni a�a,Y Nur1b..................... .......... ••................... .... P.aalcm.NC---- ............... 1780.............
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone No:
Onsite Representative:.) Xymt.DAyjA........................................_....................................... Integrator: L EL..A1kn.&.dun.,1w..---..............---.........---.....
Certified Operator: BxyAn..................................... DAyi,4................................................. Operator Certification Number: IM9..............................
Location of Farm:
2.5 mIIes north of Pantego on NC 99. Take a left after the second bridge onto private farm road and go 4 miles.
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 39 59M u Longitude 76 • 39 6.30
Design Current
Swine C'anar-itv Population
N Wean to Feeder
3500
3500
N Feeder to Finish
12000
8800
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Crilts
❑ Boars
Design- Current , Design. Current
Poultry Capacity population Cattle Ca achy Pa ulation
I❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
[] Non -Layer 10 Non -Dairy
❑ Other I_
Total Design Capacity 15,500
_ Total SSLW 1,725,ODU
Number of Lagoons 4 j❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lugewn Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ID No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 0 No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is obsen-ed, was the conveyance nian-rrrade? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is ohsen'cd, did it reach Water of the State? (It'ves. notify I)WQ) El Yes ❑ No
e. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated t]oxv in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bGpass a lagoon vNtcni? (If yes, uotity DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of tht; State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes CK No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (Geeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
5tr-uelure I Structure: 2 Structure 3 Stnicturc d Structure 5 Structure F
identifier: .......... 1m3•.......... ........ Swaidgy ................ tidar-....... ..... ........ ftnaL........... ............ ......................... .............................
........
Frusboard(inches) 1.8.............................. IS .... ......... ........... 25............................... ! 1....---........

05103101 Continued
acility Number: 7-65 Date of Inspection 5-7-2U(il Printed on 911312001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion. ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, Cie.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
¢f ❑Yes ®No
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 maintcnance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8- Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Arinlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maimenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans. Wheat
13. Do the receiving crops diner with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15.
does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required Records, & Dixuments
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available`?
❑ Yeti
®No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readih available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
El Yes
No
23.
Did Rc% icwer/Inspector fail to discuss revicw/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit b_v same agcyncy?
❑ Yes
® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AW1M'? ❑ Yes to No
lE3 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You wiff receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #):=Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other a►nrments:
Iisc drawings of facility.to better explain sihia#ions.. (sae additional pages as necessary): r- Field Copt' ❑ Final Notes= -
* Discussed 1RR2 & waste sampling schedule
* Lagoon level records complete
* Last waste analysis dated 4-10-01 with lagoon 1 at 3.6 lbs11000 gal. lagoon 2 at 4.7 lbs/1000 gal and lagoon 3 at 3.8 lbsl1000 gal.
Previous waste anahsis dated 1-18-01 _
* Irrigate from lagoons 3 & 4; uses honeywagon for lagoons f & 2
* Waste plan dated 8-4-98 with overall PAN deficit of 38.773 lbs. Soybean window corrected in waste plan. Need to check v6th technical
specialist on wheat window. Operation growing wheat for grain harvest with waste applied in May. Current plan window restricted to
c-ndinP in March. T
RefiewerlInspector Name Pat Hooper = 25 9 tG 648i - -.. =:-
Reviewerllnsvector Sienature: Date:

G Ed3/Ul Continued
Facility Number. 7Date of Inspection 5-7-20U1 Printed on. 9/13/2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor 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. I)o the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permancut/tcmporary covcr?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes [:]No
I-Addiflanul Cammonft andinr Drmwinogit w--ti,:.�:.......�-.-- - - - -
Soils report dated 12-5-00 - pH in range with no copper or zinc problems noted.

IType of Visit Q Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit a Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up Q Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 7 bS [late of Visit: GI151ZDDD Time: 8:3D AM Printed on. 6119/2000
L -- q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
■ Permitted M Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .......................
Farm Name: ...t�lliem. ..SR�a,.31u1�..-.'iAtiShi]ug.................................. ...... County: BCAUfArt........................................... WARQ.......
OwnerName: Uanoint.................................. Mica ............................................................ Phone No: 252-9,-5304..................................... ......................
FacilityContact:.............................................................................. Title:........................ Phone No
Mailing Address:'1Qlgklripy.[97Cf�1......................................
.................... I'anf.CgR...NG.......................................................... I
Onsite Representative: jB.C.yAlx.DAyxa............................................................................... Integrator: LjK.Al1G�l. R1UtiItE �
Certified Operator:JDnAI,.& ............................... vayh................................................. Operator Certification Number:1,$a3g.
Location of Farm:
............
� .Arfxl� ..l>Ra<l1h.Qt�ar><te Q.�a.NG.9 ..�a �..1�f1. €tec.it�e.xsxvt�d..bxa �.Q�a>�Q. xfxa �.faxan.rv�d.�nd. Q..4.Rau .......................•-----• =
® Swine [I Poultry ❑ Cattle [I Horse Latitude 35 • 39 59.58 Longitude 76 • 39 6.30 °°
Design Current
Swine C'annrity Pnnntatinn
® Wean to Feeder
3500
3200
® Feeder to Finish
12000
i 1500
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry CapacitV Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 15,500
Total SSLW 1,725,000
Number of Lagoons 4 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
❑iseharp-es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ®No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes- notify DWQ) ❑Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify D WQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ®No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
identifier: .....--••....................................................................•-•---..............----..........---...--••---...........................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 19 19 19 50

Continued on buck
Facility Number: 7- G5 Date of Inspection 61ISRfl00 Printed on: 6/19/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified A WMP?
No ViWations:or 'deficieneies-were -noted :di ring• thN visit: ; Yoa ►vial -receive no ftii her
.. corres vndence about this.visit.. . . . .. . . .. . .. .:. . . . . . . • . . . . .. . .. •
is a gap in freeboard records. Please continue records.
transfer pipes between lagoons make it easier to maintain 19 inches of freeboard.
file = L061513C
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
[Reviewer/Inspector Name Carl Bunn Entered by Ann Tyndall I

fReviewer/lnspector Signature: Date:
Facility plumber: 7-65 Date of Inspection bI1S12000 Printed on: 6/19/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ® No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fans) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
J

j] Division of Sail and Water CoaWrvadon = Operation R:­
0 Division of Soil and'Water,Caaservation = Compiiarnce1rispecdon
Drvisiop of Water..Quatiiy = Corbipliance Itispec4on:
,.._ . -
Other A enc O Heview_��r _.F
1* Routine Q Comelaint a Follow-up of DWQ inspection ❑ Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other J
Facility Number i S Date of Inspection !S 00
L_ Time of Inspection R 0 124 hr. (hh:mm)
Qj Permitted Certified [I Conditionally Certified © Registered JONot U erational Date Last Operated-
Count �n�5fDe J
FarmName: ............ .............................................................�.......'`5...............................}':.................................................._..............._................
Owner Name: Le— ��
r Phone No-
.--- ----�=........................................................
FacilityContact: .......... ................ _.................................................. Title: .......................... ...................................... Phone No:
MailingAddress:-------•........................................................................................ ........................................................ ........... _.........
Onsite Representative:......... : °' _........t� 'r+�............. .... ...................... Intenrator:.. ........... ....................
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number:
Latitude F3 -570
®' `j.5 Longitude
u_...._,... _ _
_ Design urren .:;Ex°. °bs..i'� ;;;� estgn; orient.;
a
S►viner ;:; �: Ca" acity Population_:: Pn+ilt'3! ; Ca achy .Po elation:'_: tattle
Wean to Feeder
3500
3200
Feeder to Finish
j 2 A90
11500
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
'-_ ❑ Layer Dairy
M ❑ Non -Layer - ❑Non-Dair
❑ Other
_- Total Design Capacity
Total 'SSLW
Design Current
V'� Numbe :of Lagoons K, _:'. ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ spray Fie__ Area
-:;
-Hnldin Ponds 1. Sold Traps =`= ❑ Na Liquid Waste Management System
4,
Discharges & Stream facts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
Dischargc originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
- b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in galhnin ?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes X No
1 Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes l9 No
Waste Collection 8c Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes J?�No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):..........1.9_................ .............. 1_9_............ . .1 !.
Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
50
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc-)
❑ Yes V9 No
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: — 6S Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenarice/improvement?
9. Do anv stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type
6—t v
[:]Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
EANo
❑ Yes
[3 No
❑ Yes
[2f • No
13. Do the receiving crops diffenwith those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes JA No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes N No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes E5 No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19, Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
0e/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
0: NO yiolatiQtis .air ... c.... s rvet a �led liming (Itis.vis'
it: • Y:oit will .. & . iye iia further - -
carrespari�ence a'b- k this i'isit.^ ... .
❑ Yes 9 No
❑ Yes 21 No
❑ Yes J§ No
❑ Yes f4 No
❑ Yes C, No
❑ Yes j6 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes E� No
❑ Yes ij No
rkoc_ C']n4 , qvc rer? A.
` S %.o (-tgjNn5 +'ten 1 e4i5+e� �
j�foy.- ��•i-�r � • �,e f
Cam( S' f,1c-::: L 06/_� -) C
J9.
Revyewerllns P ec#or Name'=A °
rR.
.. �. � ..,:M�.:. .�� ram- �.
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: 5 CZ5
3/23/99

Facility Number: "� —(��'
fate of l.ttspection 1 •3
Odor Issues
2&
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
KNa
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
6No
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
b�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
PkNo
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
Savo
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Additional Comments and/or, Drawings: _ �- w = _- :` n
w _
.,
J
3/23/99

siori aSoi[and Water -Conservation 'Operation Review -
. Diyi
E, D Dii+ 7 ion of Soil and Water Conservation - Compliance Inspection '- -
® Division of Water Quality Compliance Inspection
` er.Agericy =Operation ReviewDth
iO Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follo%v-up crf DWQ inspection 0 Folio ►►-up of DSIVC review 0 Dther
Facility Number 5
late of Inspection
lime of Inspection © 24 hr. (hh:mm}
® Permitted 10 Certified M Conditionally Certified © Registered 113 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
r
Farm N.une. .... ....,- --
Owner Name......,...
Facility Contact: ..........
Title :.................
County: .... F M2
Phone No:......Zr�-530�-
Phone No:
Mailing Address:...,�1�i ?.3..... �J.C....1.q....9t,0. !li �.k........ L t.} .7. fir......... �........ �.r ............................................................ °
Onsite Representative: C._i............. !!.:`:...................................I........................ Integrator:..........:...............................I.............................
Certified U erator-... p
p.f'-+,.......�.:................�Fi:-V�.�........................ ..... Operator Certification Number: .�...[.
Location of Farm:
Latitude ' 4 Longitude • 'C
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population
❑
a�G 0 Layer
7-G+�� voa ❑ Non -Layer
® Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
I-]Far-rowto Feeder
[I Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
ElBoars
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Disc�haEges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation (If yes, notify DWQ)?
Discharge originated at: El Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If dischar-e is observed, was the conveyance man-rnadc"
h. If discharge is observed, did it reach: ❑ Surface Waters ❑ Waters of the State
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated floe., in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system?
1 Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste U01lection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'?
Structure f Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
c
Freeboard (irrches): ......... ... a '(7
.. ................ ....................................[..��'L...........................
❑ Yes ZI No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
P1 {q�
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ Yes
[Z No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
Structure 6
1/6/99 Contrn+red on back

Facility Number: '7 — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any cif the structures need mainien.incelirnproveittent?
S. Does any pact of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required top of dike, maximum and minimum
liquid level elevation markings? lyUj 6 �, iP AL4 k_eyr-
VI'asty Application
10. Are there any buffer~ that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes [9 No
❑ Yes PrNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of
over application? ❑ Ponding ❑ Nitrogen ❑ Yes EgNo
12. Crop type C.C7Y+•467
--...............................................................................................................
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14, Does the facility lack wettable acreage For land application`? (footprint)
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16, is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available'?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation freeboard, aste anajy' & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design'?
21. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency Situations as required by General Permit?
(icl discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23, Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency:'
0. NQ.vi6b,tions.6t: deficiencies .were noted, d[iring itiiis.'visit:. foul w* AI*rercelve nor further .:.:
correspixidene;ra�but;this iisit.;.:....................... ..;...........
...:.:. .:.;.;.;... ;.;. .;.:.;.:.;.
❑ Yes '® No
❑ Yes JRNo
❑ Yes fa No
❑ Yes tR No
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes 10 No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes jg No
❑ Yes &J No
❑ Yes B No
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings. of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):,
AN -it kcuc �tA -d-tc � 1 E,,)/
a ��.
Reviewer/Inspector Name � h � � 7_ , . 10-4 - S%
Reviewer/Itispector Signature: Date: —�r—�f �� 11/6/99

» ro•
1 Division aofana Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Division of Water Quality
w....: ....._....
Routine O Complaint Q Follow -up -of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Date of Inspection 5-20-11F
Facility Number (a
Time of Inspection I if'i-- 24 hr. (hh:mm)
L] Registered IN Certified ® Applied for Permit 13 Permitted 113 Not Operational . Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: f4{ LQ1 vn�..�Si,:.'................................. County: --�...........-----......................................
"4.. .......................
Owner Dame:
Facility Contact:
Mailing Address:
Title:
Onsite Representative: ............. ± . ) ^ ............
Certified Operator: .................... ! .rµ........ d n..........................................................
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number,......
Latitude �' �' �" Longitude
m.SwinePo,
Design I
Current
Capacity
Population.
❑ Wean to Feeder
3500
00
Feeder to Finish
[2wc7 •
1 2 t3or]
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Soars
wNuzrtber; ofaLagvor� 1:Holding Punds ; Subsurface Drains Present Lagoon Area Spray Field Area
........ID
...
n LiquidWaste Managementys Ste
General
I. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
2, Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes O No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes KNo
5. Does any pan of the waste management system (other than lagoonslltolding ponds) require ❑ Yes YNo
mai ntenanceli mproveme nt?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ONo
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes 2�No
7/25/97 Continued on back

Facility Number: `7 — G
S. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed'?
Structures (Laaeoons.Hoidin2 Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes [j No
❑ Yes (9 No
Structure 1 Structure. ? Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard ft .......................
t ). ....::...:....f.r..-.....................t.......----......-- S .................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WNUP, or runoff entering waters of the State. notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ........... .r.•--�. `. Lot.+ ...........................
15. 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 reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Managetnent Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
0 Noo-viola-tions or dericiencie-s were noted -during this visit.- You 4ill receive no further
correspondence about this.visit-.
❑ Yes C8 No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes [Z No
❑ Yes �D No
❑ Yes [4 No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes [51 ;No
❑ Yes Eff No
❑ Yes [9 No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes [Z No
❑ Yes Eff No
❑ Yes 19 No
❑ Yes ff No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments.(refer:to question #j: Explain any YES"Answers andlor any recomtnendations or any other. conntnettts:"";"
w:
6e'%%.drawings of facility to better explainsituations. (use additional pA es as necessary): :,...
.. ... _
(� S�` tR�ua.n �5 ve r Hd7�• G_,.,,,4- 44%� ,-Ov" h- 6e fit desi7.A
�
iF ld o. ,r" Cq.. 41 IV 3�
7/25/97
H,
n.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Knn
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: + 1,11_� Date: ��

0, A
. .. ..........
DSWC Animal Feedlot Operation Review»`'
DW Animal Feedlot Operation ite Ins ection•
Q5 p
® Routine Q Coni faint Q Follow.0 of I)"-( ins cction Q Folloµ•-u of ❑SWC. re►'iew Q Other
Date of Inspectian
Facility Number
Time of Inspection �24 hr. (hh:mm)
g pp C1 Not Operational Date fast Operated:... Re istered 1=i Certified 0 Applied for Permit � Permitted ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
f- CountF:............. ....................................... . ..........Farm Name: s �vn R:it !,:- ......_................................. ..............
Owner Name le' 41�11­ Phone No: g3Sr^Sl � � p[�rQ
Facility Contact: ...... ........ r.x.^......... ........ I.'!+r!:5............. Title:.........................
Mailing Address: .. .......... �,11� .................................R... .
Onsite Representative :............... �-�.......... �
Certified Operator:-.._... ..........................................................
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
2784D
Integrator -
Operator Certification Number:
Latitude ` 1 46 Longitude • 4 "
Design Current
Design Current Design Current
Swine
Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
Wean to Feeder
JE1 Layer
Dairy
Feeder to Finish
QQ
❑ Non -Layer
F Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder
Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ soars
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons 1 Holding Ponds �� ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste ;Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/impror•ement'?
?. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ischar re. originmed at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, %vas the conveyance man-made?
b. Ifdischarg:; is observed, did it reach Surface Witter! (If des, notify D%N-rQ)
c. If discharge is oh.wrved. what is the estimated flow in ealiinin''
d. Doc; discharge bypass a lagoon system? (Il' yes. noel-ty DWQ)
3, is there evidence of past discharge From any part of the operation?
k
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge'?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes &No
❑ Yes D�No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes JdNo
❑ Yes �f No
❑ Yes )KNo
❑ Yes KNO
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
71? 5197
❑ Yes 'No
Continued on back

t
Facility Number:
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed'?
Structures (La!2,00ns,flolding Ponds, Flush Pits. etc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure l
Identifier:
Freeboard [ft): ...............L..
SIFUCtore 2 Structure 3
..................... .....1�:............
..
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures'?
❑ Yes )d No
❑ Yes P(No
Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure $
- �'�..{....°^"}.................... -....... .... ..............................
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need tnaintenancelimprovement?
(If anv of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify- DWQ)
11 Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ...... Cg;?�n......... L` k j J6,�.5
15. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
IT 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 Review'erllnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement'?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25- Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
0 No violations or deficiencies were-ntited during this.visit.� .You4ill receive no further
correspondence about this. visit:.
❑ Yes bd No
❑ Yes 1RNo
❑ Yes TOQ No
❑ Yeti )} do
❑ Yes KNo
El Yes ❑1io
❑ Yes �9 No
❑ Yes t&No
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes %No
El Yes tgtio
❑ Yes W-No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments;
Use drawings of facility.to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessa ._
tree- Iv- w—V 1 y45h,i k55 -}L, ^r f
'r�rS w� Sir
'fo CW`L 11"4� O"S 011 cbs'77,
7/25/97
....... ......� .._.... ..
Reviewer/Inspector Name �. � ..
m �.
l.i:nl1 ,
ReviewerfInspector Signature: Date: 1- 3- T7