330065_PERMIT FILE_20171231

(Type of Visit: JO Com a Inspection U Operation Review U Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine Q Complaint O hollow -up Q Referral Q Emergency 0 Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ❑ Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: t(/! DA 9r ry �� Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: "r - n 5US70 M-' _5 Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
r
J' rj
,
x 4016
yyr rt i
�
i1,
,fr ,
`
U
1t;.
� ,
� 71r" o t,r ri�r{' `n�� .a -.f,. r{
. ,. i •, ) - ;
�'. t �",""`*.�1
�wr, �„.� r n r Sri
rii d�'
�
;;. � r ,e .,r+
°i � 4!lt,�i�i,
poi
+ :
,:, �
b•
��
r ,i,'
r
��{
�.,
_
,+
�" r
u ✓
1�
r
!„41�Ir,;_a,t�,rxt.+,��..
r , r
RAF
0i
fjF
€
1r,fi 4'k�i
I IY r}
f,�,
�
r � .
-�
?tjr,'�,r,+�
ri'�j��,n�r��i�lir
t
;�,
■
! �
--
Farrow to Feeder
rY'�
i 1 .
��
��
.il'
'r+
• 4 4 1
��i�.
r�
+�;+r• �rrrr�J,"�yF,`ir
�'p n!+!
I � + rrr"
ifa"
R;t
�
��
�,.:^ 1 !{ ,f',:r�"rrfGrriry��,�,
a r
i„r�l ,�,n,
r f#t
7
t +.,rirrfil
itt,i"'f n1rr�ilt,Grr,i
ri�jrrf{,iirl+
f ir3(tf ff► r�
•
�� .
■
•
��
t1
on',�F�t
.,
r �{tff,rl{1{rj�«
r;,,I r{���r� ,
k. u .
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?
❑ Yes �❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters ofthe State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility`,Number: jDate of Inspection; 37 Z Z -i
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? 2rYes ❑ N NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes JZNo [] NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): f r�
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 environmental rest, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ YesVNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? [] Yes
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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No [] NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground [] Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): (�6_► ) r 14 r�44 S
13. Soil Type(s): i
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
0�' ❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
N ❑ 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
] NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ZNo❑ NA
[] NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage &Permit readily available? ❑Yes , ❑ 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 ZfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑Weekly Freeboard ❑Waste Analysis ❑Soil Analysis ❑Waste Transfers ❑ Bather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections fudge 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
k

Neility,Number: - &S jDate of inspection: — 22
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[] NA
❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [:]Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
E] NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
0 Yes
❑ No
O NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(�;Tl1k0A,J-, s'--G/7 r"V, 0�-
-i`t'AVR_ I a,'—
5 h Laj' e Sty v ✓Q y a+'t,
• S 2 SJ"D 1'h5 49 A19-J r"k AN�-
f W 6 ��''� 3 Ga
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Phone: ?91 - q 26 a
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date: S• ZZ
21412015

Ul(
(Type of Visit: (Z) Corn ante Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
sit: RoutiI
Reason for Vine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: �/i iQn, f� M.S ` 134 Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: �3✓(gn 5z- f z)tn s Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
La er
Non -La
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Layers
7Non-
Gilts
Boars
Poults
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?
Phone:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Region:
❑ Yes Of No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes - No ❑ NA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
ElYesrNo
NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

acili ,Number: - 6 5- jDate of Inspection: s — Z3 —17
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
� <<
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes
Structure 5
L'oo
NA
NA
Structure 6
❑ Yes No NA
❑ Yes No ❑ NA
0 NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental reat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes PNoO
NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? El Yes
A ❑ 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 NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes;No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10`/. or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12, Crop Type(s): r"V Soyb ns'
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
j ❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
I 0 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
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
rNo
❑ NE
Required
Records & Documents
19.
Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? ifyes, 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 Of 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 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 21412015 Continued

Facili 'Number: - Date of Inspection: S -Z3-
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes�No NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes VN
NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ YesNA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
re Comments (refer, t614uestion `#) Explaln any'YESEanswers and/or, any, additionah;re.commendations organy otliEercomments:
Use, dirawings sof facili ��to better ex" gain -situations (use additional pages as�necessary) "
;' .'n g +,
_, A
iWd
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Phone: % q 1 - Vz4 o
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: r3 LC Date:
Page 3 of 3
5-1-3-1-1
21412015

tType of Visit: k:) ;;Routine
m 'ance Inspection U Operation Review (� Structure Evaluation U Technical Assistance I
(Reason for Visit: 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access II
Date of Visit: �Arrival Time: Ld Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: Q`j i C 64 L(C�C1 <f_ Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
Phone: -
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Region:
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry Gapsa ity Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
I Layer I
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
I I Non -Layer
I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
EURDesign
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Dry PXonitry Ca aeit l;o ,
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Qther
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Dischar es and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
N ❑ NA
❑ NE
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
513
❑ 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 21412015 Continued

FaiMity Number: - Date of Inspection: 2
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfal I) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): %r
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes
Structure 5
ZN ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes No [] NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental -threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the pernlit? ❑ Yes N.
❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to rooted pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ZrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 2rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): /A�
13. Soil Type(s):
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
[] NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
PNo 0 NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
VNYes❑
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19.
Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
r
❑ NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
❑ 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 I" Rainfall Inspections 0 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? ❑ Yesg"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

IMility Number: 3- Date of Inspection: r
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
[] Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes �❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
[] Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
0 NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ,#) E plain'any YES answers and/or any additional ree6mmend'ations or,°any _other comments. °` � ;
. �",
Use drawin s,of facili to,better ex lain situations use additional a es as nece`ssa g ty" ( g ry) ,
9
ReviewerlInspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: j�;,'t s4e_ -� Z_
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
21412015

4 { r 1 I
c.
Type of Visit: Z Co lance Inspection U Operation Review p Structure Evaluation U Technical Assistance
sit: RoutineJ
Reason for Vi() Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emeruency O Other O Denied Access I
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: �� Departure Time: County:
l '
Farm Name: r3 h �10 G Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Phone:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: M 3 S
Certified Operator: C_� }
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Region:
Design Current
Design Current
Design C*urgent
Swine
Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
Daig Cow
Wean to Feeder
]Non -Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design Current
Da Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Dr, P■oultr Ca aci P®o
Non-Dal
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
keys
Other
Turkey Poults
OtherJELJOther
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes N ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yesrl�61 ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes Zo ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Fatili Number: IDate of Inspection: Z
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes N ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): !/
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes eN�oNA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes No ❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental teat, 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 ❑ NA
VNo
❑ 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 0 No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No, ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): j y'_S
13. Soil Type(s): /
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No,
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
VN
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
cf' " v
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
ID Yes
ZWID
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
0 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 I" Rainfall Inspection ❑ 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 Continued

[Facility Number: 3 3 - Date of Inspection: Z
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes N/o•- ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check [] Yes I ,}'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. TT
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes N �❑ 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?
24. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? if yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or, any other comments,.
UseArawings of facility to better explain situations fuse additional pages as necessary).,'
�C-
�(Z7
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 4 22 e,f
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
21412011

Type of Visit: 9'Com Hance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine C) Complaint O Follow-up O Referral 0 Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: (r Arrival Time: I 10 ; Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: �h I. l ! D ia"4_ Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative: P
� ' 1 6, / ( 0 t1 L
Certified Operator:
Title:
Phone:
Phone:
r Integrator: fi'j S.
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Region:
Design Current
Design C*urreat Design Current
Swine Capacity Pap.
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design Current Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D , P,oult Ca aci P,o , Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Pullets
Beef Feeder
Boars
Beef Brood Cow
Turke s
Other
Turkey Poults
Other IOther
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ONo ❑ 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 ❑ 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 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facilitv Number: 09 -J% - 4v Date of Inspection: 3= / /
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes FZ TIC o ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes Ljo No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes K ❑ 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 Types}; ' -±LL
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes ❑'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes &No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes l o ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes o ❑ 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 1" Rainfall Inspections Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No . ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facilt Number: ZI - J Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ failure to complete annual sludge survey [] Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
No NA ❑ NE
No NA ❑ NE
❑ 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 rr-N
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
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:
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ZrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ NA ❑ NE
[DNA ❑NE
❑ No ❑ NA NE
Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers andlor any additional recommendations or any other coihm6nts 3
Use drawings.of-facility,to better explain situations (use additional. ages as`necessary)
Al-0I�-
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Phone: L 9 y Z �d
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �� f l
Page 3 of 3
Date:
21412011

n
Facility Nu
Type of Visit
Reason for Visit
�n­spection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: L411 Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: P4 6- t! Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: AL J6 16, dc—
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Region:
Latitude: = e = 6 Longitude: = ° = ' =
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine 04
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population C+attle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
1 10 Layer
I
❑ Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
1
❑ Non -La er
I
❑ Daia Calf
❑ Feeder to finish
❑ Daia Heifer
Dry Poultry ❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
El
Farrow to Finish
El La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
[I❑
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers ❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
El Brood Cow
❑ Turke s
Other
Uiurkey Poults
❑ Other Number of Structures:
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes <[E:31 ❑ NE
❑ Yes �I N NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El YesVNoE]
[I NE
❑ Yes ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

1
Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection rr 1 D
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): `J
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes ONo NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental thr , notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes FNo
NA El NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ YesNA ❑ 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 El Yes NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) ' C m j ISO+0 .,
13.
Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
El
o ❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
El Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
°Coln mentss�refer t6, •uestion,# .�,Ei lain an YE answer "and/ it an i&ommen `Y on " r n th ri
( ,. " q ), P y ;s ." Yot �. y" . ; :. day o nany o e �comme d '
Use draffvmgs,of facility to better explain situations: (use adydit►otnal,pagesy-�'s�ii ct�ess,s�sary,3q�,gg, :[[y � `y
• LI a 4'" - _K � 0. L �. 6i.-ch:"Li -.$+41 4:�_1 "v�K t A"L'R N. is�x. r�`�:Y �.0 D.M i�•Y .h
ReviewerllnspectorName" a; i ., � R Phone: '29� �Zaa
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ` Date: r
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — jDate of Inspection ![
Required Records & Documents
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes "NoNA El 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 El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes N ❑ NA ❑ NE
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes V;0
❑ NA El NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
[I NA [I NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ElNE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ElYes Zvo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal'?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Com'inents"a''hd pr Drawings.' • ; ; t bt �' ex
Page 3 of 3 12128104
Page 3 of 3 12128104

for Visit: .40 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region:
i
Farm Name: � t' / /H c /V---- Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Phone:
Title: Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Wean to Finish
I I Layer
I
I
I Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
b
Design Current
D . P�o_ultr Ca aci .
I 11-ayers I I
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Beef Stocker
Gilts
I
lNon-Layers
I
IBeef
Feeder
Boars
I
IPullets
I
I
I Beef Brood Cow
Poults
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? [:]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ 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 [] NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ YestNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection: ~(
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes . No -NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?: /
Designed Freeboard (in): Z�(
Observed Freeboard (in): Tyr
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ONo NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental eat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes N 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 C2 N" ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes o NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. 0 Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s)
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes Ej ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes N 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?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes N] 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 I" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Slud e Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes [1Vo NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number:
Date of Inspection: --3 —
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes N NA
❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes eo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey []Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes frNo
o NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes CO] ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
3 I. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments-(refer"to question #): Explain any,YES,answers and/or any additional recommendations or any.other comments:
Use.&,dwings,offacilio,fo better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
3
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Phone: %g/'
ReviewerlInspector Signature
19 l v�
Date: .3 _ 3 .-i t _
Page 3 of 3 21412011

._--z j !_3
Type of Visit: 0 Co,�ance Inspection O Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: /fZ�lT3� Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: � [j �D G /C� Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: A/I l
Title:
Phone:
Phone:
Integrator: rn 13 rs
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Region:
Design
Swine Capacity
Wean to Finish
Current
Pop.
nt
Design CurreWQ
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Design Curreut
C►attle Capacity Pop.
Daig Cow
Wean to Feeder
]Non -Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Design Current
D . P,oultr. Ca aci Po P.
.
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Gilts
Non -Layers
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Turke s
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream ImnaetS
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ®'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes 2rNol ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes VNo❑ 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes v5 ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

lFacility Number: jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? E] Yes No NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural Freeboard? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 77
Observed Freeboard (in): d�
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 environmental at, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes rNo[]
NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ YesNA ❑ 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 NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > la% 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): 11 -4-'
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes N NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ 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 I" Rainfall Inspection 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 21412011 Continued

Facility Plumber: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. `
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a 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 VN
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fait to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑Yes❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.c., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments,., -
Use drawings of facility to better explain.situations:(use additional pages as necessary). n'
Reviewer/Inspector Name: Phone: 7V 4 � 2 00
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: a Gt S Zye— j f Date:
Page 3 of 3 '--� 21412011

' Type of Visit: Co Dance Inspection Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: oO Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time:
/�j = Departure Time: 31f1_l County:
Farm Name: % ( 074 l�0 fAlt— Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Phone:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: /
Certified Operator:Z-h
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Region:
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine Ca acit l'o
P Y P•
i'Yet Poultr> Y
Casa tY
Po P•
Cattle Ca aci Po
P h P•
�P
Wean to Finish
La er
DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
Layer
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Dr, P,vultr.
Ca aci
P,o
Non -Dal
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes El"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 [] NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes gtN 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

Facility Number: - 5 Date of Inspection: r
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes A�oEo]
NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes NNA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): t
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes jEfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental rest, 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 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift/ ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): b \'7'} n S' P,i `�r C's�.� , f i✓
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? [:]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes ;j'
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes Zj No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ o Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ YesgNo❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [3NA ❑ 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 Transfer [3 Weather Code
[] Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspection 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 Continued

Facili Number: - jg5 Date of Inspection: jQ
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes NVNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ YesZF
o NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
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 the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain.any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations.or anyQother comments:,'
Use drawings offacility to better explainsituations (use additional pages as necessary):.. �.
s r
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: raj 7
Date:
21412011

Facility Number Date of Visit: ime:
rO Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
ermitted 0 Ce rtified 0 Conditionaally Certified [3Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: (� L / o i- �— County:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
Phone No:
Phone No:
Integrator: ��`iyTL_
Certified Operator: ._p h l / 84,//# e/�—' — Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm: p
a
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 4 11 Longitude ' 4
. � , ,; Design
Swine . ICa `nch
❑ We -off -Co -Feeder
42feeder Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Current _ Design = Current Design Current`
o uI tion PoultryCa paci Pa ulition �: Cattle Capacity To ulation -.
❑ Layer ❑ Dai j
I
❑ Non -Layer , : ❑ Non-Dairyi
❑ Other „ <
Total -Design Capacity
r-
Tofal SSLVV"
k ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JE1 Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ LaRoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (I f yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Il ti r & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes Ef`
❑ Yes
❑ Yes o
❑ Ye ❑ No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 2
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
scepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop hype �ih�4S . �',�.� A vd : i� S
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit 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 fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ic/ discharge, freeboard ems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/ins or fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facili equire a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. We ny additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
ElYes
❑ YesjNo
El Yes
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes /
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes 2 1 o
El Yes 1QNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
A #)� �
omtnenEs`(refer to question FExplain any YES°answers and/or any.recommendations orrany otlier�camrnents 3 " '
, y
Use drawings of facility fo°better explain situations. (use additional,pages nsnecess.ary) ., .
�. Field Copv Lwmal Notes
4 <,«
Reviewer/Inspector Name .�<:� �. •� �.�d� �.� .mot
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 -Continued

Facility Number, -&Z5Date of Inspection 19
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ;NNo
o
El Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes :No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes❑ Yes
Additional C-ommen s,an .,or, rawrogs: ,,. .:.'
05103101

Fadlity'Number 3 �p
iiion of Water Quality
Q Divvission of Soil_and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency '
Type of Visit �Co nee Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit O Routine Q Complaint O Follow up () Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: L4 0 Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
n
Farm Name: ," 4 i I h4P, Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Phone:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: ! Qa� S 4
Certified Operator: _.PA ( L 6 " !tom e-- c . Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
me " Capacity Pop.
s.
Wean to Finish
We o Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
if' ❑ Boars
�� Other
❑ Other �.
Latitude:
Region:
Back-up Certification Number:
o= t Longitude: = 0 0 d
Design Current
Wet Poultry.:.' Capacity P,opulateon Cattle
❑ Layer Dairy Cow
ILJ Non -Layer I I I
Dry Poultry.
ElLayers
ElNon-Layers
❑
Pullets
❑
Turkeys
❑
TurkeyPoults
❑
Other
❑
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
i
Number of Structures ,
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes ffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Ye#OVNoNA ❑ NE
❑ Ye ❑ NE
❑ Ye ❑ NE
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

41
Facility Number: 11-6 S_
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I
Identifier:
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3 2 1 1
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
ElYes o ❑ NA ElNE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 2fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental thr t, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes N NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No [1 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 XNoo . ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes "No A ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
6-
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
VN01NA ElNE
NA ❑NE
hN ❑ A ❑ NE
N NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.'
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary)
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Z
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 3 — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 0��
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 El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 2<0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections �No
eather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 'NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes N N ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No N ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28, Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments'and/or Drawings:'
Page 3 of 3 12128104

s
Facility Number
Division of Water Quality { ?' -°
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency d
1Type of Visit A Corn nce Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
ReasonforVI: Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral 0 Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ( Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: T_ �����"i GA;.'f_1 Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Phone:
Facility Contact: Title: I Phone No:
Onsite Representative: / Integrator: )?AP_,,.—s-JID
Certified Operator: �� I / 4 IA c% Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Latitude: ❑ o = d ❑ Longitude: = o =' =
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -Layer I E��
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Cattle
Design Currents
Capacity Population;;,
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Daia Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ZNI[E:l
NA El NE
[I YesNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[]Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 3
Date of Inspection ri�F
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): i f
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ YesINVJ:_�NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental thr , notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require El Yes No El NA El NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes "NoNA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window El Evidence
�of�Wind Dritl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) - �rt , (M�lt�^`r �i- 5a�j
a � � --
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes 0 N El
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes N ❑ NA
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes El NA
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ YesFNNo
El
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment`? El Yes❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
i
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: 791-e71 Z0d
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 Continued

v
Facility Number: �j —(�j
Date of Inspection
r i
Required Records & Documents
19.
Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
0 NZNo
❑ NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
El Yes❑
NA
❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El 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 ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V
Rain Inspections ❑ ather Code
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
N NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit'?
❑ Yes
N NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
N ❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No -NA
❑ NE
Other issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by.same agency? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
al Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

Facility Number
a
�nivision of Water Quality
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit 1 Co. ante Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visi Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: �] Arrival,rime: ® Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: � � I ottlA Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Phone:
Title: Phone No:
f� Integrator: a S
Certified Operator: PA A,.— 1 1) r- y� Z(L Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Region:
Latitude: = c = , = Longitude: = o = 6 =
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
❑ Wean to Finish
[]Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Giits
❑ Boars
Other "
❑ Other
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current ;
Capacity Population �.
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifej
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: a
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ 0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes N NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes rNNo
NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ✓'�►'►^ J?6" f-"I4 g'I
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): _ 2— y t (
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No�ONA
A' ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes o ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threa otify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ YesFNo
11
o NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yeso
- A
El 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
El NA
[I NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
eNo U A
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
o ❑ 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 El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) lr h^ it j A 115 r--^i ( r4 r -+ J. _ F& S6cle—
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?
❑ Yes 5� NA [I NE
El Yes No�NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes < NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes < ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
"iYs¢ w,'#kdij �. 4 t� �& -
Cornineurs (refer to question #)Fxpla �nakany YFS answersjandlvr any eco�m�mend®ations or any other comments.
Uscrawtngsofy�factlity tobetter�explam�situat�ons: (use additional pageas nec�esSsary)• x q
A6
7
Reviewer/Inspector Name �-
Phone: ��j �� t� d Q
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
Page 2 of 3 I2/28/U4 Continued

Facility Number: —7 6 Date of Inspection f D
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes o NA ❑ NE
'WN
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
o ❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropirate box. El ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? 1f yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
o ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I"
Rain Inspections ❑ the
Code
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?
El Yes
NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Rev iewer/lnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
4 r.- 5 5to ?a�. ®nS % b *n9bSIDS'kp� '4 y wiyi i 1 y,..e'i �f+- h 3 S
Additional;C6,mni ntA and/orxD"rja" gs Ce$1°� �ti `. w ` thi�:� .. � ��»�`lx, xt.'� ��UVI`1�q,' ,'x' ' ���4atrE ��,''x:@� $,�:hs�:a
Page 3 of 3 12128104
Page 3 of 3 12128104

i „
Facility Number �D
VI I VI
eDivi
sion of Water Quality
sion of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit Comp ' ce Inspection Operation Review O Structure Evaluation Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: IfLJ Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: 6 DGhL Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: Certified Operator: All 0 �- l�� e 7 C_
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phone:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Region:
Latitude: 0 0 = ❑ If Longitude: ❑ ° = d = {1
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -La er
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Puults
❑ Other
Cattle
Design Current I
Capacity Population 11
❑
Daia Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifei
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
❑ Yes
No NA
ElNE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
ElYes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
El NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
El Yes
PNo[1
[I NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
El Yes
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — 3
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. 1f yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes No 0 A ❑ NE
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes;No
o NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmenta;tNA
tify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes /NoF0-1
NA El 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 NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[:]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drif! ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) C k_ 1 Gt}
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?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
0 N NA
N ❑ NA
❑ NA
N ❑ NA
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
1' _ef CA ' 6 J4 s f- W lir e 40 Q ale- C4 CIO- n r
..
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: —V
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 1- L Date:
12128104 Continued

•
1.
Facility Number: ` Date of Inspection1 LS
Required
Records & Documents
19.
Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No NA
❑ NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El 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 ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and l"
Rain Inspection�No
❑ eather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
NA
❑ NE
23.
if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ YesrNo
NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
El Yes
NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
El Yes
NA
ElNE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
ElYes
NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ N E
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional, Comments and/or Dralyings
mom
•
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Sfzw-D-/
Type of Visit Q'Eompli a inspection Operation Review Structure Evaluation Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: D Arrival Time: j D`l] Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: l" h t Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative: 1 r 1
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Phone:
Region:
Phone No:
Integrator: "g, 5� !) M
`S
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = e = I Longitude: = ° 0 ' 0 Il
Design
Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capaac ty
Population
Wet Poultry Cap city Population
C►attle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Daia Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder11E]
Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ D Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turke s
Other
❑ Turkey Pouits
❑ Other
❑ Other
Number of StructureI Is s:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
[:]YesNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes N ,NA ❑ NE
ElYes ❑ NA ❑ NE
El YesjNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 33 — 6-r
Date of inspection (21 C
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): f
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes Vo
NA ElNE
El Yes NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure b
❑ Yes No A ❑ NE
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental thr , notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? El Yes N N ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit`? ❑ Yes o 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 El Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes o A ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
El
&NN ❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
N A
ElNE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
ElYes
N NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
�WV s �v {s ` {4"'ckk &43x5¢'ilcf�t s d
Commn�ts(refertoquesttona#} ,�Explamp'any YES,tanswerstandlor� any, recommendations nr any other comments:
U dt wingslol,tacilityvto�DettertLezplatn twat s (uscaadditi6na� ag'e askn ccess
i
T
Reviewer/Inspector Name -� — Phone: -751- Y Z$'z-)
ReviewerA nspecto r Signature: Date: U Z Z1 DI
Page 2 of 3 I2128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No NA ElNE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No [IA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. WUP ElChecklists ElDesign ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ElYes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections e6ather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑Yes No NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes !/N[--]
NA ❑ NE
El YesDNA El NE
❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
ElYesNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes ❑No El NA El NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments.arid/or ;Drawings
Page 3 of 3 12128104
Page 3 of 3 12128104

r
Type of Visit C lance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visi 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: p 5 Arrival Tim/e: ® Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: _ F /1_2_.' 0I./+12 Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
OnsiteyRepresentative: Integrator: _���+— S-4j _
Certified Operator: ' / /3Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 0 = i = Longitude: ❑
11 Swine
Wean to Finish
man to Feeder
T
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et _
Other
❑Other �
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharp_es & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy I-leifei
❑
Da Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 2"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ";�N�o_
NA ❑ NE
❑Yes o ❑NA El NE
❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes ❑No ❑NA ❑NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number:2
1,3
Date of Inspection ps
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
El Yes ���003 NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental thre , notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No NA ElNE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? El Yes;No
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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes NA ElNE
maintenance/improvement?11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes;aIN-`o�E01
0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window El Evidence of Wind Drift [I Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) L G� (. C� 4 , C'64'-^-1 1"IG A4 sue'
13. Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes ZN NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes No NA
❑ N$
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination,❑
❑ NA
YesPNo
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application`?
❑ YesCl NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name 0., '� a Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: S , ��� Date: p _5
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Ste' Date of Inspection. D�
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ WL}P El Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate ro riate box below.
❑ Yes
2rN. ❑ NA
ElNE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1"
eater Code
Rain InspectionZN
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes/❑
NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
NA
VNo.O
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ YesNA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
;NoNA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
El Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
�NoO
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
AXd'dltaonal Cahn' Ments and/or:Drnwings:
12128104

f 1koutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection p p
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted [3.Certified
1.
e�rtified [j Conditionaally Certified p Registered Not Opera Date Last Operated: ..........................
FarmName: ....... Y.............j4*.l�G(.G.......l;t ........................ County: L...-..............................................................
Owner Name :.............................. Phone No
....................................................................... •.......................................................................................
FacilityContact: ......... !`.`..'............................................. Title:................................................... Phone No:...................................................
MailingAddress: ...................................... .............. .....................................
/21
Onsite Representative:•4. ! r3 w/%/G.................................................. Integrator:.....��.Q..2...........................................
........ ...........
Certified Operator: .................. .}..f......... � VC ................................................ Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
............. .. qV
Latitude Longitude
Sw'
:C Capacrty�;Populi`tion . �'Poultwy .. _
❑ WqAn to Feeder
eederto Finish
�' p
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (Il'yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
u"rrrent„ ,
❑ Yes 2fN
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes No
Structure 6
Identifier: L�
Freeboard (inches): ..........Z.l lr..................................................
..................................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes E5No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection p
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes 6NZo
(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
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 o
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ONo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes ❑ No
12. Crop type '�'
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? El Yes
No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes po:::�
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? . ❑ Yes
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes o
16. Is there'a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes X o
Required Records & Documents
17., Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes P No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes o
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes jN
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes
21. Did the facility fail'to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes o
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes N
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes No
P. �O •yio1�tigns;ot- dgficiencies •vtre noted• Ooritig fihls;vlsit; • ;Y:oox WHI- � 0iye 0 itift�jhr'
.: coriesPon nce. about this :visit: •............:.::..............::: :

r •
Facility Number: 33 —iv -_ Date of Inspection J p
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes eNo
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑Yes o
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes o
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
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 o

acility Number- Date of Inspection Primecl on: 4/24/2000
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
................................
...........
c6rr466dejnc'e'ab:jDiA this'visit.'-'-'-'-'-.
E] Field Notes [:] Final Copy
Additional Comments andlo
r
7 j"-:
Reviewer/Inspector Name 'Z,'
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

K `v"'j s p !b ! 1 d..ir 3 fyi i 8 J '!� i .�, - ; 1 F 114
;r 3.. dm }3.�+
Division of WateFality h r f v n' r, ^ c J 7: F a/
r 3 r. r , i =3� '`S, f �� if#:r�aj7 �� y7 r1.: s'1—It-111:
e- lO Divisidn
da. 1 3 B 3 ¢ -sog.
,s ,. r '! �P�i 7, ,N +@ ,no- t i;i r9 r r ' o
kr 8 z �• o- 9 , p ,r:� � ; , t i rc i'i O, QtllteF 1��eney � : , �s : r', Y f a �' t r �'
r �
n �
Type of Visit G'Compli a Inspection O Operation Review p Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit outine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Time:
Facilit Number
Q Not Operational
Q Below Threshold
er dtted [3Certified
[3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: ��.h..�.. r.......<<.%I..l
�.%..... ���:..................................................
County:
L..��irw..e...,......................................
OwnerName: ...........�%................................................................................................................
Phone No:.......................................................................................
" �( �
Facility Contact: ..Y..`?.:..,.......5
e ! ..'Title:
......L...................................
.. Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address:
Onsite Representative: ............................................
Certified Operator: ......FA!... (......
Location'of Farm:
Integrator:......f �.� ........................................
Operator Certification Number; .... ............................... ___
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �• �' �L° Longitude �• �' �"
Swine
Design,'urgent esign Current, . Cattle � D,esign
a aci Population Poultry. Capacity.Pulaton Ca act '';PCo°u.rrent
¢
i.
ttiation',�
❑ W -to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy "2
;F eeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy I
❑ Farrow to Wean Other
ther
Farrow to Feeder ❑
❑ Farrow to Finish Tofai Desigh Ca�facity,.
❑ Gilts „
❑Boars Total'SSLW
:.
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area U
Eolfflng':P'onds I Soltd Traps'. ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System �' i - ,o s,- i #y ,
rpa ,a Ir, f,Ss,
Vischarees tic Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/ruin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier. .............(......... ...................... .............. .............................
Freeboard (inches):
5100
❑ Spillway
Structure 4 Structure S
❑ Yes 0<0
❑ Yes 21
❑ Yes P,1
❑ Yes
2110
❑ Yes
�<No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
o
Structure 6
Continued on back

Facility Number: — j Date of Inspection 3 Z printed an: 1/9/2441
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 maintenancelimprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
14. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes L�No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 10
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
es ❑ No
12. Crop type �e r M w d '9 , - . P - S- ­7 s-.s " 4 �i sr/ /",O- , i
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes UrNo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? El Yes
b Does the facilit need a wettable acre determination? ❑Yes r'-o -
Y
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes ld�o
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes Lib
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes To
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
o
18,
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
I9.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
�Wo�
20,
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
To
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
/
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
,oQl
L�'tv
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
o
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
es
,❑ No'
NO.*iQ1jati0ijs:or dgfcje)acies were irtQted d(rriilg �}��s;vsit;Yoh w) >reeeiye 04 0.. ..ft0t
eories andeitce: about this :visit.
1. t�, . 6 i €•;f'. ., �. e 3r{
3se diaof fa+nfli to betterexplafn situatfons (use additlonal pages asneFcsssary)o
„.,;, , s;r,
'7 . ", a + Co v 1 r2 �J + ems. �►,-�.. �,,� � P� h
c l j . �'+} . C /�9>-r., f/l-2_•
bj
, �,J` '? �r1-»
Reviewer/Inspector Name
it
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: � Date: 3 Z TJ slow
X

Facility Number: �J j Date of inspection ,�Z/ Printed on: 1/9/2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes Oiio
❑ Yes VNo
IX
❑ Yes
❑ Yes o
5/00

Type of Visit 0 Compli a Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit: Time: I=
10 3
Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
ermitted O Certified O Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: `` G C County:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone No:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: re' �5
Certified Operator: � � r 13 a LO'4& Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0a 4 0u Longitude 0• `
Design Current Design Current Design. Current '
Swine " Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ W nto Feeder ❑ Layer ❑ Dairyi
ecder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer I Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other'
Total Design, Capacity--
❑ Farrow to Finish l '
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
'x Number of Lagoons 1LJ Subsurface Drains Present j❑ Lagoon Area j❑ pray Field Area��"
— -
Holdfng Ponds;/ Sohd"Tr`aps _ ❑ No Li uid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream ]mnacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillwav
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Stnieture 4 Structure 5
Identifier: i
Freeboard (inches): �+
05103101
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes -e �N,
/
❑ Yes L,}'NO
El yes /// 71//
"
❑ Yes
El �No
El Yes.
Structure
Continued

1.
Facility Number: ` Date of Inspection 2 3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes o
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? El YesjNo
(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
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes o
Waste Auolication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN []Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes o
12. Crop type L61' ►"
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those esignated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes VN,
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ElYes
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes �<o
N
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? El o
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No
18. Does the facility fail to have ail components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes ;No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ElYes o
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? El
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ YesjNo
No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes
23. Did Reviewer/Inspect r_fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ YesNo
24. Does faci • require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No
25. W e any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? Cl Yes o
ICY No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Co menu (a efer�tgquestiont#)ExplaitkahyYE5 answ sandloitanyrecamnienda 3ons.or any.other coinrnents.;
» i � ,s.� -•
Use drawings;gf facility to46etter explain�tsituations (use�additinnal pages^ssineces§ary) ,'' "
1- . ,,,R ,. ❑Field Coat El Final Notes
Reviewer/Inspector Name`
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: 3
05103101 Continued

IType of Visit QyCompl4pWinspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation j
Reason for Visit < Routine Q Complaint Q Foilow up O Emergency Notification O Other 0 Denied Access
FaciT 'Number Date of visit: 2y p Time:
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
e tted 13 Certified © ConditionallyCertified[3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .............••..........
FarmName: .... jA'..x ? . [..�.....--- s..1.../..................................................... County:....................................................................................
Owner Name:
Phone No:
MailingAddress: ............................................................. _ ............................................... . ... ..............•---.................................................................. ..........................
FacilityContact: ............................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: ........................ .........................................••---•---- .................................................. lntegrator:..,O e.' =..; `2 .............................................
Certified Operator:..........1... ............13u.r/O.G/C--............................................. Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Morse Latitude • 4 66 Longitude • 1 64
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
❑ Yes .JCI o
ElYes;No
o
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
ier:
Freeboard (inches):
12112103
o..J...17......
...................................
.................................... ................................... •.............
Continued

Faciiity'Number: 33 — S Date of Inspection Z� [
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 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
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ;2�
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes o
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes o
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [:]Yes o
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type rn i" t n. 7 r 1
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the C4ufied Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes o
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
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?
Odor lrsues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18, Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
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
Air Quality representative immediately.
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes �' ""
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
:..t�.tix.tr^At, %.. �.r,ot+d.^i. .ai:,: J' CR-� '.,,3i: ;'f'S,n:+i'. f., :.a� �i.:.'�ta�.^r"?llsw ..1"r • ••:dt:?.ji'te.<;&"a3J `:.t,e.�pi. .f�J[,�sli7 � F.i .ifi3iie': f,..rtfN;Y7i�"3.','�?G7.T - '�!"
nts,
:Conunentsf,(referf.to;gnestionf#)sfE�tplain€any,YESansvrers,and%rtanyecommendat,onsorgt►ny,atherco nts'"'Ha,=dEj'd�iJ.{rt(t;;
n: 3 -
` 4 ,a:: i.4E _ _.3rr. sr - dli,?. t:.s::"t.,::::fsS .P.�I!^,3 �'.d-::' . ;'f1.!'S{t "A;Y.�u:: 4Y1! r � hfh .' fLY�dfk.':.f"S'Ei.'
,Use drawings of faei6ty to:tietter,explain situations: (use addittonal�pages as necessary):; pd ❑ Field Copy Final Notes {fit
rdi�Jryr;�,reri1
:�"7%tf= nj�f;{.�.E F➢"k Prg t[•<sf7��F'asil !!�1y`,��1f. �p,F §,�7;�ji.i��yj��'j i"�#I'tj}'�ap r-sPr'!{�.•'�e'.ifa _.e
{!.`s,�fPS P, dgpol i}.::�t�3r¢ii �lry7{j#'°f'tf(t,"i
�.vN..,,�.a...P...i".'k.Uil.'[h'nFN'i�>�P.f+�.'c�i`i.Y�FiF"S)7:ir5 $Ik�fiid�:�!r3lh;llY�+t;�,!rnr��•piY.�fi�-tTl"^�.4'fiYui[iL"�'�'!:"Frelf �f
'- C. ..«1.l..... �.fSSi_.S.r:.},YtAt 3Y.dnf�.�.'°+P �3°frAi9��1d��}3h..id'Py�L FAf w.=..:`�.kelG.i,.:"ttF`.'CNL.L.��:3,�,bFd'f::111�Ex',(i��#S','8-R3V�F4Y'?�
[ , im 1 f� f�.�77Yj,
7" t iI,. 1�r 6" f r1 t d
Reviewer/InspectorName �j;t r..['i=, �i�f; �..r;L
cy:0taAr4<ux�r���,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: a f
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 3 — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Document,%
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes o
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes o
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
ElYes 1`v
❑ 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 o
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes ❑ No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes ❑ No
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection 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
NPI)ES Permitted Facilities
30.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
es ❑ No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes J� 1"' `
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes No
33.
Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
34.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
35.
Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
XOY
a
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After I" Rain
_�(120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
12112103

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Raleigh Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
AcakwA
EDF.=HNF;Z
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
July 15, 1997
Mr. Phil Bullock
Route 2, Box 459
Battleboro, North Carolina 27809
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Facility # 33-65
Phil Bullock Farm
Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Bullock:
On July 10, 1997, Mr. Buster Towell from the Raleigh Regional
Office conducted a compliance inspection of the subject animal
facility. The inspection is part of the Division's efforts to
determine compliance with the State's animal waste nondischarge
rules.
The inspection determined that the operation was not discharging
wastewater into waters of the State and that operations were
proceeding according to your approved Animal Waste Management Plan.
As a result of the inspection, the facility was found -to be in
compliance with the State's animal nondischarge regulations.
Effective wastewater treatment and facility maintenance are an
important responsibility of all animal waste producers. The
Division of Water Quality has the responsibility to enforce water
quality regulations in order to protect the natural resources of
the State.
The Raleigh Regional Office appreciates your cooperation and
compliance. If you have any questions regarding this inspection
please call Mr. Buster Towell at [phone].
Sincerely,
Jildy Garrett,
Water Quality Section Supervisor
cc: Edgecombe County Health Department
Mr. A.B. Whitley, Edgecombe Soil and Water
Conservation District
Ms. Margaret O'Keefe, DSWC-RRO
DWQ Compliance Group
RRO Files
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101, FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 Nif C An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-571-4700 5C% recycledl10% post -consumer paper

Facility Number S'
Farm Status: ❑ Registered ❑ App�lied for Permit
❑ Certified Vre-E-tted
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection © 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
(ex:1.25 for I hr .15 min)) Spent on Review I y0!i_j
or Inspection includes travel andprocessing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated: ...... ».......................... ......... ........ .....................l..........................................................................
FarmName:...! L i`....HID ��/.�...lle!k................................... County:... °l.."............................. ............
AL
Land Owner Name:... . .... . ................ .4� 1..�0.. G.............................................., Phone Na:.........(. r ..� Z...~ .. Z... z...................
Facility Conctact:........4 I .......... U,G/L............. Title:................................................ Phone No. ../j................................r`�4/�+._
MailingAddress:........1' .J.... ......7�... .X....H..S...!.............Y. ' :Q.....v.. ............. L 7..ea.9.........................................................
OnsiteRepresentative: .1.....�.............�......i�....G./L................................................. Integrator: ,.414 .1..0. 2...................................................
Certified Operator:......... �.�...........�.`.`..'(�.G./C............................................. Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
Latitude • 6 ®�( Longitude ' ©& 66
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
Qeneral
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes 0"No
❑ Yes �' o
❑ Yes
❑ Yes Id No
❑ Yes 9400"
❑ Yes t.. o
❑ Yes Io
❑ Yes
Continued on back

acility Number:... ...... —..
_ 7
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
S. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons and/or llolding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft).- Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
.........2.t..o.......... ............. ....... ...... ............................ ............................ ............................
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
WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
I5. Crop type s�.hr::... ".1r'.s......................................................................................
f..... �.....
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
For Certified Facilities Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23, Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes U
� Z
❑ Yes []' o
❑ Yes IQ No
Structure 6
.................�No
❑ Yes ;��O
❑ Yes
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes
❑ Yes eNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes �No
El Yes
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes J �To
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes o
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: "? _/O —
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

Routine
Facility Number
nt 0 Follow-up of DWO inspection
Registered [] Certified [3 Applied for Permit [3 Permitted
FarmName: ....................................................................
Follow-u of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection 7
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
113 Not Operational 1 Date Last Operated: ..........................
.. County: .IZ.
OwnerName: .......................................... .............................. Phone No:.......................................................................................
Facility Contact: .....................•...........•..................•.... .. Title:................ ...... Phone No:
MailingAddress: ..................................................... ...................................... ...............................................
..........................................
.............
..........................
OnsiteRepresentative:...i�r�i ...................U.- ..k.,Q-[,. L. ... Integrator........................................................... .
Certified Operator:............................................................................................................... Operator Certification Number ..........................................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ���� ��� Longitude �• ���
h '
i`3 r gy.
c
J❑ Subsurface Drains Present �jO Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify D1A'Q)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge, bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenancelimprovement?
b. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
El Yes JC!l
El Yes //�No
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ Yes )dNo
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes �4o
❑ Yes/No
❑ Yes T _ _
❑ Yes I o
dN
❑ Yes &�o—�
Continued ors back

Facility Number: ' >�
'F8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? Cl Yes jl!�No
Structures (Lagoons.Hlolding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Cl Yes P(No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft): .......Z/... t.............. .................................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ....................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes eo
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ElYes A1 No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? Yes ❑ No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
B.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
VINO
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
E2,No
(if in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type .'l11 yQ. ........... ..... .....................................................................................................................................................................................
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
Z No
17,
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
1;2rNo
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
�TNo
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
9eNo
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
VO
For
Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
No
GPNo
24,
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
o
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes
[r No.violations`or' deficiencies.wvere-noted-during' this:visit. You.4ill receive ni o further:
21, l jy s 1W T YE 1 �� e�-i _
-50 6T11 L-15 )4 G It s 6 o,L)
05 jUd j /U � 1�p l� r vm P Y L-r- —r 7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:/Qti�� o r9, /J //i �f Date: 7

,
y�O Di ' on of Soil and Water Conservation 0 Other Agency
tviston of Water Quality
„N
low
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up iif DNVQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review O Other 1
Date of Inspection►�
Facility Number
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (bh:mm)
13 Registered 0 Certified [3 Applied for Permit�Vermitted 0 Not Operational Date Last Operated: . ......... ...............
I f p I � .
Farm Name: Q►!..'... `... R.w I .....x0 -................................................ C.ounty:.....lei. �r��!1P!'L..........I....... ............ I ..........
Owner Name ........... r. .�..i ... .............. ..
FacilityContact: 5.. .j... .....is h t D G G......................... Title:................................................................
Mailing Address:..0.2.........f].. .. ...�................:�J'9 1� di'' 0.............................................
Onsite Representative ter' �3 II D GIL ......
............... ........
............................
Certified Operator ;......... .,v.[.'..,.�.,.h.�Q„G(.v .......
Phone No: G L { Z.rd................... ....
Phone No:................................ ..............
.................................
Integrator:..., ..
/-A /�..`:................................................
Operator Certification Number; .........................................
Location of Farm;
i
...... ................ ......................... .. 7
Latitude Longitude �• �' r"
Destgn;i
,Current u Design GurreriG' =; s Design Current
S�wuie 'capacity `Population, " Capacity Population Cattle CapacityPopulation
2Pouliry
Feeder
❑ Layer
❑Dairy
RFetederEto Finish
❑ Non Layer
JLJ Non Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
r
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Other
s
Farrow to Finish;
�' Total Design Capaeify;
❑Gilts
�
Boars
Numbehl f Lagoo 1 Holding Ponds °
❑ Subsurface Drains Present
❑ Lagoon Area 10
Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallrnin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
❑ Yes YN7
C
❑ Yes
❑ Yes ZN�
❑ Yes 7No
El Yes
N
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑❑ Yes VNo
Yes
❑ Yes
Continued on back

Ce
FacilityNumher-�?j —
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (h.woons.11oiding I'londs,F lusty Pits. ete.l
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
.........................................
Freeboard (ft):...........:.Q..................
10. is seepage observed from any of the structures?
I I- 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)
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Anpiication
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State. notify DWQ)
15. Crop hype �r N ... ..
/�p c .......... ...I... { r`{....... '.rr� ...............�.. r^Ga s.....................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWM13)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19, Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
t
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. W any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit'?
No.violations or deticieincies were- noted- during' this visit.:You4ill receive no further
correspondence about this'.visit.•
❑ Yes 'o
❑ Yes No
Structure (i
❑ Yes 'u
.r
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes;�No
❑ Yes N'o
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No ..
❑ Yes ��No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes I
❑Yes N
❑ Yes N
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes O
;11,�z I
❑ Yes 0 NN
El Yes No
Comments (refer to question #)Explattri any YES answers and/or Any recommendat►ons or any other coininen"'41
Use drawings of facility to- better expl.ttn.sttuatt ns (use additional pa&cs as neie si T. „ f
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: /a-K7& %m,.{/t f Date: 3

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Raleigh Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Mr. Walter P. Bulluck
Rt. 2 Box 459
Battleboro, NC 27809
[:)EHNR
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
May 13, 1997
SUBJECT: Operation Review Summary
Phil Bulluck Farm
Facility No. 33-65
Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Bulluck,
On May 2, an Operation Review was conducted of Phil Bulluck Farm facility no. 33-65.
This Review, undertaken in accordance with G. S. 143-215.1 OD was one d two visits
scheduled for all registered livestock operations during the 199� calendar year. The Division
of Water Quality will conduct a second site inspection.
It was determined that no corrective actions are necessary as the result of this Review,
since waste was no being discharged to the waters of the State, and the animal waste
collection, treatment, storage and disposal systems were maintained and operated under the
responsible charge of a certified operator. A copy of the completed review form is enclosed
for your information.
It was noted that corn was being grown on the 88 cleared acres. According to the
calculations present in your plan, the required crop is Bermuda. Due to the freeboard level
estimation of 7 feet and the fact that the nitrogen requirement for corn was mentioned in your
plan this is.not a violation of your plan. When the lagoon is fully charged and pumping is
occurring, either more land must be cleared and planted or Bermuda needs to be established
on the already cleared acreage.
The review determined that the farm was operating in accordance with the approved
animal waste management plan. Please remember that you are required to obtain either an
amendment to your existing plan or a new waste utilization plan before any changes are
made in crop type or harvest method on land included in your plan. All land used for nutrient
application from animal waste systems must be included in the waste utilization plan. The
plan must be certified by either a designated technical specialist or a professional engineer.
For additional assistance with the plan, please contact your local Soil and Water
Conservation District Office or local Cooperative Extension Service Office.
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101, NOVFAX 919-571-4718
Raleigh, north Carolina 27609 C An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-571-4700 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Mr. Bulluck
May 13, 1997
page 2
The Division of Soil and Water.Conservation appreciates your cooperation with this
Operation Review. Please do not hesitate to call me at 919/571-4700 ext. 208 if you have
any questions, concerns or need additional information.
Sincerely,
/0%
Margar t U Keefe
Environmental Engineer I
cc: Edgecombe Soil and Water Conservation District
Judy Garrett, Water Quality Regional Supervisor
John College, Hanor Farms
DSWC Regional Files

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 28, 1997
Walter P. Bulluck
Phil Bulluck Farm
Rt 2, Box 459
Battleboro, NC 27809
_V
&74
EDEHNF=1
Subject: Farm No. 33-65
Additional Information Request
Phil Bulluck Farm
Animal Waste Operation
Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Bulluck:
The Permits and Engineering Unit has completed a preliminary engineering review of the subject
application. Additional information is required before we can continue our review. As required by Part I
of the General Permit Application, please submit two copies of the Certified Animal Waste Management
Plan by March 30, 1997.
Please reference the subject farm number when providing the requested information. All
information should be signed, and submitted to my attention at the address below. Please note that failure
to provide this additional information on or before the above requested date can result in your application
being returned as incomplete.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please call me at [phone], extension 362.
a � U L� P I F5
� " 31997
DEHNR RALEIGH
REGIONAL OFFICE
cc: Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality
Permit File
Sincerely,
Michael T.-Lewandowski
Environmental Engineer
State Engineering Review Group
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
500,6 recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

A.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Raleigh Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
ALTI
AM*
IDEHNR
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
October 15, 1995
Mr. Phil Bullock
Route 2, Box 459
Battleboro, North Carolina 27809
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Cattle Operation
SR 1407
Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Bullock:
On September 27, 1995, Mr. Eric Fleek from the Raleigh
Regional Office conducted a compliance inspection of the subject
animal facility. This inspection is part of the Division's efforts
to determine potential problems associated with animal waste
disposal systems.
Mr. Fleek's site visit determined that wastewater from your
facility was not discharging to the surface waters of the state. In
addition, no manmade- pipes, ditches, or other prohibited
conveyances (for the purpose of willfully discharging wastewater)
were observed. Furthermore, it was noted that blue -line streams
located on your pasture were fenced off to prohibit cattle access.
As a result, your facility was found to be in compliance during
this visit.
Effective wastewater treatment and facility stewardship are a
responsibility of all animal facilities. The Division of
Environmental Management is required to enforce water quality
regulations in order to protect the natural resources of the State.
Accordingly, illegal discharges of wastewater to surface waters of
the State are subject to the assessment of civil penalties and may
also result in the loss of deemed permitted status, requiring
immediate submission of a waste management plan.
This office would also like to take this opportunity to remind
you that you are required to have an approved animal waste
management plan by December 1997. This plan must be Certified by a
designated technical specialist or a professional engineer. For a
listing of certified technical specialists or assistance with your
waste management plan you should contact your local Soil and Water
Conservation District.
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer W% recycled/ 10% post -cony, mer paper

10
Phil Bullock
Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Page 2
The Raleigh Regional Office appreciates your cooperation in
this matter. If you have any questions regarding your inspection
please call Eric Fleek at [phone].
Sincerely,
y . Garrett
Water Quality Supervisor
/ds
H:\animdn
cc: Edgecombe County Health Department
Edgecombe County Soil and Water Conservation District
Steve Bennett - Regional Coordinator, Division of Soil and
Water Conservation

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
October 16, 1995
Mr. Phil Bullock
Route 2, Box 459
Battleboro, North Carolina 27809
Subject: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Cattle Operation
SR 1407
Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Bullock:
On September 27, 1995, Mr. Eric Fleek from the Raleigh
Regional Office conducted a compliance inspection of the subject
animal facility. This inspection is part of the Division's efforts
to determine potential problems associated with animal waste
disposal systems. .
Mr. Fleek's site visit determined that wastewater from your
facility was not discharging to the surface waters of the state. In
addition, no manmade pipes, ditches, or other prohibited
conveyances (for the purpose of willfully discharging wastewater)
were observed. Furthermore, it was noted that blue -line streams
located on your pasture were fenced off to prohibit cattle access.
As a result, your facility was found to be in compliance during
this visit.
Effective wastewater treatment and facility stewardship are a
responsibility of all animal facilities. The Division of
Environmental Management is required to enforce water quality
regulations in order to protect the natural resources of the State.
Accordingly, illegal discharges of wastewater to surface waters of
the State are subject to the assessment of civil penalties and may
also result in the loss of deemed permitted status, requiring
immediate submission of a waste management plan.
This office would also like to take this opportunity to remind
you that you 'are required to have an approved animal waste
management plan by December 1997. This plan must be Certified by a
designated technical specialist or a professional engineer. For a
listing of certified technical specialists or assistance with your
waste management plan you should contact your local Soil and Water
Conservation District.

JUL-14-1995 15: 26 PPOM DEM WATER QUALITY SECTION TO
RRO P.02/02
Site Requires Immediate Attentior• T
Facility No.
DfWSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERAI-10 ��SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: 1995
Time:
Farm Name/Owner:
Mailing Address:
County:
Integrator: Phone:
On Site Representative: Phone:
Physical Address/Location: S f
Type of Operation: Swine poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: Number of Animals on Site:
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number. ACNEW
Latitude: Longitude: _ " Elevation. —_—_Feet
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately l Foot + 7 inches) Yes or No Actual Freeboard: WARE. Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes or No Was any erosion observed? Yes or No
Is adequate land available for spray? Yes or No Is the cover crop adequate? Yes or No
Crop(s) being utilized:
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria'? - 200 Fdet from Dwellings? Yes or No
100 Feet from Wells? Yes or No
e arirnal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or No
areal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS NUp Blue Line'? Yes or No
animal waste discharged into waters of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
.3imi.ar man-made deN ices? Yes or No If Yes. Please Explain.
ry<:C5 lily t-Icility inaintain adequate waste martagemcnt .records (volumes of ruanure, land applied.
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? Yes or No
Additional Comments: C)5 tole NV/O U �� d("A `
Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit
Use Attachments if Needed.
TOTAL P.02

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Natural Resources P. Q, Box 10, 201 St. Andrew St.
Conservation Tarboro, North Carolina 27886.
Service Telephone: [phone]
D� C E� T L,
June 24, 1997
fJUN217o 1997
Mr. James R. Baluss, Healt ,DireW L 6FFiCE
Edgecombe County Health De
2909 North Main Street
Tarboro, NC 27886
Dear Mr. Baluss:
Re: Phil Bulluck Lagoon
As a follow-up to our discussion on June 9 about odor
complaints at the Phil Bulluck operation, I visited the site at
Mr. Bulluck's request on June 12. The purpose of the visit was
to provide Mr. Bulluck with any assistance or recommendations
that I felt would help with reducing odor from the operation.
Mr. Bulluck called and asked for this assistance. The
lagoon on that day was dark black in color and had an odor
heavier than most older, properly working lagoons. The water
level appeared to.be approximately 3-4 feet below the stop pump
mark. I related to Mr. Bulluck the odor complaint you brought to
my.attention. Mr'.-"-Bulluck stated he had washed down."one of the
houses on the farm.Saturday, June 7 and opened the curtains to
let it air out on Sunday. This appears to be the major source of
the odor from the farm over that weekend.
The following recommendations were made to Mr. Bulluck:
1) Do not wash or air houses on the weekend when people
are scheduling outdoor activities.
2) Add fresh water to the lagoon to get it up to the
permanent water level as soon as possible.
3) Acquire some "seed" lagoon liquid from a properly
functioning lagoon to speed up the Anaerobic activity
in the lagoon.
On June 16, you called our area engineer and requested that
she give an interpretation of whether the lagoon had to be
charged half full and if Mr. Bulluck could be cited for a
violation. You also requested that she check to see -if the
lagoon was precharged. I conducted an elevation survey on the
lagoon on June 16'. The current water level'in the lagoon was-3.2
feet below the permanent water level marker. This''arker'is 8
feet above the lagoon bottom. The bottom 2 feet s for sludge
accumulation. This means the lagoon would need a little over 3_
feet of water to be precharged as is requested. The lagoon has
4.8 feet of water and is precharged 80 percent of the designed

Mr. James R. Baluss
June 24, 1997
Page 2
permanent storage. During this visit, the lagoon had changed
color to a more purple color and was starting to show signs of
gas eruptions. These are good signs that the bacterial action
is starting to work properly.
If you have any further questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
C.. 6. OAXLG
A. B. Whitley, III
District conservationist
Tarboro Field Office
cc: Joseph K. Durham
Buster Towell

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

LN,

!w
--

TI�II Ir• �{ � .•7'

-M jpg" W--.

o��F WArF9QG Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
rNorth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
0 -� Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
April 10, 2007 �! ; AIRV
�i
Walter P Bulluck
Phil Bulluck Farm
p
Rt 2 Box 459
Battleboro, NC 27809
Subject: Sludge Survey Testing Dates
Certificate of Coverage No. NCA233065
Phil Bulluck Farm
Animal Waste Management System
Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Bulluck:
The Division of Water Quality (Division) received your sludge survey information on January
22, 2007. With your results, you requested an extension in the frequency of the sludge survey
for the lagoon at Phil Bulluck Farm facility. Due to the amounts of treatment volume available,
the Division agrees that a sludge survey is not needed until 2008. Please note that this facility
was previously permitted under the NPDES General permit but has applied for a State Permit
upon expiration of the NPDES General Permit which expires on July 1, 2007, at which time the
facility is expected to be covered by the State COC. The results of the 2008 sludge survey are to
be submitted by March 1, 2009. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any
questions, please contact me at [phone],
Sincerely,
Miressa D. Garoma
Soil Scientist
cc: LRaI`eigli-Regionai_Office,-Aquifer-Protecti n Section
Central Files
Aquifer Protection Section 1636 Mail Service Center
Internet: www.newaterquality,org Location: 2728 Capital Boulevard
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper
t��` hCarolina
Naturally
Raleigh, NC 27699-1636 Telephone: [phone]
Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax 1: [phone]
Fax 2: [phone]
Customer Service: [phone]

Feb 1210 04:42p
p.1
Tarboro Field Office
201 St- Andrew Street
Tarboro NC 27886
252-823-8187 ext. 130
2524341 T902-FAX
From the desk of Margaret Kni ht
TO: BusterTowell Division of Water Quality
Fax: [phone] Pages: 5 including cover
Phone: [phone] Date: 2/12/2010
Re: CC:
® Urger* 0 For Review 0 Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle
e Cornnwnts:
This is the plan of action for Waiter P. Bulluck — Bulluck Swine Farm,

Feb 12 10 04:42p
p, 2
PLAN OF ACTION (PoA) FOR HIGH FREEBOARD AT ANIMAL FACILITIES
Facility Number: �, _33 - 65
County: Edgecombe
Facility Name: Bulluck Swine Farm
Certified Operator Name: ea- Operator #
1. Current liquid levels) in inches as measured from the current liquid level in the lagoon to the
lowest point on the top of the dam for lagoons without spillways; and from the current liquid level
in the lagoon to the bottom of the spillway for lagoons with spillways.
Lagoon NameiIdentifier (ID)
Spillway (Yes or No)
Level (inches):
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
am
_15
2. Check all applicable items
Liquid level is within the designed structural freeboard elevations of one or more structures. Five
and 30 day Plans of Action are attached. Hydraulic and agronomic balances are within
acceptable ranges.
�x Liquid level is within the 25 year 24 hour storm elevations for one or more structures. A 30 day
Plan of Action is attached. Agronomic balance is within acceptable range.
Waste is to be pumped and hauled to off site locations. Volume and PAN content of waste to
pumped and hauled is reflected in section III tables. Included within this plan is a list of the
proposed sites with related facility number(s), number acres and receiving crop information.
Contact and secure approval from the Division of Water Quality prior to transfef of waste
to a site not covered in the facility's certified animal waste management plan.
Operation will be partially or fully depopulated.
- attach a complete schedule with corresponding animal units and dates for depopulation
- if animals are to be moved to another permitted facility, provide facility number, lagoon
freeboard levels and herd population for the receiving facility
3. Earliest possible date to begin land application of waste: 2/19/2010
I hereby certify that I have reviewed the information listed above and included within the attached Plan
of Action, and to the best of my knowledge and ability, the information is accurate and correct
Walter P. Bulluck
Facility Owner/Manager (print)
A J-�t
Facility OwnerfManager (signature)
PoA Cover Page 2121100
[phone]
Phone:
Date: 2/12/2010

Feb 1210 04:42p p,3
PLAN OF ACTION {POA) FOR NIGM FREEBOAM0 AT Alv MAIM rAQLMES
THIRTY (30) DAY DRAW DOWN PERIOD
1. TOTAL PAN TO BE LAND APPLIED PER WASTE STRUCTURE
1. Sturcture Name/Identifier (ID)- Bull uck Swine Farm (33-65)
2. Current liquid volume in 25 yr./24 hr. storm storage & structural freeboard
a.
current liquid level according to marker
15
inches
b.
designed 25 yr./24 hr. storm & structural freeboard
19
inches
C.
line b - line a (inches in red zone)
4
inches
d.
top of dike surface area according to design
(area at below structural freeboard elevation)
205504
ft2
e.
line c x line d x 7.48 gallons =
512390
gallons
12 ft3
3. Projected volume of waste liquid produced during draw down period
f. temporary storage period according to structural design
190
days
g. volume of waste produced according to structural design
188994
ft3
h. actual waste produced = 4860 current herd# x line g =
159464
ft3
5760 certified herd#
i. volume of wash water according to strucutural design
0
ft3
j. excess rainfall over evaporation according to design
264229
ft3
k. (lines h + i + j) x 7.48 x 30 days =
528204
gallons
line f
4. Total PAN to be land applied during draw down period
I. currentwaste analysis dated 7/14/2009 1.5 Ib/10Mgal.
m. (lines e + K) x line 1 = 1560.89 lb PAN
1000
REPEAT SECTION I FOR EACH WASTE STRUCTURE ON 51TE
II. TOTAL POUNDS OF PAN STORED WITHIN STRUCTURAL FREEBOARD AND/OR 25 YR./24 HR. STORM
STORAGE ELEVATIONS IN ALL WASTE STRUCTURES FOR FACILITY
POA �30 Day) 2/21/00 1

Feb 1210 04:42p
. ,
p.4
PLAN OF ACTION (POA) FOR HIGH FREEBOARD AT ANIMAL FACILITIES
THIRTY (30) DAY DRAW DOWN PERIOD
I. structure ID:
2. structure ID:
3. structure ID:
4. structure ID:
5. structure ID:
6. structure ID:
n. llnes1+2+3+4+5+6=
line m = 1560.890
line rn =
line m =
line rn =
line m =
line m =
1560.890
III. TOTAL PAN BALANCE REMAINING FOR AVAILABLE CROPS DURING 30 DAY DRAW DOWN PERIOD.
DO NOT LIST FIELDS TO WHICH PAN CAN NOT BE APPLIED DURING THIS 30 DAY PERIOD.
lb PAN
lb PAN
lb PAN
lb PAN
lb, PAN
I b PAN
o.
tract #
p-
field #
cl-
crop
r.
acres
S.
remaining IRR - 2 PAN
balance (lb/acre)
t.
TOTAL PAN
BALANCE FOR FIELD
(lbs.) column r x s
U.
application
window'
1006
4a
Rye
1A
46.34
50.974
8/1-4/30
1006
4b
Rye
0.6
34.35
20.61
8/1- 4/30
1006
4c
Rye
05
40.34
20.17
8/1-4/30
1006
2a
Rye
5
49.13
245.65
8/1-4/30
1006
2b
Rye
6
49.93
299.58
8/1-4/30
1006
2
Rye
5.78
41.54
240.1012
8/1-4/30
950
3
Rye
8
41.54
332.32
8/1-4/30
950
4
SG OS
7.33
19.97
146.3B01
10/1- 3/31
1006
3
Rye
11.63
27.16
315.8708
8/1 - 4/30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1State current crop ending application date or next crop application beginning date for available receiving
crops during 30 day draw down period
v. Total PAN available for all fields (sum of column t) = 1671.6561 lb/PAN
IV. FACILITY'S PoA OVERALL PAN BALANCE
POA (30 Day) 2/21/00 2

Feb 1210 04:44p
p,5
PLAN OF ACTION (POA) FOR HIGH FREEBOARD AT ANIMAL FACILITIES
THIRTY (30) DAY DRAW DOWN PERIOD
w. Total PAN to be land applied (line n from section Il) = 1560.890 lb. PAN
x. Crop's.remaining PAN balance (line v from section III) = 1671.6561 lb. PAN
V. Overall PAN valance (w - x) _ (110.77) lb. PAN
Una y must show as a deficit. If line y does not show as a deficit, list course of action here including pump
and haul, depopulaton, herd reduction, etc. For pump & haul and herd reduction options, recalculate new
PAN based on new information. If new fields are to be included as an option for lowering lagoon level, add
these fields to the PAN balance table and recalculate the overall PAN balance. If animal waste is to be
hauled to another permitted facility, provide information regarding the herd population and lagoon
freeboard levels at the receiving facility.
Narrative,
You cannot apply waste on fields just before a major storm event, during a storm event or when
the ground is saturated, frozen, or covered with frozen precipitation. You may begin pumping as
soon as conditions are suitable. You must land apply waste at rates that will not produce runoff
from fields or cause excessive poncling of waste,
POA (30 Day) 2/21/DO 3

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
April 25, 2007 - " V
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Walter P Bulluck -
Phil Bulluck Farm
Rt 2 Box 459
Battleboro, NC 27809
Re: Request for Information
Facility Annual Stocking Average
Phil Bulluck Farm
Permit 4: NCA233065
Edgecombe County
Dear Walter P Bulluck:
Based on information submitted with the facility's Animal Facility Annual Certification Form,
the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is requesting additional information related to the annual
average of animals for the year 2006.
The Certificate of Coverage (COC) NCA233065 of your NPDES Permit states:
"This approval shall consist of.the operation of this system, including, but not limited to,
the management of animal waste from the Phil Bulluck Farm located in Edgecombe
County, with an animal capacity of no greater than an annual average of-5760 feeder to
finish, and the application to land as specified in the facility's Certified Animal Waste
Management Plan (CAWMP). If this is a Farrow to Wean or Farrow to Feeder operation,
there may also be one boar for each 15 sows. Where boars are unnecessary, they may be
replaced by an equivalent number of sows. Any of the sows may be replaced by gilts at a
rate of 4 gilts for every 3 sows."
The Division received your annual certification form on March 22, 2007. On that form, you
indicated that your annual average was 15907. This exceeds the annual average specified in your
COC of 5760. To avoid possible enforcement action for a violation of your permit, please
submit the facility's stocking records for the year 2006 within thirty (30) days to the following
address:
Aquifer Protection Section 1636 Mail Service Center
Internet: www.ncwaternuality.org Location: 2728 Capital Boulevard
An Equal OpportunitylAffirmalive Action Employer— 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper
NNaoy` Carolina
turally
Raleigh, NC 27699-1636 Telephone: [phone]
Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax 1: [phone]
Fax 2: [phone]
Customer Service: [phone]

Contd. Page 2
April 25, 2007
Walter P Bulluck
NCA233065 `
Miressa D. Garoma
Division of Water Quality
1636 Mail Service Center
B Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
60llease be advised that nothing in this letter should be taken as removing from you the
responsi.ility or liability for failure to comply with any State Rule, State Statue or permitting
requirement.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (919) 715-
6937 or the Raleigh Regional Office at [phone].
Sincerely,
7*-Ow�
Miressa D. Garoma
Soil Scientist
cc: APS Central Files
Raleigh Regional Office
a

:ti
Nutrient Management Plan For Animal Waste Utilization
This plan has been prepared for:
Bulluck Swine Farm
Walter P. Bulluck
Route 2 Box 459
Battleboro, NC 27809
05-21-2003
This plan has been developed by:
Margaret Knight
Edgecombe SWCD
201 St. Andrew Street
POBox10
Tarboro, NC 27886
252-641-7900
Dev oper Signature
Type of Plan: Nitrogen Only with Manure Only
Owner/Manager/Producer Agreement
I (we) understand and agree to the specifications and the operation and maintenance
procedures established in this nutrient management plan which includes an animal
waste utilization plan for the farm named above. I have read and understand the
Required Specifications concerning animal waste management that are included with
this pl U.
Signature (owner) Date
Signature (manager or producer) Date
This plan meets the minimum standards and specifications of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service or the standard of practices
adopted by the Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
-b
Plan Approved By:
J/
Technical pecialist Signature Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------.-----------------------------------------------------................................
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 05-21-2003 Cover Page 1
RECEIVED 1 DENR I DWQ
Aquifer Proter;tion Sertion
MAR 1.1 2009

Nutrients applied in accordance with this plan will be supplied from the
following source(s):
Commercial Fertilizer is not included in this plan.
S7
Swine Feeder -Finish Lagoon Liquid waste generated 5,339,520 gals/year
by a 5,760 animal Swine Finishing Lagoon Liquid operation. This
production facility has waste storage capacities of approximately 180 days.
Estimated Pounds of Plant Available Nitrogen Generated per Year
Broadcast
12298
Incorporated
21121
Injected
23259
Irrigated
13367
Actual PAN Applied
(Pounds)
Actual Volume Applied
(Gallons)
Volume Surplus/Deficit
(Gallons)
Year 1
20,258.24
8,091,970
-2,752,450
Year 2
21,873.14
8,737,027
-3,397,507
---------- -------------------------------------•---------------------------------------------------I-•--••---------------.-..----------------------------------
Note: 1n source ID, S means standard source, U means user defined source.
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 05-21-2003 Source Page 1 of 1

The table shown below provides a summary of the crops or rotations included in this plan for each field. Realistic
Yield estimates are also provided for each crop in the plan. In addition, the Leaching Index for each field is shown,
where available.
Planned Crops Summ
Tract
Field
Leaching
Index (ld)
Soil Series
CroE Sequence
RYE
1006
1
N/A
Autryville
Cotton
700lbs.
Rye, Grain
45 bu.
Corn, Grain
85 bu.
Rye, Grain
45 bu.
1006
2a
N/A
Wagram
Cotton
624lbs.
Rye, Grain
38 bu.
Corn, Grain
72 bu.
Rye, Grain
38 bu.
1006
2b
NIA
jNo&1k
Cotton
875lbs.
Rye, Grain
60 bu.
Corn, Grain
115 bu.
Rye, Grain
60 bu.
t006
2c
N/A
Autryville
Cotton
672lbs.
Rye, Grain
43 bu.
Corn, Grain
82 bu.
Rye, Grain
43 bu.
1006
3
N/A
Wagrarn
Cotton
624lb&
Rye, Grain
38 bu.
Corn, Grain
72 bu.
Rye, Grain
38 bu.
1006
4a
NIA
Goldsboro
Cotton
925lbs.
Rye, Grain
65 bu.
Corn, Grain
130 bu.
Rye, Grain
65 bu.
1006
4b
N/A
Rains
Cohn
900lbs.
Rye, Grain
55 bu.
Corn, Grain
125 bu.
Rye, Grain
55 bu.
1006
4c
N/A
Norfolk
Cotton
840lbs.
Rye, Grain
58 bu.
Corn, Grain
110 bu.
Rye, Grain
58 bu.
1006
5a
N/A
Goldsboro
Cotton
925lbs.
Rye, Grain
65 bu.
Com, Grain
130 bu.
Rye, Grain
65 bu.
1006
5b
N/A
Rains
Cotton
8001bs.
-----------------------------..-..-.......------......----......--.----------------------------------------------------- .......................... .--------------------- --------••-------
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 05-21-2003 PCS Page 1 of 2
NOTE: Symbol * means user entered data.

Planned Crom Summary
Tract
Field
Teaching
Index (LI)
Soil Series
Crop Sequence
RYE
Rye, Grain
55 bu.
Corn, Grain
125 bu.
Rye, Grain
55 bu.
934
2a
NIA
Norfolk
Cotton
858lbs.
Rye, Grain
59 bu.
Corn, Grain
113 bu.
Rye, Grain
59 bu.
934
2b
NIA
INorfolk
Cotton
8751bs.
Rye, Grain
60 bu.
Cam, Grain
115 bu.
Rye, Grain
60 bu.
950
1
NIA
Autryville
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
5.5 Tons
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
950
2
NIA
Autryville
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
5.5 Tons
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
950
3
NIA
Auftyville
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
5.5 Tons
Small Grain Overseed
I 1.0 Tons
950
4
NIA
Au lle
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
5.5 Tons
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
950
5
NIA
Goldsboro
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
950
6
NIA
Goldsboro
Hybrid Bmnudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
950
7
NIA
Goldsboro
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
950
8
NIA
Goldsboro
Hybrid Bermudagxass Pasture
6.5 Tons
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tans
LI
Potential Leaching
Technical Guidance
Low potential to contribute to
None
< 2
soluble nutrient leaching below
the root zone.
> = 2 &
Moderate potential to contribute
Nutrient Management (590) should be planned.
<= 10
to soluble nutrient leaching
below the root zone.
High potential to contribute to
Nutrient Management (590) should be planned. Other conservation practices that
soluble nutrient leaching below
improve the soils available water holding capacity and improve nutrient use
> 10
the root zone.
efficiency should be considered. Examples are Cover Crops (340) to scavenge
nutrients, Sod -Based Rotations (328), Long -Term No -Till (778), and edge -of -field
practices such as Filter Strips (393) and Riparian Forest Buffers (391).
------- ---
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 05-21-2003 PCS Page 2 of 2
NOTE: Symbol * means user entered data.

The Waste Utilization table shown below summarizes the waste utilization plan for this operation. This plan provides an estimate of the number of acres of cropland
needed to use the nutrients being produced. The plan requires consideration of the realistic yields of the crops to be grown, their nutrient requirements, and proper timing
of applications to maximize nutrient uptake.
This table provides an estimate of the amount of nitrogen required by the crop being grown and an estimate of the nitrogen amount being supplied by manure or other
by-products, commercial fertilizer and residual from previous crops. An estimate of the quantity of solid and liquid waste that will be applied on each field in order to
supply the indicated quantity of nitrogen from each source is also included. A balance of the total manure produced and the total manure applied is included in the table to
ensure that the plan adequately provides for the utilization of the manure generated by the operation.
- Depending on the requirements of the crop and the nutrient content of the waste, some nutrients will likely be over or under applied if animal waste is being utilized.
Waste should be analyzed before each application cycle and annual soil tests are required if animal waste is being applied. Soil tests should be used to balance the nutrient
application amounts with the realistic yields of the crop to be grown. Nutrient management plans may require that the application of animal waste be limited so as to
prevent over application of phosphorous when excessive levels of this nutrient are detected in a field.
Waste Utilization Table
Year 1
Tract
Field
Source
I.D.
Soil Series
Total
Acre
Use,
Acres
Crop
RYE
Applic,
Period
Nitrogen
PA
Nutrient
Req'd
Comm.
Fen.
Nutrient
Applied
Res.
(lbs/A)
Applic.
Method
Manure
PA
Nutrient
Applied
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
N
N
N
Ibs/A
1000
al/A
tons
1000 gals
tons
1006
l
S7
Autryville
1.10
0.83
Cotton
7001bs.
3/15-7/31
78
0
0
Irrig.
78
31.16
0
25.86
0.00
1006
1
S7
Autryville
1.10
' 0.83
Rye, Grain
45 bu.
8/1-4/30
104
0
0
brig.
104
41.54
0
34.48
0.00
1006
2a
S7
wagram
9.50
7.13
Cotton
624 lbs.
3/15-7/31
70
0
0
LTig.
70
27.96
0
199.36
0.00
10061
2a
S7
Wagram
9.50
7,13
Rye, Grain
38 bu.
8/14/30
88
0
0
Irrig.
98
35.15
0
250.63
0.00
1006
2b
S7
Norfolk
4.70
3.53
Cotton
875lbs.
3/15-7/31
78
0
0
Lrig,
78
31.16
0
109.98
0.00
1006
2b
S7
Norfolk
4.70
3.53
Rye, Grain
60 bu,
8/1-4130
125
0
0
brig.
125
49.93
0
176.25
0.00
1006
2c
S7
Autryville
4.70
3.53
Cotton
672lbs.
3/15-7/31
75
0
0
twig.
75
29.96
0
105.75-
0.00
1006
2c
S7
Autryville
4.70
3.53
Rye, Grain
43 bu.
8114130
100
0
0
brig.
100
39.94
0
141.00
0.00
1006
3
S7
wagram
15.54
11.63
Cotton
624lbs.
3/15-7/31
70
0
0
brig.
1 70
27.96
0
325.19
0.00
1006
3
S7
Wagram
15.50
11.63
Rye, Grain
38 bu.
8/14/30
88
0
0
brig.
1 88
35.15
0
L 408.80
0.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•-•----------•--------------------------------------------------------------------- •-----..-..
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 5/21/03 WUT Page 1

Waste iltilUatian Table
Year l
Tract
Field
Source
I.D.
Soil Series
Total
Acre
Use,
I Acres
Crov
RYE
Applic.
Period
Nitrogen
PA
Nutrient
Req'd
Comm.
Fert.
Nutrient
Applied
Res.
(lbs/A)
Applic,
Method
Manure
PA
Nutrient
Applied
liquid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
N
N
N
lbs/A
1000
gaVA
tons
3400 als
tons
1006
4a
S7
Goldsboro
1.40
1.10
Cotton
925lbs.
3115-7/31
82
0
0
Irrig.
82
32.75
0
36.03
0.00
1006
4a
S7
Goldsboro
1.40
1.10
Rye,Gran
65bu.
8/1-4/30
136
0
0
Irrig.
136
54.32
0
59.76
0.00
1006
4b
S7
Rains
0.80
0.60
Cotton
800 tbs.
3/15-7131
58
0
0
Irrig.
58
23.17
0
13.90
0.00
1006
4b
S7
Rains
0.80
0.60
Rye, Grain
55 bu.
8/1-4/30
106
0
0
Wig.
106
42.34
0
25AO
0.00
1006
4c
S7
Norfolk
0.60
0.50
Cotton
940lbs.
3/15-7/31
75
0
0
brig.
75
29.96
0
14.98
0.00
1006
4e
S7
Norfolk
0.601
0.50
Rye, Grain
58 bu.
8/1-4/30
121
0
0
Wig.
121
48.33
0
24.17
0.00
1006
5a
S7
Goldsboro
0.80
0.60
Cotton
925lbs.
3/15-7/31
82
0
0
Irrig.
82
32.75
0
19.65
0.00
1006
5a
S7
Goldsboro
0.80
0.60
Rye, Grain
65 bu.
811-4/30
136
0
0
Irrig,
136
54.32
01
32.59
0.00
1006
5b
S7
Rains
0.44
0.30
Cotton
800lbs.
3/15-7/31
581
0
0
Irrig.
58
23.17
0
6.95
0.00
1006
5b
S7
Rains
0.40
0.30
Rye, Grain
55 bu.
811-4/30
106
0
0
img.
106
42.34
0
12.70
0.00
934
22
S7
Norfolk
6.60
6.60
Cotton
858lbs.
3/15-7/31
761
0
0
brig.
76
30.36
0
200.36
0.00
934
2a
S7
Norfolk
6.60
6.60
Rye, Grain
59 bu.
8/1-4130
123
0
0
brig.
123
49.13
0
324.27
0.00
934
2b
S7
Norfolk
8.00
8.00
Cotton
875lbs.
3/15-7/31
78
0
0
brig.
78
31.16
0
249.25
0.00
934
2b
S7
Norfolk
8.00
8.00
Rye, Grain
60 bu.
8/14/30
125
0
0
brig.
125
49.93
0
399.44
0.00
950
1
S7
Autryville
3.70
3.70
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
5.5 Tons
3/1-9/30
202
0
0
brig.
202
80.69
0
298.54
0.00
950
1
S7
Autryville
3.70
3.70
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/1-3/31
50
0
0
Irrig.
50
19.97
01
73.90
0.00
950
2
S7
Autryville
5.78
5.78
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
5.5 Tans
311-9/30
202
0
0
Irrig.
202
80.69
0
466.37
0.00
950
2
S7
Autryville
5.78
5.78
Smal] Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/1-3/31
50
0
0
Irrig.
501
19.97
0
115,44-1
0.00
950
3
S7
Autryville
8.00
8.00
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
5.5 Tons
3/1-9/30
202
0
0
brig.
202
80.69
0
645.50
0.00
950
3
S7
Autryville
8.00
8.00
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/3 -3131
50
0
0
Irrig.
50
19.97
0
159.78
0.00
950
4
S7
Autryville
7.33
7.33
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
5.5 Tons
3/1-9/30
202
0
0
brig.
202
80.69
0
591.44
0.00
950
4
S7
Autryville
7.33
7.33
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/1-3/31
50
0
0
twig.
50
1907,.
0
146.40
0.00
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- •-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 5/21/03 WUT Page 2

Waste Utilization Table
Year ]
Tract
Field
Source
I.A.
Soil Series
Total
Acre
Use.
Acres
Crop
RYE
Applic.
Period
Nitrogen
PA
Nutrient
Req'd
Comm.
Fen.
Nutrient
Applied
Res.
(lbs/A)
Applic.
Method
Manure
PA
Nutrient
Applied
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
I N
N
N
lbs/A
1000
aIIA
I tons
1000 lZals
tons
950
5
S7
Goldsboro
6.87
6,87
Hybrid Bermudagrass. Pasture
6.5 Tons
311-9/30
1 222
0
0
brig.
222
88.68
0
609.20
0.00
950
5
S7
Goldsboro
6.87
6.87
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/1-3/31
50
0
0
Irrig.
50
19.97
0
137.21
0.00
950
6
S7
Goldsboro
8.39
8.39
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
3/1-9/30
222
0
0
Irrig.
222
88,68
0
743.99
0.00
950
6
S7
Goldsboro
8,391
8.34
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/1-3/31
50
0
0
Irrig.
50
19.97
0
167.57
0.00
950
. 7
S7
Goldsboro
3,63
3.63
1 Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
3/1-9/30
222
0
0
Irrig.
222
88.68
0
321.89
0.00
950
7
S7
Goldsboro ,
3.63
3.63
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/1-3/31
50
0
0
brig.
50
19.97
0
72.50
0.00
950
8
S7
Goldsboro
3.18
3.18
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
3/1-9/30
222
0
0
brig.
222
88.68
0
281.99
0.00
950
8
S7
Goldsboro
3.18
3.18
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/1-3/31
50
0
0
brig.
50
19,971
0
63.51
0,00
Total Applied, 1000 gallons
8,091.97..
Lagoon Liquids
Total Produced, 1000 gallons
5,339.52
j
Balance, 1000 gallons
-2,752.45
OEM
Total Applied, tons
0.00
Manure Solids
Total Produced, tons
WON
0.00
Balance, tons
0.00
Notes: 1- In the tract column, symbol -means leased, otherwise, owned.
2. Symbol * means user entered data.
- ------ ----------- ------------------------------------•-----•----•-----------------------------
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 5/21/03
---- ----------------
WUT Page 3

Wactt- T ]'tili7atinn Tnh1P
Year 2
Tract j
Field
Source
I.D.
Soil Series
Total
Acre
Use.
Acres
Cro
RYE
Applic.
Period
Nitrogen
PA
Nutrient
Req'd
Comm.
Fert.
Nutrient
Applied I
Res.
Obs/A)
Applic.
Method
Manure
PA
Nutrient
Applied
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(Fiieid)
N
N
N
lbs/A
1000
al/A
tons
1000 Rals
I tons
1006
1
S7
Aunyville
1.10
0.83
Corn, Grain
85 bu.
2/15-6/30
104
0
0
brig.
104
41.54
0
34.48
0.00
1006
1
S7
Autryville
1.10
0.83
Rye,Grain
45bu.
8/1-4/30
104
0
0
brig.
104
41.54
0
34.48
0.00
1006
2a
S7
Wagram
9.50
7.13
Com, Grain
72 bu.
2/15-6/30
88
0
0
brig.
88
35.15
0
250.63
0.00
1006
2a
S7
Wagram
9.50
7.13
Rye, Grain
38bu.
911-4/30
88
0
0
brig.
88
35.15
0
250.63
0.00
1006
- 2b
S7
Norfolk
4.70
3.53
Com, Grain
115 bu.
2115-6/30
131
0
0
Irrig.
131
52.33
0
184.71
0.00
1006
2b
S7
Norfolk
4.70
3.53
Rye, Grain
60 bu.
8/14/30
125
0
0
brig.
125
49.93
0
176.25
0.00
1006
2c
S7
Autryville
4.70
3.53
Corn, Grain
82 bu.
2115-6/30
100
0
0
Irrig.
100
39.94
0
141.00
0.00
1006
2c
S7
Autryville
4.70
3.53
Rye, Grain
43 bu.
8/1-4130
100
0
0
brig,
100
39.94
0
141.00
0.00
1006
3
S7
Wagram
15.50
11.63
Com, Grain
72 bu.
2115-6/30
88
0
0
Irrig.
88
35.15
0
408.80
0.00
1006
3
S7
Wagram
15.50
11.63
Rye, Grain
38 bu.
8/t4/30
88
0
0
Irrig.
88
35.15
Q
408.80
0.00
1006
4a
S7
Goldsboro
L40
1.10
Com, Grain
130 bu.
2/15-6/30
148
0
0
brig.
148
59.12
0
65.03
0.00
1006
4a
S7
Goldsboro
1.40
1.10
Rye, Grain
65 bu.
8/1-4/30
136
0
0
Irrig.
136
54.32
0
59.76
0.00
1006
46
S7
Rains
0.80
0.60
Com, Grain
125 bu.
2/15-6/30
135
0
0
brig.
135
53.93
0
32.36
0.00
1006
4b
S7
Rains
0.90
0-60
Rye, Grain
55 bu.
8/1-4/30
106
0
0
brig.
106
42.34
0
25.40
0.00
1006
4c
S7
Norfolk
0.60
0.50
Corn, Grain
110 bu.
2115-6130
125
0
0
Irrig_
125
49.93
0
24.97
0.00
1006
4c
S7
Norfolk
0.60
0.50
Rye, Grain
58 bu.
8/1-4/30
121
0
0
Irrig.
121
48.33
p
24.17
0.00
1006
5al
S7
Goldsboro
0.80
0.60
Com, Grain
130 bu.
2/15-6/30
148
0
0
brig.
148
59.12
0
35.47
0.00
1006
5a
S7
Goldsboro
0.80
0.60
Rye, Grain
65 bu.
8/1-4/30
136
0
0
Irrig.
136
54.32
0
32.59
0.00
1006
5b
S7
Rains
0.40
0.30
Corn, Grain
125 bu.
2/15-6/30
135
0
0
Irrig.
135
53.93
0
16.18
0.00
1006
5b
S7
Rains
0.40
0.30
Rye, Grain
55 bu.
8/1-4/30
106
0
0
Irrig.
106
42.34
0
12.70
0.00
934
2a
S7
Norfolk
6.60
6.60
Corn, Grain
113 bu.
2/15-6/30
129
0
0
Wig,
129
51.53
Q
340.08
0.00
934
2a
S7
Norfolk
6.60
6.60
Rye, Grain
59 bu.
8/1-4/30
123
0
0
Trig,
123
49.13
Q
324.27
0.00
--------- ._ _-• •--- --- -- ------ -----•-- ---- •------- •-•------ --------•-------•---------
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 5/21/03 W JT Page 4

Waste TJtilizatinn Table
Year 2
ti
Tract
Field
Source
I.D.
Soil Series
Total
Acre
Use.
Acres
cropRYE
Applic.
Period
Nitrogen
PA
Nutrient
Req'd
Comm.
Fert.
Nutrient
Applied
Res.
Ohs/A)
I Applic.
Method
Manure
PA
Nutrient
Applied
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
N
N
N
lbs/A
1000
1/A
tons
loon is
tons
934
2b
S7
Norfolk
8.00
8.00
Com, Grain
115 bu.
2/15-6/30
131
0
0
Twig-
131
52.33
0
418.61
0.00
934
2b
S7
Norfolk
8.00
8.00
Rye, Grain
60 bu.
8/1-4/30
125
0
0
Brig.
125
49.93
p
399.44
0.00
950
1
S7
Autryville
3.70
3.70
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
5.5 Tons
3/1-9/30
202
0
0
Itrig.
202
80.69
0
298.54
0.00
950
1
S7
Autryville
3,701
3.70
Smaii Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/1-3/31
50
0
0
Wig,
50
19.97
0
73.90
0.00
950
2
S7
jAutryville
5.78
5.78
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
5.5 Tons
3/1-9/30
202
0
0
Irrig.
202
80.69
0
466.37
0.00
950
2
S7
Autryville
5.78
5.78
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/1-3/31
50
0
0
Irrig.
50
19.97
0
115A4
0.00
950
3
S7
Autryville
8.00
8.00
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
5.5 Tons
3/1-9/30
202
0
0
Irrig.
202
80.69
0
645.50
0.00
950
3
S7
Autryville
8.00
8.00
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/1-3/31
50
0
0
brig.
50
19.97
0
159.78
0.00
950
4
S7
Autyyville
7.33
7.33
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
5.5 Tons
3/1-9/30
202
0
0
Irrig.
202
80.69
0
591.44
0.00
950
4
S7
Autryville
7.33
7.33
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tans
10/1-3/31
50
0
0
Irrig.
50
19.97
0
146.40
0.00
950
5
S7
Goldsboro
6.87
6.87
Hybrid Bermudagmss Pasture
6.5 Tons',3/1-9/30
222
0
0
Irrig.
222
88.68
0
609.20
0-00
950
5
S7
Goldsboro
6.87
6.87
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/1-3/31
50
0
0
Irrig.
50
19.97
0
137.21
0.00
950
6
S7
Goldsboro
8.39
8.39
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
3/1-9/30
222
0
0
Irrig.
222
88.68
0
743.99
0.00
950
6
S7
Goldsboro
8.39
8.39
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/1-3/31
50
0
0
Irrig.
50
19.97
0
167.57
0.00
950
7
S7
Goldsboro
3.63
3.63
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
3/1-9/30
222
0
0
Irrig.
222
88.68
0
321.89
0.00
950
7
S7
Goldsboro
3.63
3.63
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/1-3/31
50
0
0
Wig.
50
19.97
0
72.50
0.00
950
8
S7
Goldsboro
3.18
3.18
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
3/1-9/30
2
0
0
Irrig-
222
88.68
0
281.99
0.00
950
8
S7
Goldsboro
3.18
3.18
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/1-3/31
t5O
4
0
brig.
50
19.97
0
63.51
. 0.00
- -------------•-----•----
854931 Database Version 2.0
•- ----------------------------------------------------------------- - --------------
Date Printed,. 5/21/03 WUT Page 5
t

Waste Utilization Table
Year 2
Nitrogen
Comm.
Res.
Manure
Liquid
Solid
Liquid
Solid
PA I
Fert.
(Ibs/A)
PA
Manure
Manure
Manure
Manure
Nutrient
Nutrient
Nutrient
Applied
Applied
Applied
Applied
Req'd
Applied
Applied
(acre)
(acre)
(Field)
(Field)
Source
Total
Use.
Applic.
Applic.
=NN
1000
Tract
Field
I.D.
Soil Series
Acre
Acres
Oro
WE
Period
N
Method
lbs/A
I/A
tons
1000 RZIS
tons
Total Applied, 1000 gallons
8,737.03
k�,
Lagoon Liquids
Total Produced, 1000 gallons
5,339.52
Balance, 1000 gallons
-3,397.51
- w.
Total Applied, tons
0.00
Manure Solids
Total Produced, tons
0.00
Balance, tons
0.00
Notes: 1. In the tract column, symbol —means leased, otherwise, owned.
2. Symbol • means user entered data.
- ----- --- --- -------------------•-----------••-------•---------------••---------------------------------------------•--------------•-----•-------- -------------------
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 5/21/03 W _JT Page 6

The Irrigation Application Factors for each field in this plan are shown in the following table. Infiltration rate
varies with soils. If applying waste nutrients through an irrigation system, you must apply at a rate that will not
result in runoff. This table provides the maximum application rate per hour that may be applied to each field
selected to receive wastewater. It also lists the maximum application amount that each field may receive in any
one application event.
Irrigation Application Factors
Tract
Field
Soil Series
Application Rate
(inches/hour)
Application Amount
(inches)
1006
1
Autryville
0.60
0.72
1006
2a
Wagram
0.60
0.72
1006
2b
Norfolk
0.50
0.96
1006
2c
Autryville
0.60
0.72
1006
3
Wagram
0.60
0.72
1006
4a
Goldsboro
0.50
0.96
1006
4b
Rains
0.40
0.96
1006
1 4c
Norfolk
0.50
0.96
1006
5a
Goldsboro
0.50
0.96
1006
5b
Rains
0.40
0.96
934
2a
Norfolk
0.50
0.96
934
2b
Norfolk
0.50
0.96
950
1
Autryville
0.60
0.72
950
12
Aubyville
0.60
0.72
950
3
Auhyville
0.60
0.72
950
4
Autryville
0.60
0.72
950
5
Goldsboro
0.50
0.96
950
6
Goldsboro
0.50
0.96
950
7
Goldsboro 1
0.54
0.96
950
18
Goldsboro 10.501
0.96
------------------------------- .... .- --- - - -- g - ------
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed- 05-21-2003 IAF Page 1 of 1

The following Lagoon Sludge Nitrogen Utilization table provides an estimate of the number of acres needed for sludge
utilization for the indicated accumulation period. These estimates are based on average nitrogen concentrations for each
source, the number of animals in the facility and the plant available nitrogen application rates shown in the second column.
Lagoon sludge contains nutrients and organic matter remaining after treatment and application of the effluent At clean out,
this material must be utilized for crop production and applied at agronomic rates. In most cases, the priority nutrient is
nitrogen but other nutrients including phosphorous, copper and zinc can also be limiting. Since nutrient levels are generally
very high, application of sludge must be carefully applied.
Sites must first be evaluated for their suitability for sludge application. Ideally, effluent spray fields should not be used for
sludge application. If this is not possible, care should be taken not to load effluent application fields with high amounts of
copper and zinc so that additional effluent cannot be applied. On sites vulnerable to surface water moving to streams and
takes, phosphorous is a concern Soils containing very high phosphorous levels may also be a concern.
Lagoon Sludge Nitrogen Utilization Table
Crop
Maximum
PA-N Rate
lb/ac
Maximum Sludge
Application Rate
1000 gal/ac
Minimum Acres
5 Years Accumulation
Minimum Acres
10 Years Accumulation
Minimum Acres
15 Years Accumulation
Swine Feeder -Finish Lagoon Sludge - Standard
Cam 120 bu
150
13.16
72.21
144.42
216.63
May 6 ton RY.E.
300
26.32
36.10
72.21
108.31
Soybean 40 bu
160
14.04
67.70
135.30
203.09
-------------------------------- ------------------- .------------------------- ... ------
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 05-21-2003 Sludge Page 1 of 1

The Available Waste Storage Capacity table provides an estimate of the number of days of storage capacity
available at the end of each month of the plan. Available storage capacity is calculated as the design storage
capacity in days minus the number of days of net storage volume accumulated. The start date is a value entered
by the user and is defined as the date prior to applying nutrients to the first crop in the plan at which storage
volume in the lagoon or holding pond is equal to zero.
Available storage capacity should be greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to the design storage
capacity of the facility. If the available storage capacity is greater than the design storage capacity, this indicates
that the plan calls for the application of nutrients that have not yet accumulated. If available storage capacity is
negative, the estimated volume of accumulated waste exceeds the design storage volume of the structure. Either
of these situations indicates that the planned application interval in the waste utilization plan is inconsistent with
the structure's temporary storage capacity.
Available Waste Storage Capacity
Source Name
Swine Feeder -Finish Lagoon Liquid
Design Storage Capacity a s
Start Date
12/31
180
Plan Year
Month
Available Storage Capacity (Days)
1
1
149
1
2
180
1
3
180
1
4
180
1
5
149
1
6
119
1
7
156
1
8
125
1
9
95
1
10
96
1
11
66
1
12
35
2
1
10
2
2
139
2
3
180
2
4
180
2
5
149
2
6
119
2
7
156
2
8
125
2
9
95
2
10
96
2
11
66
2
12
35
* Available Storage Capacity is calculated as of the end of each month-
- ------------------------------------------------- --- ----------- -----
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 05-21-2003 Capacity Page 1 of 1

Required Specifications For Animal Waste Management
1. Animal waste shall not reach surface waters of the state by runoff, drift,
manmade conveyances, direct application, or direct discharge during
operation or land application. Any discharge of waste that reaches surface
water is prohibited.
2. There must be documentation in the design folder that the producer either
owns or has an agreement for use of adequate land on which to properly
apply the waste. If the producer does not own adequate Iand to properly
dispose of the waste, he/she shall provide evidence of an agreement with a
landowner, who is within a reasonable proximity, allowing him/her the use
of the land for waste application. It is the responsibility of the owner of the
waste production facility to secure an update of the Nutrient Management
Plan when there is a change in the operation, increase in the number of
animals, method of application, receiving crop type, or available land.
3. Animal waste shall be applied to meet, but not exceed, the nitrogen needs
for realistic crop yields based upon soil type, available moisture, historical
data, climatic conditions, and level of management, unless there are
regulations that restrict the rate of applications for other nutrients.
4. Animal waste shall be applied to land eroding less than 5 tons per acre per
year. Waste may be applied to land eroding at more than 5 tons per acre
per year but less than 10 tons per acre per year provided grass filter strips
are installed where runoff leaves the field (see USDA, NRCS Field Office
Technical Guide Standard 393 - Filter Strips).
5. Odors can be reduced by injecting the waste or by disking after waste
application. Waste should not be applied when there is danger of drift from
the land application field.
6. When animal waste is to be applied on acres subject to flooding, waste will
be soil incorporated on conventionally tilled cropland. When waste is
applied to conservation tilled crops or grassland, the waste may be
broadcast provided the application does not occur during a season prone
to flooding (see "Weather and Climate in North Carolina" for guidance).
-------------------------------------...__._ ... --- ---- .------------------------ I--- ............. ..- ------ -----------
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 5/21/03 Specification Page 1

7. Liquid waste shall be applied at rates not to exceed the soil infiltration rate
such that runoff does not occur offsite or to surface waters'and in a
method which does not cause drift from the site during application. No
ponding should occur in order to control odor and flies.
8. Animal waste shall not be applied to saturated soils, during rainfall events,
or when the soil surface is frozen.
9. Animal waste shall be applied on actively growing crops in such a manner
that the crop is not covered with waste to a depth that would 'inhibit
growth. The potential for salt damage from animal waste should also be
considered.
10. Nutrients from waste shall not be applied in fall or winter for spring
planted crops on soils with a high potential for leaching. Waste/nutrient
loading rates on these soils should be held to a minimum and a suitable
winter cover crop planted to take up released nutrients. Waste shall not be
applied more than 30 days prior to planting of the crop or forages
breaking dormancy.
11. Any new swine facility sited on or after October 1, 1995 shall -comply with
the following: The outer perimeter of the land area onto which waste is
applied from a lagoon that is a component of a swine farm shall be at least
50 feet from any residential property boundary and canal. Animal waste,
other than swine waste from facilities sited on or after October 1,1995,
shall not be applied closer that 25 feet to perennial waters.
12. Animal waste shall not be applied closer than 100 feet to wells.
13. Animal waste shall not be applied closer than 200 feet of dwellings other
than those owned by the landowner.
14. Waste shall be applied in.a manner not to reach other property and public
right -of --ways.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...........
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 5/21/03 Specification Page 2

15. Animal waste shall not be discharged into surface waters, drainageways,
or wetlands by a discharge or by over -spraying. Animal waste may be
applied to prior converted cropland provided the fields have been
approved as a land application site by a "technical specialist". Animal
waste shall not be applied on grassed waterways that discharge directly
into water courses, and on other grassed waterways, waste shall be applied
at agronomic rates in a manner that causes no runoff or drift from the site..
16. Domestic and industrial waste from washdown facilities, showers, toilets,
sinks, etc., shall not be discharged into the animal waste management
system.
17. A protective cover of appropriate vegetation will be established on all
disturbed areas (lagoon embankments, berms, pipe runs, etc.). Areas shall
be fenced, as necessary, to protect the vegetation. Vegetation such as trees,
shrubs, and other woody species, etc., are limited to areas where
considered appropriate. Lagoon areas should be kept mowed and
accessible. Berms and structures should be inspected regularly for
evidence of erosion, leakage, or discharge.
18. If animal production at the facility is to be suspended or terminated, the
owner is responsible for obtaining and implementing a "closure plan"
which will eliminate the possibility of an illegal discharge, pollution, and
erosion.
19. Waste handling structures, piping, pumps, reels, etc., should be inspected
on a regular basis to prevent breakdowns, leaks, and spills. A regular
maintenance checklist should be kept on site.
20. - Animal waste can be used in a rotation that includes vegetables and other
crops for direct human consumption. However, if animal waste is used'on
crops for direct human consumption, it should only be applied pre -plant
with no further applications of animal waste during the crop season.
21. Highly visible markers shall be installed to mark the top and bottom
elevations of the temporary storage (pumping volume) of all waste
treatment lagoons. Pumping shall be managed to maintain the liquid level
between the markers. A marker will be required to mark the maximum
storage volume for waste storage ponds.
----- ----------- ---------- -- ----- -----
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 5/21/03 Specification Page 3

22. Waste shall be tested within 60 days of utilization and soil shall be tested at
least annually at crop sites where waste products are applied. Nitrogen
shall be the rate -determining nutrient, unless other restrictions require
waste to be applied based on other nutrients, resulting in a lower
application rate than a nitrogen based rate. Zinc and copper levels in the
soils shall be monitored and alternative crop sites shall be used when these
metals approach excessive levels. pH shall be adjusted and maintained for
optimum crop production. Soil and waste analysis records shall be kept
for a minimum of five years. Poultry dry waste application records shall
be maintained for a minimum of three years.
Waste application records for all other waste shall be maintained for five
(5) years.
23. Dead animals will be disposed of in a manner that meets North Carolina
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.-
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 5/21/03 Specification Page 4

Crop Notes
The following crop note applies to field(s): 4b, 5b
Corn 1: CP, Mineral Soil, low -leachable
In the Coastal Plain, com is normally planted when soil temperatures reach 52 to 55 degrees fahrenheit.
Review the Official Variety "green book" and information from private companies to select a high
yielding variety with the characteristics needed for your area and conditions. Plant 1-2" deep. Plant
populations should be determined by the hybrid being planted. increase the seeding rate by 10% when
planting no -till. Phosphorus and potassium recommended by a soil test can be broadcast or banded at
planting. When planting early in cool, wet soil, banded phosphorus will be more available to the young
plants. An accepted practice is to apply 20-30 lbs/acre N and 20-30 lbs/acre phosphorus banded as a
starter and one-half the remaining N behind the planter. The rest of the N should be applied about 30-40
days after emergence. The total amount of N is dependent on soil type. When including a starter in the
fertilizer program, the recommended potassium and any additional phosphorus is normally broadcast at
planting. Plant samples can be analyzed during the growing season to monitor the overall nutrient status
of the corn. Timely management of weeds and insects are essential for corn production. -
The following crop note applies to field(s): 4a, 5a
Corn 1: CP, Mineral Soil, low -leachable
In the Coastal Plain, corn is normally planted when soil temperatures reach 52 to 55 degrees fahrenheit.
Review the Official Variety "green book" and information from private companies to select a high
yielding variety with the characteristics needed for your area and conditions. Plant 1-2" deep. Plant
populations should be determined by the hybrid being planted. Increase the seeding rate by 10% when
planting no -till. Phosphorus and potassium recommended by a soil test can be broadcast or banded at
planting. When planting early in cool, wet soil, banded phosphorus will be more available to the young
plants. An accepted practice is to apply 20-301bs/acre N and 20-30 lbs/acre phosphorus banded as a
starter and one-half the remaining N behind the planter. The rest of the N should be applied about 30-40
days after emergence. The total amount of N is dependent on soil type. When including a starter in the
fertilizer program, the recommended potassium and any additional phosphorus is normally broadcast at
planting. Plant samples can be analyzed during the growing season to monitor the overall nutrient status
of the corn. Timely management of weeds and insects are essential for corn production.
------------------------- -----------------. ---- - ----- •----------------- •----------------- ---
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 05-21-2003 Crop Note Page 1 of 7

The following crop note applies to field(s): 2a, 2b, 4c
Corn: CP, Mineral Soil, medium leaching
In the Coastal Plain, corn is normally planted when soil temperatures reach 52 to 55 degrees fahrenheit.
Review the Official Variety "green book" and information from private companies to select a high
yielding variety with the characteristics needed for your area and conditions. Plant 1-2" deep. Plant
populations should be determined by the hybrid being planted. Increase the seeding rate by 10% when
planting no -till. Phosphorus and potassium recommended by a soil test can be broadcast or banded at
planting. When planting early in cool, wet soil, banded phosphorus will be more available to the young
plants. An accepted practice is to apply 20-30 lbs/acre N and 20-30 lbs/acre phosphorus banded as a
starter and one-half the remaining N behind the planter. The rest of the N should be applied about 30-40
days after emergence. The total amount of N is dependent on soil type. When including a starter in the
fertilizer program, the recommended potassium and any additional phosphorus is normally broadcast at
planting. Plant samples can be analyzed during the growing season to monitor the overall nutrient status
of the corn. Timely management of weeds and insects are essential for corn production.
The following crop note applies to field(s): L 2a, 2c, 3
Corn: CP, Mineral Soil, medium leaching
In the Coastal Plain, corn is normally planted when soil temperatures reach 52 to 55 degrees fahrenheit.
Review the Official Variety "green book" and information from private companies to select a high
yielding variety with the characteristics needed for your area and conditions. Plant 1-2" deep. Plant
populations should be determined by the hybrid being planted. Increase the seeding rate by 10% when
planting no -till. Phosphorus and potassium recommended by a soil test can be broadcast or banded at
planting. When planting early in cool, wet soil, banded phosphorus will be more available to the young
plants. An accepted practice is to apply 20-301bs/acre N and 20-30 lbs/acre phosphorus Banded as a
starter and one-half the remaining N behind the planter. The rest of the N should be applied about 30-40
days after emergence. The total amount of N is dependent on soil type. When including a starter in the
fertilizer program, the recommended potassium and any additional phosphorus is normally broadcast at
planting. Plant samples can be analyzed during the growing season to monitor the overall nutrient status
of the corn. Timely management of weeds and insects are essential for corn production.
The following crop note applies to field(s): 4b, 5b
Cotton CP, Mineral Soil, low -leachable
In the Coastal Plain, cotton is normally planted from April 15-May 5 when warm(above 65 F)
temperatures and dry weather are present and predicted to remain for at least 5 to 7 days after planting.
Avoid planting after May 20 if at all possible. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and
information from private companies to select a high yielding variety with characteristics needed for your
area and conditions. Plant 4-6 seed/row foot at a depth of 1/2-1 ". Adequate depth control is essential.
Recommended phosphorus and potash can be broadcast or banded at planting. Apply 20-25 lbs/acre N at
planting. Apply the remaining recommended N as a sidedress application 2 to 3 weeks after first square.
The total N needed is dependent on soil type. Apply 1.0 lb/acre actual boron either at planting or at
sidedress; or, foliar apply 1/2 lb/acre actual boron with I/4 lb/acre applied at early bloom and the other
1/4 lb/acre about 2 weeks later. The boron needs to be available to the cotton during fruiting. Tissue
samples can be analyzed during the growing season to monitor the nutrient status of the cotton. Timely
management of insects, weeds, and excessive vegetative growth are essential for profitable cotton
production.
.-- . --- --... .. --- -- ---- --------------------------••-----------•--------
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 05-21-2003 CropNote Page 2 of 7

The following crop note applies to field(s): 4a, 5a
Cotton CP, Mineral Soil, low -leachable
In the Coastal Plain, cotton is normally planted from April 15-May 5 when warm(above 65 F)
temperatures and dry weather are present and predicted to remain for at Ieast 5 to 7 days after planting.
Avoid planting after May 20 if at all possible. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and
information from private companies to select a high yielding variety with characteristics needed for your
area and conditions. Plant 4-6 seed/row foot at a depth of 1/2-1 ". Adequate depth control is essential.
Recommended phosphorus and potash can be broadcast or banded at planting. Apply 20-25 lbs/acre N at
planting. Apply the remaining recommended N as a sidedress application 2 to 3 weeks after first square.
The total N needed is dependent on soil type. Apply 1.0 lb/acre actual boron either at planting or at
sidedress; or, foliar apply 1/21b/acre actual boron with 1/4 lb/acre applied at early bloom and the other
1/4 lb/acre about 2 weeks later. The boron needs to be available to the cotton during fruiting. Tissue
samples can be analyzed during the growing season to monitor the nutrient status of the cotton. Timely
management of insects, weeds, and excessive vegetative growth are essential for profitable cotton
production.
The following crop note applies to field(s): 2a, 2b, 4c
Cotton CP: Mineral Soil, medium leachable
In the Coastal Plain, cotton is normally planted from April 15-May 5 when warm(above 65 F)
temperatures and dry weather are present and predicted to remain for at least 5 to 7 days after planting.
Avoid planting after May 20 if at all possible. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and
information from private companies to select a high yielding variety with characteristics needed for your
area and conditions. Plant 4-6 seed/row foot at a depth of 1/2-1 ". Adequate depth control is essential.
Recommended phosphorus and potash can be broadcast or banded at planting. Apply 20-25 lbs/acre N at
planting. Apply the remaining recommended N as a sidedress application 2 to 3 weeks after first square.
The total N needed is dependent on soil type. Also, apply at least 20 lbs/acre sulfur either at planting or
at sidedressing. Apply 1.0 lb/acre actual boron either at planting or at sidedress; or, foliar apply 1/2
lb/acre actual boron with 1/4 lb/acre applied at early bloom and the other 1/4 lb/acre about 2 weeks later.
The boron needs to be available to the cotton during fruiting. Tissue samples can be analyzed during the
growing season to monitor the nutrient status of the cotton. Timely management of insects, weeds, and
excessive vegetative growth are essential for profitable cotton production.
--------•------- -.._ ... ----------------- ----
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: '05-21-2003 CropNote Page 3 of 7

The following crop note applies to field(s): 1, 2a, 2c, 3
Cotton CP: Mineral Soil, medium leachable
In the Coastal Plain, cotton is normally planted from April 15-May 5 when warm(above 65 F)
temperatures and dry weather are present and predicted to remain for at least 5 to 7 days after planting.
Avoid planting after May 20 if at all possible. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and
information from private companies to select a high yielding variety with characteristics needed for your
area and conditions. Plant 4-6 seed/row foot at a depth of 1/2-1". Adequate depth control is essential.
Recommended phosphorus and potash can be broadcast or banded at planting. Apply 20-25 lbs/acre N at
planting. Apply the remaining recommended N as a sidedress application 2 to 3 weeks after first square.
The total N needed is dependent on soil type. Also, apply at least 201bs/acre sulfur either at planting or
at sidedressing. Apply 1.0 lb/acre actual boron either at planting or at sidedress; or, foliar apply 1/2
lb/acre actual boron with 1/4 lb/acre applied at early bloom and the other 1/4 lb/acre about 2 weeks later.
The boron needs to be available to the cotton during fruiting. Tissue samples can be analyzed during the
growing season to monitor the nutrient status of the cotton. Timely management of insects, weeds, and
excessive vegetative growth are essential for profitable cotton production.
The following crop note applies to field(s): 5, 6, 7, 8
Small Grain: CP, Mineral Soil, low -leachable
In the Coastal Plain, oats and barley should be planted from October 15-October 30; and rye from
October 15-November 20. For barley, plant 22 seed/drilI row foot and increase the seeding rate by 5% for
each week seeding is delayed beyond the optimum time. See the seeding rates table for applicable
seeding rate modifications in the current NCSU "Small Grain Production Guide". Also, increase the
initial seeding rate by at least 10% when planting no -till. Oats should be planted at 2 bushels/acre and
rye at 1-1 1/2 bushels/acre. Plant all these small grains at 1-1 1/2" deep. Adequate depth control is
essential. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and information from private companies to
select a high yielding variety with the characteristics needed for your area and conditions. Apply no more
than 30 lbs/acre N at planting. Phosphorus and potash recommended by a soil test can also be applied at
this time. The remaining N should be applied during the months of February -March.
The following crop note applies to field(s): 1, 2, 3, 4
Small Grain: CP, Mineral Soil, medium leachable
In the Coastal Plain, oats and barley should be planted from October 15-October 30; and rye from
October 15-November 20. For barley, plant 22 seed/drill row foot and increase the seeding rate by 5% for
each week seeding is delayed beyond the optimum time. See the seeding rates table for applicable
seeding rate modifications in the current NCSU "Small Grain Production Guide". Also, increase the
initial seeding rate by at least 10% when planting no -till. Oats should be planted at 2 bushels/acre and
rye at 1-1 1/2 bushels/acre. Plant all these small grains at 1-1 1/2" deep. Adequate depth control is
essential. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and information from private companies to
select a high yielding variety with the characteristics needed for your area and conditions. Apply no more
than 30 lbs/acre N at planting. Phosphorus and potash recommended by a soil test can also be applied at
this time. The remaining N should be applied during the months of February -March.
----------------------------------------•------------- ----- ----------
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 05-21-2003 Crop Note Page 4 of 7

The following crop note applies to field(s): 5, 6, 7, 8
Bermudagrass CP, Mineral Soil, Poorly Drained to Somewhat Poorly Drained.
Adaptation: Effective artificial drainage MUST be in place to achieve Realistic Yield Expectations
provided for these soils.
hi the Coastal Plain, hybrid bermudagrass sprigs can be planted Mar. I to Mar. 31. Cover sprigs 1" to 3"
deep (1.5" optimal). Sprigs should be planted quickly after digging and not allowed to dry in sun and
wind. For Coastal and Tifton 78 plant at least 10 bu/ac in 3' rows, spaced 2' to 3' in the row. Generally a
rate of 30 bu/ac is satisfactory to produce foil groundcover in one or two years under good growing
conditions. Tifton 44 spreads slowly, so use at least 40 bu/ac in 1.5' to 2' rows spaced l' to 1.5' in row.
For broadcast/disked-in sprigs use about 60 bu/ac. Soil test for the amounts of lime, phosphorus,
potassium and micronutrients to apply preplant and for annual maintenance. Apply 60 to 100 lb/ac N in
the establishment year in split applications in April and July. For established stands apply 180 to 240
lb/ac N annually in split applications, usually in April and following the first and second hay cuts.
Reduce N rates by 25% for grazing. Refer to NCSU Technical Bulletin 305 Production and Utilization
of Pastures and Forages in North Carolina for more information or consult your regional agronomist or
extension agent for assistance.
The following crop note applies to field(s): 1, 2, 3, 4
Bermudagrass: CP, Mineral Soil, Moderately Well Drained.
Adaptation: Well -adapted.
In the Coastal Plain, hybrid bermudagrass sprigs can be planted Mar. I to Mar. 31. Cover sprigs I" to 3"
deep (1.5" optimal). Sprigs should be planted quickly after digging and not allowed to dry in sun and
wind. For Coastal and Tifton 78 plant at least 10 bu/ac in 3' rows, spaced 2' to 3' in the row. Generally a
rate of 30 bu/ac is satisfactory to produce full groundcover in one or two years under good growing
conditions. Tifton 44 spreads slowly, so use at least 40 bu/ac in 1.5' to 2' rows spaced 1' to 1.5' in row.
For broadcast/disked-in sprigs use about 60 bu/ac. Soil test for the amounts of lime, phosphorus,
potassium and micronutrients to apply preplant and for annual maintenance. Apply 60 to 100 lb/ac N in
the establishment year in split applications in April and July. For established stands apply 180 to 240
lb/ac N annually in split applications, usually in April and following the first and second hay cuts.
Reduce N rates by 25% for grazing. Refer to NCSU Technical Bulletin 305 Production and Utilization
of Pastures and Forages in North Carolina for more information or consult your regional agronomist or
extension agent for assistance.
-----------------------•- -------------------------------------------------------------------------•------- --------------------------------------------------
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed-. 05-21 2003 Crop Note Page 5 of 7

The following crop note applies to feld(s): 4b, 5b
Rye, Grain: CP, Mineral Soil, low -leachable
In the Coastal Plain, oats and barley should be planted from October 15-October 30; and rye from
October 15-November 20. For barley, plant 22 seed/drill row foot and increase the seeding rate by 5% for
each week seeding is delayed beyond the optimum time. See the seeding rates table for applicable
seeding rate modifications in the current NCSU "Small Grain Production Guide". Also, increase the
initial seeding rate by at Ieast 10% when planting no -till. Oats should be planted at 2 bushels/acre and
rye at 1-1 1/2 bushels/acre. Plant all these small grains at 1-1 1/2" deep. Adequate depth control is
essential. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and information from private companies to
select a high yielding variety with the characteristics needed for your area and conditions. Apply no more
than 30 lbs/acre N at planting. Phosphorus and potash recommended by a soil test can also be applied at
this time. The remaining N should be applied during the months of February -March. The total N is
dependent on the soil type. Plant samples can be analyzed during the growing season to monitor the
nutrient status of the oats, barley and rye. Timely management of diseases, insects and weeds are
essential for profitable oat, barley and rye production. -
The following crop note applies to field(s): 4a, 5a
Rye, Grain: CP, Mineral Soil, low -leachable
In the Coastal Plain, oats and barley should be planted from October 15-October 30; and rye from
October 15-November 20. For barley, plant 22 seed/drill row foot and increase the seeding rate by 5% for
each week seeding is delayed beyond the optimum time. See the seeding rates table for applicable
seeding rate modifications in the current NCSU "Small Grain Production Guide". Also, increase the
initial seeding rate by at least 10% when planting no -till. Oats should be planted at 2 bushels/acre and
rye at 1-1 1/2 bushels/acre. Plant all these small grains at 1-1 1/2" deep. Adequate depth control is
essential. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and information from private companies to
select a high yielding variety with the characteristics needed for your area and conditions. Apply no more
than 30 lbs/acre N at planting. Phosphorus and potash recommended by a soil test can also be applied at
this time. The remaining N should be applied during the months of February -March. The total N is
dependent on the soil type. Plant samples can be analyzed during the growing season to monitor the
nutrient status of the oats, barley and rye. Timely management of diseases, insects and weeds are
essential for profitable oat, barley and rye production.
-----•----------------------------------------------••----------------- ..---- .---- ----. ..
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 05-21-2003 Crop Note Page 6 of 7

The following crop note applies to field(s): 2a, 2b, 4c
Rye, Grain: CP, Mineral Soil, medium leachable
In the Coastal Plain, oats and barley should be planted from October 15-October 30; and rye from
October 15-November 20. For barley, plant 22 seed/drill row foot and increase the seeding rate by 5% for
each week seeding is delayed beyond the optimum time. See the seeding rates table for applicable
seeding rate modifications in the current NCSU "Small Grain Production Guide". Also, increase the
initial seeding rate by at least 10% when planting no -till. Oats should be planted at 2 bushels/acre and
rye at 1-1 1/2 bushels/acre. Plant all these small, grains at 1-1 1/2" deep. Adequate depth control is
essential. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and information from private companies to
select a high yielding variety with the characteristics needed for your area and conditions. Apply no more
than 30 lbs/acre N at planting. Phosphorus and potash recommended by a soil test can also be applied at
this time. The remaining N should be applied during the months of February -March. The total N is
dependent on the soil type. Plant samples can be analyzed during the growing season to monitor the
nutrient status of the oats, barley and rye. Timely management of diseases, insects and weeds are
essential for profitable oat, barley and rye production.
The following crop note applies to field(s): 1, 2a, 2c, 3
Rye, Grain: CP, Mineral Soil, medium leachable
In the Coastal Plain, oats and barley should be planted from October 15-October 30; and rye from
October 15-November 20. For barley, plant 22 seed/drill row foot and increase the seeding rate by 5% for
each week seeding is delayed beyond the optimum time. See the seeding rates table for applicable
seeding rate modifications in the current NCSU "Small Grain Production Guide". Also, increase the
initial seeding rate by at least 10% when planting no -till. Oats should be planted at 2 bushels/acre and
rye at 1-1 1/2 bushels/acre. Plant all these small grains at 1-1 1/2" deep. Adequate depth control is
essential. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and information from private companies to
select a high yielding variety with the characteristics needed for your area and conditions. Apply no more
than 30 lbs/acre N at planting. Phosphorus and potash recommended by a soil test can also be applied at
this time. The remaining N should be applied during the months of February -March. The total N is
dependent on the soil type. Plant samples can be analyzed during the growing season to monitor the
nutrient status of the oats, barley and rye. Timely management of diseases, insects and weeds are
essential for profitable oat, barley and rye production.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- •----------........---------......---------g----------
854931 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 05-21-2003 CropNote Page 7 of 7

Notification of Change of Ownership NC Dept of Environmental Quality
Animal Waste Management Facility
(Please type or print all information that does not require a signature) APR 10 2017
In accordance with the requirements of 15A NCAC 2T .1304(c) and 15A NCAC 2T .I305(d) this form is official notification
to the Division of Water Resources (DWR) of the transfer of ownership of an Animal Was ana a ent.Facil'ty. This.
form must be submitted to DWR no later than 60 days following the transfer of ownership. ti�aMlelg�i � . 0na1 6 Ce
General Information:
Previous Name of Farm: . tl 0✓��/� �� r� Facility No: _- ZY
Previous Owner(s) Name: +'% !�✓�� Phone No:
New Owner(s) Name: J + 1 // Phone/No:
New Farm Name (if applicable): rGn 0 t Lr=/�C +✓I'tGl6 6'r �
Mailing Address: 3 ✓ c/`++► rn �d . Grp ��r�
Farm Location: Latitude and Longitude: I County:
Please attach a copy of a county road map with location identified, and provide the iocatio address nd driving directions
below (Be specific: road names, directions, milepost, etc.): 9 % t/Cn ,,' ex r-
Ar 44r . *.o
Oneration Description:
Type of Swine No. ofAnimals
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish S7110
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ FarroW to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Acreage Available for Application:
Type of Poultry No. ofAnimals Type of Cattle
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Pullets ❑ Beef
Other Type of Livestock:
Required Acreage: 7f
No. ofAnimals
Number ofAnimals:
Number of Lagoons / Storage Ponds: [ Total Capacity: Cubic Feet (ft3)
Owner / Manager Agreement
1 (we) verify that all the above information is correct and will be updated upon changing. I (we) understand the operation and
maintenance procedures established in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP) for the farm named above
and will implement these procedures. I (we) know that any modification -or expansion to the existing design capacity of the
waste treatment and storage system or construction of new facilities will require a permit modification before the new
animals are stocked. I (we) understand that there must be no discharge of animal waste from the storage or application
system to surface waters of the state either directly through a man-made conveyance or from a storm event less severe than
the 25-year, 24-hour storm and there must not be run-off from the application, of animal waste. 1 (we) understand that this
facility may be covered by a State Non -Discharge Permit or a NPDES Permit and completion of this form authorizes the
Division of Water Resources to issue the required permit to the new land owner.
Name of Previous aad Ow
Signature: // nn
Name of New Land Owner: �nean+z LflGn
Signature:_
Name of Ma
Signature:
different from owner):
Please sign and return this form to:
N. C. Division of Water Resources
Aquifer Protection Section
Animal Feeding Operations Unit
1636 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27644-1636
te:�/�'//7
Date:
T'
Date:
April 23, 2012

Animal Waste Management System Operator Designation Form
WPCSOCC
NCAC 15A 8F ,0201
Facility/Farm Name: -�s(, ,�,,,.,f „c. ,,� f e vf,l1` e•�
Permit #: CJ' ���� Facility ID#: -�3� �s County:
Operator In Charge (OIC)
Name:
-f
Sr, etc.
Cert Type/#: t'i✓ Work Phone: 2 eflf
Signature: Date: 4� jl /)
"I certify that I agree to y designation as the Operator in Charge for the facility noted. I understand and will abide by the rules and
regulations pertaining to the responsibilities set forth in 15A NCAC 08F .0203 and failing to do so can result in Disciplinary Actions by the Water
Pollution Control System Operators Certification Commission."
Back-up Operator In Charge (Back-up OIC) (Optional)
Name:
Cert Type/#:
Signature:
First Middle Last Jr, Sr, etc.
Work Phone: ( }
Date:
"I certify that I agree to my designation as the Operator in Charge forthe facility noted. i understand and will abide by the rules and
regulations pertainingto the responsibilities set forth in 15A NOC-018F .0203 and failing to do so can result in Disciplinary Actions by the Water
Pollution Control System Operators Certification Commission."
Permittee/Owner Name:
11
r I
Phone #: to Email: d fttl�r, l �'fh./�c•.•.
Signature: f Date:
(Ow r Representative) T
Mail or fax the original to:
WPCSOCC, 1618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1618 Fax: [phone]
Mail or fax a copy to the appropriate Regional Office:
Asheville
Fayetteville
Mooresville
Raleigh
2090 US Hwy 70
225 Green St, Suite 714
610E Center Ave, Suite 301
3800 Barrett Dr
Swannanoa 28778
Fayetteville 28301-5043
Mooresville 28115
Raleigh 27609
Fax:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
Phone:[phone]
Phone:[phone]
Phone:704.663,1699
Phone:[phone]
Washington
943 Washington Sq Mall
Washington 27889
Fax: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Wilmington
127 Cardinal Dr
Wilmington 28405-2845
Fax: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Winston-Salem
585 Waughtown St
Winston-Salem 27107
Fax: [phone]
Phone: 336.771,5000
Revised 12/2012 (Retain a copy of this form for your records)

.11
NUH I H UAHULI NA
Department of Environmental Qual

Aerial Map
Field borders provided by Farm Service Agency as of 5I21f2008.

Edgecombe County Health Department
I � '
Main Office j 11', Branch Office
2909 Main Street III l `� 107 Atlantic Avenue
Tarboro, North Carolina 27886 chy Mount, North Carolina 27.301
MEMORANDUM
JUN 2 4 I99
TO: A. B. Whitley, III
District Conservationist DChiNR RALEIGH :R+
REGIONAL OFFICE
NRCS I-1
FROM: Jim Baluss, Health Director t I
RE: Request for Field Report on Elevation of Waste Lagoon: Phil Bulluck, Jr.,
Battleboro, NC
DATE: June 18, 1997
The Edgecombe County Health Department has received numerous odor complaints
concerning the Phil Bulluck, Jr. ILO (swine) near Battleboro, North Carolina. On two occasions,
I went to the residence of the complainants and there was a highly objectionable odor from this
facility. Recently, after consulting with DWQ and Ms. Joy Sherrod it was agreed that it would be
appropriate and beneficial to this Department's investigation of the Bulluck Farm as a potential
public health nuisance for your office to determine if the waste lagoon was filled to the volume
specified in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan for this facility. In previous discussions
with yourself and the Hanor Company's Jim Arnold, I was led to conclude that the lagoon was
not functioning properly. As you know, a very common source of nuisance level odors occur at
swine ILOs if lagoons are not functioning properly as facultative anaerobic storage systems for
animal waste. One common cause of nuisance levels of lagoon odor is failure to adequately
prechange new lagoons with fresh water.
In our discussions, it was felt that a determination of current volume in Mr. Bulluck's
lagoon was an appropriate action to take. I appreciate your prompt assistance on June 16'h in
going out to the site and shooting elevations for lagoon level determination. Later that day, you
advised me that the lagoon level was at or above that specified in the CAWMP.
I am writing to thank you for your assistance, and to request that you mail me a copy of
your field report which st 7s the results you gave me by telephone.
Thank you.
'l'
cc: Joe Durham, Edgecombe County Manager
Buster Towell, DWQ

D Drvision of $oil and Water Conservation -Operation Review 22
D�Drvrsi h ol'Soil and Water Conservation -Compliance InspectIori
rvis ion orWateC,Qnallty -;COn7phaneC LnSpeetlOR
-. .' .. E3 Other'Agency-.Operation Review
I f Routine Q Complaint Q Follo+r-up of l)V/Q inspection Q l-olloi�,-u op f I)S1VC r-ei•iew Q Other
��i
ty Number D.atu of inspection
Tinic of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted ❑ Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered JE3 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: !J.!.. r 1 �Ge G.1c... .. .. Coarnly:. ..4 GL .,�........................................
Le:. ...............
Owner Name:........... J i� .... e Phone No: Z- 5 Z r �fZ —6-3z
i�
....................................................................................................................................................................................
Facility Contact: i`i J"- it- ` Title: I'haarre No:
..................................................................... ................................................................ ...................................................
� 1
Mailing Address: 2- boy Ll 3� x !o- d ........� .............. ..�
x .........................................................,................................................. ... '.,................ .
Onsite Representative:....... �. N ll�. / I ..... Intel;r:ytor:...l..--:........................................
Certified Operator: .'..I. 6,,1 k.e (C Operator Certification Nurnbcr:..........................................
..........
Location of Farm: S
.............................................................................................................................................................................. -�
............................................................................................................................................................................ +r
Latitude r 0& 14 Longitude • ° F--1iL
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
S" ❑ Non -Layer
❑ Wean to Feeder
eederto Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Galls
❑ Boars
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ t,al;oon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impact~
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation (Il'yes, notify DWQ)? ❑ Yes
Discharge originated al: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Ficld [:]Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance nrara ru,ulc ? ❑ YesZN7No
h. If discharge is observed. did it reach: ❑ Surface Waters ❑Waters of the State ❑ Yes
c. If dischargo is observed. what is [lie estimated flow in gal/ruin',
d. Doc-s discharge bypass a lagoon sy�stcm? ❑ Yes
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'? ❑ Yes
3. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge`? ❑ Ye/�P<q/
waste Collection &Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (Freeboard plus stormstorage) less than adequate? ❑ Ye
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 StCuelUre 4 Structure 5 Structure h
Identifier: a
Freeboard(inches): ........................................... ............ ........ ..............:..................:............................ ......................... ....................................
............................
1/6/99 Continued on back

S
Facility Num er: ST —4�0Date of Inspection L�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any 6f the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes 0 lvo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed andlur managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes t� `vn
8. Does any pai t of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required top of dike, maximum and minimum
liquid level elevation markings? ❑ Yes
Waste Anlieation
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancc/imprnvement? ❑ Yes No
l 1 • Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Pondin- ❑ Nitrogen ❑ Yes No
12. Crop type (r ,S. /f.,�!!...n...................•...,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ZN
14. Does the facility lack wettable acreage for land application? (footprint) ❑ Yes N
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes N
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate ol'Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No '
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iet WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes ZINV
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes zo
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes
21. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes 7NV
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes
23. Did Rev' v�cr/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes
24. Do facility require afollow-up visit by same agency? El Yes No
EX o:v161a*tions •or- dercienc e's:were n'oh*d' during .ttiii,visii.:You v'd'Ifre� eive not further
e6rresb6 ideike; abbot; this visit.; :.:.: ::::: ... ::: .

Revised January 22, ] 999
JUSTIFICATION & DOCUMENTATION FOR MANDATORY WA DETERMINATION
Facility Number '
Farm Name: 27 =*a h_
On -Site Representative: H: r (,,, (E � C-
Inspector/Reviewer's Name: (a -tie-
Date of site visit: `"( / (2 ! 3
Date of most recent WUP: rr( - ?0_ I (a
Operation is flagged for a wettable
acre determination due to failure of
Part 11 eligibility item(s) F1 F2 F3 F4
peration not required to secure WA
determination at a based on
exemption 1 E2 3 E4
Annual farm PAN deficit: pounds
Irrigation System(s) - circle #: 1. hard -hose traveler; 2. center -pivot system; 3. linear -move system;
4. stationary sprinkler system wlpermanent pipe; 5. stationary sprinkler system wlportable pipe;
6. stationary gun system wlpermanent pipe; 7. stationary gun system wlportable pipe
PART I. WA Determination Exemptions (Eligibility failure, Part 11, overrides Part I exemption.)
E1 Adequate irrigation design, including ma depicting wettable acres, is complete
and signed by an l or PE. . I
E2 Adequate D, and Dzl 3 irriga ' n operating parameter sheets, including map
depicting wettable a es, ' complete an sj.ned by an I or P _.
�
E3 Adequate D, irrigation operating parameter sheet, including map depicting
wettable acres, is complete and signed by a WUP.
E4 75% rule exemption as verified in Part 111. (NOTE: 75 % exemption cannot be
applied to farms that fail the eligibility checklist in Part 11. Complete eligibility
checklist, Part II - F1 F2 F3, before completing computational table in Part 111).
PART 11. 75% Rule Eligibility Checklist and Documentation of WA Determination
Requirements. WA Determination required beta se op er tion fails one of the eligibility
requirements listed below:
F1 Lack of acreage which resulted in over application of wastewater (PAN) on spray
field(s) according to farm's last two years of irrigation records.
F2 Unclear, illegible, or lack of information/map.
PA• tN l�Ghy, tom-
F3 Obvious field limitations (numerous ditches; failure to deduct required
buffer/setback acreage; or 25% of total acreage identified in CAWMP includes
small, irregularly shaped fields - fields less than 5 acres for travelers or less than
2 acres for stationary sprinklers).
F4 WA determination required because CAWMP credits field(s)'s acreage in excess
of 75% of the respective field's total acreage as noted in table in Part Ill.

Revised January 22, 1999
yiNumber -
,t III. Field by Field Determination of 75% Exemption Rule for WA Determination
TRACT
FIELD
TYPE OF
TOTAL CAWMP
FIELD
COMMENTS'
NUMBER
NUMBER"
IRRIGATION
ACRES ACRES
%
SYSTEM
FIELD NUMBER' - hydrant, pull, zone, or point numbers may be used in place of field numbers depending on CAWMP
and type of irrigation system. If pulls, etc. cross more than one field, inspector/reviewer will have to combine fields to
calculate 75% field by field determination for exemption if possibie; otherwise operation will be subject to WA
determination.
FIELD NUMBER' - must be clearly delineated on map.
COMMENTS' - back-up fields with CAWMP acreage exceeding 75% of its total acres and having received less than 50%
of its annual PAN as documented in the farm's previous two years' (1997 & 1998) of irrigation records, cannot serve as the
sole basis for requiring a WA Determination. Back-up fields must be noted in the comment section and must be accessible
by irrigation system. `

TABLE 2 - Traveling Irrigation Gun Setfings
Make, Modet and Type offquiprnenL .,
.�%4 X� R0�19� ,t/ .� "�riesl. " -o�. SNo if A�!o_ay.✓r?�+,^! J�f.GGer+�
Field Not
and
Hydrant Floc
Travel
speed
(ltlmtn)
Appficalion
Rate
"I]
TRAVEL LANE
Effective EReellve
WLdth fq Length (M
Welted
Drameter
(feet)
EQtraloHT SUrTmS
mazee opetaft Operating
Clamater PrItw a Pressure Arc
[inches [tun (p Reef (psi} Padern'
f
Cammerrts
a.s
2,6s
4%
ass
f. aA0
133
3�
.2
�2.
.3
a'S
aS
o
!3
..7
7. S
.3 y
e cs
3Ss
/. 0
80
!33
3
14
ass
!- o
J o
7 ,33
3
�.S
3Y
aGS
%i3o
3SS
133
33o
6- 9 7
,3V
: G5
0
ass
I. r)
r1
1J,1
330
.3 9
7&%Iq e-
3¢
RdS
S
5'S
1 a
(
330
3 f-
ate
-PL
3s"5~
1, v
r i3
s JC
18
�T
G�
'See attached -map provided by the Field Office fat rield lacatron(s).
iShow separate entries for each hydrant tncadw) ]t ea ch field.
'Use the iallowhV awreviatlons for Various arc pattems. F (full circle), TO (three quarters), TT (bvo Utds). H. )hag elide), T (one thi-Nj. 0 (one quarter).
May also use degree of are to degrees-
lidgatlon Parameleta USOMMS
October 1996 Page-2 }fib Carouna

. o ��
����
��'L. • � � - �.
7�
� �'
/L _ � . - � � - _ .

Edgecombe County Health Department
�owea rot.
Main Office Branch Office
2909 Main Street - y 107 Atlantic Avenue
Tarboro, North Carolina 27886 Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27801
.ya�N AAo
[Sth�%seff01MN&I
TO: Judy Garrett, Regional Supervisor
FROM: Jun Baluss, Director
RE: Phil Bulluck ILO (swine) Near Battleboro, Edgecombe County, NC
DATE: October 27, 1997
The Phil Bulluck (swine) ILO continues to be the source of a significant number of
complaints concerning odors and potential groundwater contamination. I am requesting that an
inspection be made by your office to determine if the facility is in compliance with the Certified
Animal Waste Management Plan. Thank you for your ongoing assistance in this matter.
JRBllwm
MUM

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Groundwater Section
November 12. 1998 ©�
(�
Mr. James R. Baluss, Director
Edgecombe County Health Department
2949 Main Street
Tarboro, NC 27886
Subject: Request For Investigation of the Phil Bullock, Jr. Farm Intensive
Livestock Operation, Battleboro, NC, Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Baluss,
I am writing to respond to the request you made September 25, 1998 on behalf
of the Edgecombe County Board of Health and the Health Department concerning the
subject intensive Livestock Operation (ILO)-in-the.vicinity.-of-the.Momingstar-Baptist• -
Church Community. You requested our office investigate concerns -the County had
regarding potential causes of surface water and_groundwater_contamination,, some of
which we discussed after my receipt of your letter and at a prior community meeting.
On November 5, 1998 I visited the facility to evaluate its potential for causing
contamination that is of concern to the citizens of the -Morningstar Baptist Church and
surrounding community. As you may recall, we had previously visited the area on
several occasions and inspected the wells that are -the focus of the grgt1ndwater concerns.
Prior to our office commencing a groundwater contamination investigation that
involves the installation of monitor wells (or test wells), collection of samples and the
drafting of a report, we collect other information needed to evaluate the priority of the
investigation and justify the use of State resources. This information includes but is not
limited to:
1. the concentration and nature of the contaminants that are the source of the
complaint, 1.
2. the proximity of the potential source to the affected party,
3, gradient of the land surface and the resultant interpretation of possible
groundwater flow,
4. groundwater discharge and recharge features such as streams, lakes and ponds,
8800 BARRETT DRIVE, SUITS 1 O1, RALHI6H;.NORTH GAROLINA 27609--':
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone].
AN EgUAL OPPORTUNITY ! AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 80% RHCYCLHD/10% P68T-CON304 PAPER-
'

Mr. James R. Baluss
November 12, 1998
Page 2
5. location of other potential sources, and
6. soil and rock types in the vicinity. _
It,should be noted the wells at the community were not impacted at a concentration above any
Groundwater Quality Standard. Some of the concentrations of Nitrate are high and getting close to
the standard of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Other than one well, no Fecal Coliform bacteria was
found and only a few wells tested positive for. Total Coliform.These contaminants. are.. generally
found close to the source of the groundwater impact.
My evaluation of the site and information in the file suggests.that the Bullock -ILO is not a
source of contamination of wells at the Morningstar Community for the following reasons:
1. The Bullock Farm is approximately 3400 feet from the community.
Contaminants don't generally migrate far. from a source.prior, to. being detected (i.e.- "the apple
doesn 't fall far from the tree"). The largest "contaminant- plume" (petroleum) in- this -region- at-orie
time approached 1400 feet in fractured rock. The Bullock Farnover 2-times that distance. The -
Bullock Farm has also not begun to apply waste to the fields. The lagoon is the only potential source
for consideration at this point and is approx 3400 feet from the church. Ourregion.has initiated
two investigations of ILO's both of which were actively applying waste within ] 00 feet of
potable supply wells. (See comment 4.) The impacted wells are many hundreds to thousands of
feet away from the Bullock ILO.
2. The topography for the most part is relatively flat and there were two streams between the
community and the farm.
Because the land is generally flat, there is not likely a strong "gradient or preferred direction of
groundwater movement unless close to a stream or pumping well. It is very improbable that the
Bullock farm is impacting the community. The streams would act as interceptors. devices and
contaminants would be carried off site. No impacts to the streams were observed"by the Water
Quality Section.
3. Other sources of contamination appear more likely.
Our office identified several other potential sources of groundwater contamination during past
inspections that are more likely candidates with respect to impacts to wells. These include fertilizing
of lawns and row crops, chicken houses and dog pens and homeowner septic tanks.
4. The soils in the area are typically sands, silts and clays. These materials_slow .the _movement.
of groundwater and contaminants. The average extent of contamination in these materials
r
r
r

Mr. James R. Baluss
November 12, 1998
Page 3
is generally 500 feet or so from the source. I am not aware of any case in the State where a
plume extended beyond 1500 feet In these materials. The longer plumes are normally
associated with bedrock contamination.
Information reviewed by our office suggests the construction methods used to install the
wells may be a factor. The wells were not impacted at concentrations above the standards for Nitrate
or Fecal bacteria with the exception of Mr. Lewis' well (fecal identified). Several of the wells
however, tested positive for total coliform which is generally used as an indicator of a wells sanitary
condition. Inspection of the wells indicate many of them appear to have been constructed prior to
the State adopting well construction regulations. Many of the shallow bored wells were not grouted
according tocurrent rules. Water was observed entering. the wells at joints in the casings as little as
6 to 9 feet below land surface or through holes in the side of the casing. Wells constructed prior to
the regulations (approximately January 1979) were "grand fathered in". As such, we would not
require corrective action or abandonment to a well that does not meet current construction
regulations unless the well was contaminated. The construction methods used place the wells at a
greater risk of becoming contaminated than wells constructed according to current regulations. Two
deep drilled wells owned by Mr. Paul Batts and Mr. James Whitehead report no contaminants.
i
In summary, the information collected by our office suggests that an investigation beyond
the scope of what has been completed is not warranted. I understand the community is frustrated by
the ILO and associated odors, however, the geological factors influencing the movement and
occurrence of contaminants does not support the suggestion that the Bullock ILO may be causing
the problems being experienced by the Morningstar community. I recommend the owners of the
wells experiencing water quality problems upgrade the wells to meet current standards or replace
the wells. The newer methods of well construction afford a greater level of protection for their water
supply.
�F
Should you or any of the commissioners have any questions, -please call me at 9191571-4700.
1 look forward to meeting with you and members of the board on Monday, November 16, 1998. It
is anticipated that Arthur Mouberry, Groundwater Section Chief will be accompanying me to the
meeting.
Sincerely,
S. mmerman, L.G.
Enviro ental Regional Supervisor
Raleigh Regional Office
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Ken Schuster
Buster Towell
momstandoc

�C �pV
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Groundwater Section
January 25, 1999
- Mr. James R. Baluss, Director
Edgecombe County Health Department
2909 Main Street
Tarboro, NC 27886
Subject: Review of the letter report from Allen Hubbard regarding well
contamination at the Morningstar Community, Battleboro, NC,
Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Baluss,
I am writing in response to your request that I review a letter from Mr. Allen S.
Hubbard you sent to me January 12, 1999 by facsimile, regarding the recent sampling
of residential water supply wells at the Morningstar Baptist Church Community located
in Battleboro, NC. You asked that I review the information and advise you whether or
not it would change the Groundwater Sections position concerning an investigation of
the Phil Bullock Intensive Livestock Operation (ILO).
The letter did not include any data but did mention within the text that several
wells were contaminated with Fecal bacteria. I understand the well owners may not have
wanted me to know whose well was contaminated for fear that I may require the wells
to be repaired or abandoned. Because the letter did not include any of the data from the
wells or identify the owner of the wells I was unable to draw many conclusions.
In my previous letter, I cited several items that we consider prior to commencing
a groundwater contamination investigation including proximity to potential sources. I
noticed in Mr. Hubbard's letter that he too, mentioned "agricultural fertilizers or septic
tanks" as potential sources of contamination (specifically Nitrate contamination) to the
subject wells. I agree with Mr. Hubbard and with respect to the Fecal bacteria, I would
initially consider the septic tanks as a much more likely potential source than the
Bullock ILO. As such, I do not believe the information has changed our original
determination to not initiate an investigation of the Bullock ILO.
While I understand the residents apprehension regarding our agencies knowledge
of the specific wells that report contamination, I must ensure the wells themselves are
not providing an avenue to allow contaminants to migrate into deeper parts of the
aquifer. Improperly grouted wells provide an annular space between the well casing and
original borehole that may allow contaminants to migrate further into the aquifer. This
may result in more widespread contamination of the groundwater resources, placing
more wells and residents at risk. I encourage the residents consider sharing the
laboratory data with our office so that we can determine the proper course of action.
8800 BARRETT DRIVE, SUITE 101, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27609
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 80% RECYCLED/10% POET -CONSUMER PAPER

Mr. James R. Baiuss
January 25, 1999
Page 2
At a minimum, I recommend the owners of the wells experiencing water quality problems
upgrade the wells to meet current standards or replace the wells. We would be willing to work with
the well owners to allow more time than we customarily do (30 days normally) to arrange for the
replacement or repair of the wells. The newer methods of well construction afford a greater level
of protection for their water supply and the resource.
Should you have any questions, please call me at 919/571-4700.
Sin erely,
S. ay immerman, L.G.
Environmental Regional Supervisor
Raleigh Regional Office
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Buster Towell
momstrldoc

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Animal Waste Management Systems
Request for Modification to Existing Certificate of Coverage for State Non -Discharge Permit
The following questions have been completed utilizing information on file with the Division. Please review the
information for completeness and make any corrections that are appropriate. If a question has not been
completed by the Division, please answer it to the best of your ability. Do not leave any question unanswered.
By submitting this application you are requesting a modification to the current Certificate of Coverage for this facility
to reduce the permitted number of animals. Should you wish to increase your animal numbers in the future, you will
be required to apply for a modified Certificate of Coverage and be may be issued coverage under the NPDES permit
as appropriate.
1 Facility Number: 33 - 65 or Permit Number: AWS330065
2 Facility Name: Phil Bulluck Farm
3 Landowner's name (must match the name on the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan): Walter P. Bulluck
4 Landowner's Mailing address: Rt 2, Box 459
City, State: Battleboro NC
Telephone Number (include area code): 919-442-0822
5 County where facility is located: Edgecombe
6
Farm Manager's name (if different from Landowner):
7 Farm Manager's telephone number (include area code):
Zip: 27809
Submit a copy of a modified Waste Utilization Plan for the requested animal numbers with this application. The
Waste Utilization Plan must be signed by the owner and a technical specialist.
1 attest that this application has been reviewed by me and is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. I
understand that if all required parts of this application are not completed and that if all required supporting information
and attachments are not included, this application package will be returned to me as incomplete. Note: In accordance
with NC General Statutes 143-215.6A and 143-215.613, any person who knowingly makes any false statement,
representation, or certification in any application shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor which may include a fine not to
exceed $10,000 as well as civil penalties up to $25,000 per violation. (18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides a punishment by
a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both for a similar offense.)
Printed Name of Signing Official (Landowner, or if multiple Landowners, all landowners should sign. If Landowner is a
corporation, signature should be by a principal executive officer of the corporation):
Name:
Signat
Title: 0 W fi t Y .
Date: - Z _6
THE COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
WATER QUALITY SECTION
NON -DISCHARGE PERMITTING UNIT
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617
TELEPHONE NUMBER: [phone] FAX NUMBER: [phone]
Request for Modified COC

Nutrient Management Plan For Animal Waste Utilization
This plan has been prepared for:
Bulluck Swine Farm
Walter P. Bulluck
Route 2 Box 459
Battleboro, NC 27809
252-442-0822
06-20-2003
This plan has been developed by:
Margaret Knight
Edgecombe SWCD
201 St. Andrew Street
POBox 10
Tarboro, NC 27886
252-641-7900
Developer Signature
Type of Plan: Nitrogen Only with Manure Only
Owner/Manager/Producer Agreement
I (we) understand and agree to the specifications and the operation and maintenance
procedures established in this nutrient management plan which includes an animal
waste utilization plan for the farm named above. I have read and understand the
Required Specifications concerning animal waste management that are included with
this plan.
Signature (owner)
Signature (manager or producer)
Date
Date
This plan meets the minimum standards and specifications of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service or the standard of practices
adopted by the Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
Plan Approved By: ✓r �- l D
Tec 'cal 4pe,cialist Sign a Date
--------------------------------- _------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- -------------------------------------------
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 06-20-2003 Cover Page 1

Nutrients applied in accordance with this plan will be supplied from the
following source(s):
Commercial Fertilizer is not included in this plan.
S7
Swine Feeder -Finish Lagoon Liquid waste generated 5,339,520 gals/year
by a 5,760 animal Swine Finishing Lagoon Liquid operation. This
production facility has waste storage capacities of approximately 180 days.
Estimated Pounds of Plant Available Nitrogen Generated per Year
Broadcast
12298
Incorporated
21121
Injected
23259
Irrigated
13367
Actual PAN Applied
(Pounds)
Actual Volume Applied
(Gallons)
Volume Surplus/Deficit
(Gallons)
Year 1
15,887.70
6,346,200
-1,006,680
Year 2
19,290.02
7,705,223
-2,365,703
Note: In source ID, S means standard source, U means user defined source.
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 06-20-2003 Source Page i of I

The table shown below provides a summary of the crops or rotations included in this plan for each field. Realistic
Yield estimates are also provided for each crop in the plan. In addition, the Leaching Index for each field is shown,
where available.
Planned Crops Summary
Tract
Field
Leaching
Index (LI)
Sail Series
Crop Sequence
RYE
1006
1
NIA
Autavillc
Peanuts
2,500 lbs.
Rye, Grain
45 bu.
Cotton
700 lbs.
Rye, Grain
45 bu.
1006
2a
NIA
Wagram
Peanuts
2,880 lbs.
Rye, Grain
38 bu.
Cotton
624 lbs.
Rye, Grain
38 bu.
1006
2b
NIA
Norfolk
Peanuts
4 000 lbs.
Rye, Grain
60 bu.
Cotton
875 lbs.
Rye, Grain
60 bu.
1006
2,
N/A
Autyille
Peanuts
2,400 lbs.
Rye, Grain
43 bu.
Cotton
672 lbs.
Rye, Grain
43 bu.
1006i
3
NIA
Wagram
Peanuts
2,880 lbs.
Rye, Grain
38 bu.
Cotton
624 lbs.
Rye, Grain
38 bu.
1006
4a
N/A
Goldsboro
Peanuts
4.000 lbs.
Rye, Grain
65 bu.
Cotton
925 lbs.
Rye, Grain
65 bu.
1006
4b
N/A
Rains
Peanuts
2,900 lbs.
Rye, Grain
55 bu.
Cotton
800 lbs.
Rye, Grain
55 bu.
1006
4c
NIA
Norfolk
Peanuts
3 8401bs.
Rye, Grain
58 bu.
Cotton
840 lbs.
Rye, Grain
58 bu.
10061
Sa
NIA
Goldsboro
Peanuts
4,000 lbs.
Rye, Grain
65 bu.
Cotton
925 lbs.
Rye, Grain
65 bu.
1006
5b
N/A
Rains
Peanuts
2,900 lbs.
.... -
223002 Database Version 2.0
NOTE: Symbol * means user entered data.
------------ - ------- -----------
Date Printed: 06-20-2003
PCS Page 1 of 3

Planned Crops Summary
'Tract
Field
Leaching
Index (L)
Soil Series
Crop Sequence
RYE
Rye, Grain
55 bu.
Cotton
800 lbs.
Rye, Grain
55 bu.
1006
6
NIA
Wagrarn
Peanuts
3,000 lbs.
Rye, Grain
40 bu.
Cotton
650 lbs.
Rye, Grain
40 bu.
934
2a
NIA
lNorfolk
Cotton
858lbs.
Rye, Grain
59 bu.
Corn, Grain
113 bu.
Rye, Grain
59 bu.
934
2b
NIA
Norfolk
Cotton
875lbs.
Rye, Grain
60 bu.
Corn, Grain
115 bu.
Rye, Grain
60 bu.
950
1
NIA
Autryville
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
5.5 Tons
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
950
2
NIA
Autryville
Cotton
700lbs.
Rye, Grain
45 bu.
950
3
NIA
Autryville
Cotton
700lbs.
Rye, Grain
45 bu.
950
4
NIA
Autrymlle
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
5.5 Tons
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
950
5
N/A
Goldsboro
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
950
6
NIA
Goldsboro
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
950
7
NIA
Goldsboro
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
950
8
NIA
Goldsboro
Hybrid Bermudagms Pasture
6.5 Tons
S-11 Grain Overseed I
1.0 Tons
---- --- -- -
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 06-20-2003 PCS Page 2 of 3
NOTE: Symbol * means user entered data.

LI
Potential Leaching
Technical Guidance
Low potential to contribute to
None
< 2
soluble nutrient leaching below
the root zone.
> = 2 &
Moderate potential to contribute
Nutrient Management (590) should be planned.
< = 10
to soluble nutrient leaching
below the root zone.
High potential to contribute to
Nutrient Management (590) should be planned. Other conservation practices that
soluble nutrient leaching below
improve the soils available water holding capacity and improve nutrient use
10
the root zone.
efficiency should be considered. Examples are Cover Crops (340) to scavenge
nutrients, Sod -Based Rotations (328), Long -Term No -Till (778), and edge -of -field
practices such as Filter Strips (393) and Riparian Forest Buffers (391).
------------ ---------- - - -- -----......---- ------...- ---- ---- - -- - ...-- - --
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 06-20-2003 PCS Page 3 of 3
NOTE: Symbol * means user entered data.

The Waste Utilization table shown below summarizes the waste utilization plan for this operation. This plan provides an estimate of the number of acres of cropland
needed to use the nutrients being produced. The plan requires consideration of the realistic yields of the crops to be grown, their nutrient requirements, and proper timing
of applications to maximize nutrient uptake.
This table provides an estimate of the amount of nitrogen required by the crop being grown and an estimate of the nitrogen amount being supplied by manure or other
by-products, commercial fertilizer and residual from previous crops. An estimate of the quantity of solid and liquid waste that will be applied on each field in order to
supply the indicated quantity of nitrogen from each source is also included. A balance of the total manure produced and the total manure applied is included in the table to
ensure that the plan adequately provides for the utilization of the manure generated by the operation.
Depending on the requirements of the crop and the nutrient content of the waste, some nutrients will likely be over or under applied if animal waste is being utilized.
Waste should be analyzed before each application cycle and annual Soil tests are required if animal waste is being applied. Soil tests should be used to balance the nutrient
application amounts with the realistic yields of the crop to be grown. Nutrient management plans may require that the application of animal waste be limited so as to
prevent over application of phosphorous when excessive levels of this nutrient are detected in a field.
Waste i ltilization Table
Year l
Tract
Field
Source
I.D.
I Soil Series
Total
Acre
use.
Acres
crop
RYE
Applic.
Period
Nitrogen
PA
Nutrient
Req'd
Comm.
Fert.
Nutrient
Applied
Res.
(ibs/A)
Applic.
Method
Manure
PA
Nutrient
Applied
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
N
N
I N
lbs/A
1000
pVA I
tons
1000 gals
tons
1006
1
N/A
Autryville
1.10
0.83
Peanuts
2,500 tbs.
411-9/30
0
0
0
NIA
0
0.00
Q
0.00
0.00
I006
1
S7
Autryville
1.10
0.83 1
Rye, Grain
45bu.
8114130
104
0
20
brig. i
84
33.55
0
27.85
0.00
1006
2a
N/A
Wagram
9.50
7.13
Peanuts
2,880lbs.
411-9/30
0
0
0
N/A
0
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
1006
2a
S7
Wagram
9.50
7.13
Rye, Grain
38 bu.
8/1-4/30
88
0
20
brig.
681
27.16
0
193.67
0.00
1006
2b
N/A
Norfolk
4.70
3.53
Peanuts
4,000lbs.
4/1-9/30
0
0
0
NIA
D
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
1006
2b
S7
Norfolk
4.70
3.53
Rye, Grain
60 bu.
8/14/30
125
0
20
brig.
105
41.94
0
148.05
0.00
1006
2c
NIA
Autryville
4.70
3.53
Peanuts
2,400lbs-
4/19/30
0
0
D
N/A
0
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
1006
2c
S7
Autryville
4.70
153
Rye, Grain
43 bu.
8/14/30
100
0
20
Irrig.
80
31.96
0
112.80
0.00
1006
3
NIA
Wagram
15.50
11.63
Peanuts
2,880lbs.
4/1-9/30
1 0
0
0
NIA
0
0.00
D
0.00
0.00
1006
3
S7
Wagram
15.50
11-63
Rye, Grain
38 bu-
8/1-4/30
8$
0
20
brig.
68
27-16
0
315.89
0.00
-- ----- ------
223002 Database Version 2.0
------------------------------------------
Date Printed: 6/20/03
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WLTT Page t

Waste Ihilization Table
Year l
Tract
Field
Source
E.D. I
Soil Series
Total
Acre
Use.
Acres
Crop
RYE
Applic.
Period
Nitrogen
PA
Nutrient
Req'd
Comm.
Fert.
Nutrient
Applied
Res.
(lbs/A)
Applic-
Method
Manure
PA
Nutrient
Applied
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
N
N
N
Ibs/A
1000
al/A
tons
1000 pals
tons
1006
4a
N/A I
Goldsboro
1.40
1.10
Peanuts
4,0001bs.
4/1-9/30
0
0
0
N/A
0
0.00
0
0-00
0.00
1006
4a
S7
Goldsboro
1.40
1.10
Rye, Grain
65 bu.
8/1-4/30
136
0
10
brig.
116
46.34
0
50.97
0.00
1006
4b
N/A
Rains
0.80
0.60
Peanuts
2,900lbs.
411-9130
0
0
0
NIA
0
0.00
0
0.00
0,00
1006
4b
S7
Rains
0.80
0.60
Rye, Grain
55 bu.
8/1-4/30
106
0
20
brig.
86
34.35
01
20.61
0.00
1006
4c
NIA
Norfolk
0.60
0.50
Peanuts
3,840lbs.
4/1-9/30
0
0
0
NIA
0
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
1006
4c
S7 I
Norfolk
0.60
0.50
Rye, Grain
58 bu.
8/14/30
121
0
20
brig.
101
40.34
0
20.17
0,00
1006
Sa
N/A
Goldsboro
0.80
0.60
Peanuts
4,000lbs.
4/1-9/30
0
0
0
N/A
0
0.00
0
0,00
0.00
1006
58
S7
Goldsboro
0.80
0.60
Rye, Grain
65 bu.
SY14/30
136
0
20
Irrig.
116
46-34
0
27.80
0.00
1006
5b
NIA
Rains
0,40
0.30
Peanuts
2,900lbs.
4/1-9130
0
0
0
N/A
0
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
1006
5b
S7
Rains
0.40
0,30
1 Rye, Grain
55 bu.
8/14130
106
0
20
Irrig.
86
34-35
0
10.31
0.00
1006
6
N/A
Wagram
1.10
0.83
Peanuts
3,000lbs.
4/1-9/30
0
0
0
N/A
0
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
1006
6
S7
Wagram
1.10
0.83
Rye, Grain
40 bu.
8/14130
93
0
20
Irrig.
73
29.16
0
24-20
0.00
934
2a
S7
Norfolk
6.60
5,00
Cotton
858 lbs.
3115-7/31
76
0
0
brig.
76
30.36
0
151.79
0.00
934
2a
S7
Norfolk
6.60
5.00
Rye, Grain
59 bu.
8/14/30
123
0
0
brig.
123
49.13
0
245.66
0.00
934
2b
S7
Norfolk
8.00
6.00
Cotton
875 lbs.
3115-7/31
78
0
0
Irrig.
78
31.16
0
186.94
0.00
934
2b
S7
Norfolk
8.00
6.00
Rye, Grain
60 bu.
8/1-4/30
125
0
0
Irrig.
125
49.931
0
299.58
0.00
950
1
S7
Autryville
3,70
3.70
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
5.5 Tons
3/1-9/30
202
0
0
Irrig.
202
80.69
0
298.54
0.00
950
1
S7
Autryville
3.70
3.70
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/1-3131
50
0
0
Irrig.
50
19.97
0
73.90
0.00
950
2
S7
Autryville
5.78
5.78
700lbs.
3/15-7/31
2,V
0
0
Irrig-
7$
31.16
Q
180.08
0.00
950
2
S7
Autryville
5,78
5.78
Rye, Grain
45 bu.
8/1-4/30
104
0
0
brig,
104
41.541
0
240-I1
0.00
950
3
S7
Autryville
8.00
8.00
Cotton is 6 - P 4 ik
7001bs.
3/15-7/31
-� 01 --A
0
0
Irrig.
78
31.16
0
249.25
0.00
950
3
S7
Autryville
8.00
8.00
Rye, Grain
45bu.
RIIA130
1 104
0
0
brig.
104
4t.54
01
332.34
0.00
----- ----- -- ------ • - ---------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed! 6/20/03 WUT Page 2

Waste i Ttili7ation Table
Year 1
Tract
- --
I Field
Source
I.D.
Soil Series
Total
Acre
Use.
Acres
Crop
RYE
Applic.
Period
Nitrogen
PA
Nutrient
Req'd
Comm.
Fert.
Nutrient
Applied
Res.
(ibs/A)
Applic.
Method
Manure
PA
Nutrient
Applied
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
liquid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
N
N
N
Ibs/A
1000
I/A
tons
1000 gals
tons
950
4
S7
Autryville
7.33
7.33
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
5.5 Tons
3/1-9/30
202
0
0
Irrig,
202
80.69
0
591.44
0.00
950
4
S7
Autryville
7,33
7.33
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/1-3/31
50
0
0
brig.
50
19.97
0
146.40
0,00
950
5
S7
Goldsboro
6,87
6.87
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
3/1-9130
222
0
0
Irrig.
222
88,68
0
609.20
0.00
950
5
S7
Goldsboro
6.87
6.87
Small Grain Overseed
1-0 Tons
10/1-3/31
50
0
01
brig.
50
19,97
01
137.21
0.00
950
6
S7
Goldsboro
8.39
8.39
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
311-9/30
222
0
0
brig.
222
88.68
0
743.99
0.00
950
6
S7
Goldsboro
8,39
8.39
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
1011-3/31
50
0
0
Irrig.
50
19.97
0
167,57
0.00
950
7
S7
Goldsboro
3,63
3.63
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
311-9/30
222
0
0
Irrig.
222
88.68
0
321.99
0,00
950
7
S7
jWdsboro
3.631
3.63
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
i0/l-3/31
50
0
0
Irrig.
50
19-97
0
72.50
0.00
950
8
S7
Goldsboro
3.18
3,18
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
3/1-9/30
222
0
0
Irrig.
222
88.68
0
281.99
0.00
950
8
S7
Goldsboro
3.18
3.18
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
1011-3131
50
0
0
Irrig.
50
19,97
0
63.51
0.00
Total Applied, 1000 gallons
6,346.20
Lagoon Liquids
Total Produced, 1000 gallons
5,339-52
Balance, 1000 gallons
-1,006-68
WAM
Total Applied, tons
0.00
Manure Solids
Total Produced, tons
0,00
Balance, tons
0.00
]Votes: 1. In the tract column, symbol - means leased, otherwise, owned.
-------- ----------------------- ---------- -----------
223002 Database Version 2.0
2. Symbol * means user entered data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Printed: 6/20/03
----------------------------------------
WUT Page 3

Wnc#P T ltili7.ntinn Tahle
Year 2
Tract
Field
Source
I.D.
Soil Series
Total
Acre
Use.
Acres
Crop
RYE
Applic,
Period
Nitrogen
PA
Nutrient
Req'd
Comm.
Fert.
Nutrient
Applied
Res.
(lbs1A)
Applic-
Method
Manure
PA
Nutrient
Applied
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
N I
N
N
Ibs/A I
1000
WA I
tons
1000 gals
tons
1006
1
S7
Autryville
1.10
0.83
Cotton
700lbs.
3/15-7/31
78
0
0
Irrig.
78
31.16
0
25.96
0.00
1006
1
S7
Aunyville i
1.10
0.83
Rye, Grain
45 bu.
811-4/30
104
0
0
Irrig.
104
41.54
0
34.48
0.00
1006
2a
S7
Wagram
9.50
7.13
Cotton
624lbs.
3115-7131
70
0
0
irrig.
70
27.96
0
199.36
0.00
1.006
2.
S7
Wagram
9.50
7-13
Rye, Grain
38 bu.
8/14/30
88
0
0
Irrig.
88
35.15
0
250.63
0.00
1006
2b
S7
Norfolk
4.70
3.53
Cotton
875lbs.
3/15-7/31
78
0
0
Irrig,
78
31.16
0
109.98
0.00
1006
2b
S7
Norfolk
4.70
3.53
Rye, Grain
60 bu.
811-4/30
125
0
0
Irrig.
125
49.93
0
176.25
0.00
1006
2c
S7
Autryville
4.70
3.53
Cotton
6721bs.
3/15-7/31
75
0
0
Irrig.
75
29.96
0
105.75
0.00
1006
2c
S7
Autryville
4.70
3.53
Rye, Grain
43 bu.
8/l-4/30
100
0
0
Irrig,
100
39.94
0
141.00
0.00
1006
3
S7
Wagram
15.50
11.63
Cotton
624lbs.
3/15-7/31
70
0
0
Irrig,
70
27-96
0
325.19
0.00
1006
3
S7
Wagram
15.50
11.63
Rye, Grain
38 bu.
8/1-4/30
88
0
0
Irrig.
88
35.15
0
408.80
0.00
1006
4a
S7
Goldsboro
1.40
1.10
Cotton
9251bs.
3/15-7/31
82
0
0
Irrig.
82
32.75
0
36.03
0.00
1006
4a
S7
Goldsboro
1.40
1.10
Rye, Grain
65 bu.
8/1-4/30
136
0
0
Irrig.
136
54.32
0
59.76
0.00
1006
4b
S7
I Rains
0.80
0.60
Cotton
8001bs.
3/15-7/31
58
0
0
Irrig,
58
23.17
0
13.90
0.00
1006
4b
S7
I Rains
0.80
0.60
Rye, Grain
55 bu.
811-4/30
106
0
0
Irrig.
106
42.34
0
25.40
0.00
1006
4c
S7
Norfolk
0.60
0.50
Cotton
840lbs.
3115-7131
75
0
0
Irrig.
75
29.96
0
14.98
0.00
1006
4c
S7
Norfolk
0.60
0.50
Rye, Grain
58 bu.
8/1-4/30
121
0
0
Irrig,
121
48.33
01
24.1711
0.00
1006
5a
S7
Goldsboro
0.80
0.60
Cotton
925 lbs.
3/15-7/31
82
0
0
Irrig,
82
32.75
0
19.65
0.00
1006
5a
S7
Goldsboro
0.80
0.60
Rye, Grain
65 bu.
811-4/30
136
0
0
Irrig.
136
54.32
0
32.59
0.00
1006
5b
S7
Rains
0.40
0.30
Cotton
800 ibs.
3/15-7/31
58
0
0
brig.
58
23.17
0
6.95
0.00
1006
5b
S7
Rains
0.40
0-30
Rye, Grain
55 bu.
811-4/30
106
0
a
brig.
t06
42.34
0
12.70
0.00
1006
6
S7
Wagram
1.10
0.83
Cotton
650lbs.
3/15-7/31
73
0
0
Irrig.
73
29.16
0
24.20
0.00
1006
6
S7
Wagram
1.10
0.83
Rye, Grain
40 bu.
8/1-4/30
93
0
0
Irrig.
93
37.15
0
30.83
0.00
--------------------------------------- -------------- ----- ---- ----------- ----- ----- ------
223002 . Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 6/20/03 WUT Page 4

Waste Utilization Table
Year 2
Tract
Field
Source
I.D.
Soil Series
Total
Acre
Use-
Acres
Crop
RYE
Applic.
Period
Nitrogen
PA
Nutrient
Req'd
Comm.
Fert.
Nutrient
Applied
Res.
Obs/A)
Applic.
Method
Manure
PA
Nutrient
Applied
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
N
N
N I
lbs/A
1000
aVA I
tons
1000 gals
tons
934
2a
S7 I
Norfolk
6.60
5.00
Com, Grain
113 bu.
2115-6/30
129
0
0
brig,
129
51.53
0
257.64
0.00
934
2a
S7
Norfolk
6.60
5.00
Rye, Grain
59 bu.
8/14/30
123
0
0
brig.
123
49.13
0
245.66
0.00
934
2b
S7
Norfolk
8.00
6.00
Corn, Grain
115 bu.
2/15-130
131
0
0
trig.
131
52.33
0
313.96
0-00
934
2b
S7
Norfolk
8.00
6.00
Rye, Grain
60 bu.
811-4/30
125
0
0
brig.
125
49.93
0
299.58
0.00
950
1
S7
Autryville
3.70
3.70
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
5.5 Tuns
3/1-9130
202
0
0
Irrig.
202
80.69
0
298.54
0.00
950
1
S7
Autryville
3.70
3.70
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/1-3/31
50
0
0
Irrig.
50
19.97
0
73.90
0.00
950
2
S7
Autryville
5.78
5.78
Cotton
700lbs.
3/15-7/31
78
0
0
brig.
78
31.16
0
180.08
OAO
950
2
S7
Autryville
5.78
5.78
Rye, Grain
45 bu.
811-4/30
104
0
0
Irrig.
104
41.54
01
240.11
0.00
950
3
S7
Auftyville
8.00
8.00
Cotton
7001bs.
3/15-7/31
78
0
0
Irrig-
78
31.16
0
249.25
0.00
950
3
S7
Autryville
8.00
8.00
Rye, Grain
45 bu.
8/1 4/30
104
0
0
brig.
104
41.54
0
332.34
0.00
950
4
S7
Autryville
7.33
7.33
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
5-5 Tons
311-9130
202
0
0
Irrig.
202
80-69
0
591.44
0.00
950
4
S7
Autryville
7.33
7.33
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/t-3/31
50
0
0
Irrig.
50
19.97
0
146.40
0.00
950
5
S7
Goldsboro
6.87
6.87
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
3/1-9/30
222
0
0
Irrig.
222
88.68
0
609.20
0.00
950
5
S7
Goldsboro
6.87
6.87
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/1-3/31
50
0
0
brig.
50
19.97
D
137.21
0.00
950
6
S7
Goldsboro
8.39
8.39
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
3/1-9130
222
0
0
brig.
222
88.68
0
743.991
0.00
950
6
S7
Goldsboro
8.39
8.39
Small Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
10/1-3/31
50
0
0
Irrig.
50
19.97
0
167.57
0.00
950
7
- S7
Goldsboro
3.63
3.63
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
3/1-9/30
222
0
Irrig.
222
88.68
0
321.89
0.00
950
7
S-I
Goldsboro
3.63
3.63
Small Grain Overseed
I-0 Tons
10/1-3131
50
0
ro
brig.
50
19.97
0
72.50
0.00
950
8
S7
Goldsboro
3.18
3.1$
Hybrid Bermudagrass Pasture
6.5 Tons
3/1-9130
222
0
Irrig.
222
88.68
0
281.99
0.00
950
8
S7
Goldsboro
3.18
3.18
S-11 Grain Overseed
1.0 Tons
1011-3/31
50
0
hrig.
50
19.97
0
63.51
0.00
------------------------------------ •------------ ----------------------------------------------•-------------------------------
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 6/20/03 WUT' Page 5

Waste IItiH7.atiorl Tahle
Year 2
Tract
Field
Source
I.D.
Soil Series
Total
Acre
Use.
Acres
CropRYE
Applic.
Period
Nitrogen
PA
Nutrient
Req'd
Comm.
Ferl.
Nutrient
Applied
ices.
(1bs/A)
Applic.
Method
Manure
PA
Nutrient
Applied
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
N
N
N
lbs/A
1000
VA
tons
1000 is
tons
Total Applied, 1000 gallons
7,705.22
Lagoon Liquids
Total Produced, 1000 gallons
5,339.52
on M-
Balance, 1000 gallons
-2,365.70
Total Applied, tons
now.0.00
Manure Solids
Total Produced, tons
0.00
Balance, tons
0.00
Notes: 1. In the tract column, symbol —means ]eased, otherwise, owned.
2. Symbol ' means user entered data.
--- - - ------ ----------- •- ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- ---------------------------
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 6/20/03 WUT Page 6

The Irrigation Application Factors for each field in this plan are shown in the following table. Infiltration rate
varies with soils. If applying waste nutrients through an irrigation system, you must apply at a rate that will not
result in runoff. This table provides the maximum application rate per hour that may be applied to each field
selected to receive wastewater. It also lists the maximum application amount that each field may receive in any
one application event.
Irrigation Application Factors
Tract
Field
Soil Series
Application Efate
(inches/hour)
Application Amount
(inches)
1006
1
Autryville
0.60
0.72
1006
2a
Wagram
0.60
0.72
1006
2b
Norfolk
0.50
0.96
1006
2c
Autryville
0.60
0.72
1006
3
Wagram
0.60
0.72
1006
4a
Goldsboro
0.50
0,96
1006
14b
Mains
0.40
0.96
1006
4c
Norfolk
0.50
0.96
1006
5a
Goldsboro
0.50
0.96
1006
5b
Mains
0.40
0.96
1006
6
Wagram
0.60
0.72
934
2a
Norfolk
0.50
0.96
934
12b
Norfolk
0.50
0.96
950
1 l
Autryville
0.60
0.72
950
12
Autryville
0.60
0.72
950
3
Autryville
0.60
0.72
950 1
4
Autryville
0.60
0.72
950
5
Goldsboro
0.50
0.96
950
6
Goldsboro 1
0.50
0.96
950
7
Goldsboro
0.50
0.96
950 18
Goldsboro
0.50
0.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed; 06-20-2003 IAF Page I of I

The following Lagoon Sludge Nitrogen Utilization table provides an estimate of the number of acres needed for sludge
utilization for the indicated accumulation period. These estimates are based on average nitrogen concentrations for each
source, the number of animals in the facility and the plant available nitrogen application rates shown in the second column.
Lagoon sludge contains nutrients and organic matter remaining after treatment and application of the effluent. At clean out,
this material must be utilized for crop production and applied at agronomic rates. In most cases, the priority nutrient is
nitrogen but other nutrients including phosphorous, copper and zinc can also be limiting. Since nutrient levels are generally
very high, application of sludge must be carefully applied.
Sites must first be evaluated for their suitability for sludge application. Ideally, effluent spray fields should not be used for
sludge application. If this is not possible, care should be taken not to load effluent application fields with high amounts of
copper and zinc so that additional effluent cannot be applied. On sites vulnerable to surface water moving to streams and
lakes, phosphorous is a concern. Soils containing very high phosphorous levels may also be a concern.
Lagoon Sludge Nitrogen Utilization Table
Crop
Maximum
PA-N Rate
lblac
Maximum Sludge
Application Rate
1000 gal/ac
Minimum Acres
5 Years Accumulation
Minimum Acres
10 Years Accumulation
Minimum Acres
15 Years Accumulation
Swine Feeder -Finish Lagoon Sludge - Standard
Corn 120 bu
150
13.16
72.21
144.42
216.63
Hay 6 ton RY.E.
300
26.32
36.10
72.21
106.31
Soybean 40 bu
160
14.04
67.70
135.39
203.09
---------------------------- ------------------------.... ----------------------------- --------------------------------------.--...------------...----------------------------
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 06-20-2003 Sludge Page 1 of 1

The Available Waste Storage Capacity table provides an estimate of the number of days of storage capacity
available at the end of each month of the plan. Available storage capacity is calculated as the design storage
capacity in days minus the number of days of net storage volume accumulated. The start date is a value entered
by the user and is defined as the date prior to applying nutrients to the first crop in the plan at which storage
volume in the lagoon or holding pond is equal to zero.
Available storage capacity should be greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to the design storage
capacity of the facility. If the available storage capacity is greater than the design storage capacity, this indicates
that the plan calls for the application of nutrients that have not yet accumulated. If available storage capacity is
negative, the estimated volume of accumulated waste exceeds the design storage volume of the structure. Either
of these situations indicates that the planned application interval in the waste utilization plan is inconsistent with
the structure's temporary storage capacity.
A—vailable Waste StoraveCai)acitv
Source Name
Swine Feeder -Finish Lagoon Liquid
Design Storage Capacity (Days)
Start Date
12/31
180
Plan Year
Month
Available Storage Capacity (Days)
1
1
149
1
2
180
1
3
I80
1
4
180
1
5
149
1
6
119
1
7
137
1
8
148
1
9
118
1
10
110
1
11
80
1
12
49
2
1
23
2
2
124
2
3
180
2
4
180
2
5
149
2
6
119
2
7
137
2
8
154
2
9
124
2
10
116
2
11
86
2
12
55
* Available Storage Capacity is calculated as of the end of each month.
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 06-20-2003 Capacity Page 1 of 1

Required Specifications For Animal Waste Management
1. Animal waste shall not reach surface waters of the state by runoff, drift,
manmade conveyances, direct application, or direct discharge during
operation or land application. Any discharge of waste that reaches surface
water is prohibited.
2. There must be documentation in the design folder that the producer either
owns or has an agreement for use of adequate land on which to properly
apply the waste. If the producer does not own adequate land to properly
dispose of the waste, he/she shall provide evidence of an agreement with a
landowner, who is within a reasonable proximity, allowing him/her the use
of the land for waste application. It is the responsibility of the owner of the
waste production facility to secure an update of the Nutrient Management
Plan when there is a change in the operation, increase in the number of
animals, method of application, receiving crop type, or available land.
3. Animal waste shall be applied to meet, but not exceed, the nitrogen needs
for realistic crop yields based upon soil type, available moisture, historical
data, climatic conditions, and level of management, unless there are
regulations that restrict the rate of applications for other nutrients.
4. Animal waste shall be applied to land eroding less than 5 tons per acre per
year. Waste may be applied to land eroding at more than 5 tons per acre
per year but less than 10 tons per acre per year provided grass filter strips
are installed where runoff leaves the field (see USDA, NRCS Field Office
Technical Guide Standard 393 - Filter Strips).
5. Odors can be reduced by injecting the waste or by disking after waste
application. Waste should not be applied when there is danger of drift from
the land application field.
6. When animal waste is to be applied on acres subject to flooding, waste will
be soil incorporated on conventionally tilled cropland. When waste is
applied to conservation tilled crops or grassland, the waste may be
broadcast provided the application does not occur during a season prone
to flooding (see "Weather and Climate in North Carolina" for guidance).
---- . -- - ----- ----- -- - - .
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 6/20/03 Specification Page 1

7. Liquid waste shall be applied at rates not to exceed the soil infiltration rate
such that runoff does not occur offsite or to surface waters and in a
method which does not cause drift from the site during application. No
ponding should occur in order to control odor and flies.
8. Animal waste shall not be applied to saturated soils, during rainfall events,
or when the soil surface is frozen.
9. Animal waste shall be applied on actively growing crops in such a manner
that the crop is not covered with waste to a depth that would inhibit
growth. The potential for salt damage from animal waste should also be
considered.
10. Nutrients from waste shall not be applied in fall or winter for spring
planted crops on soils with a high potential for leaching. Waste/nutrient
loading rates on these soils should be held to a minimum and a suitable
winter cover crop planted to take up released nutrients. Waste shall not be
applied more -than 30 days prior to planting of the crop or forages
breaking dormancy.
11. Any new swine facility sited on or after October 1, 1995 shall comply with
the following: The outer perimeter of the land area onto which waste is
applied from a lagoon that is a component of a swine farm shall be at least
50 feet from any residential pro`_rty boundary and canal. Animal waste,
other than swine waste from facilities sited on or after October 1,1995,
shall not be applied closer that 25 feet to perennial waters.
12. Animal waste shall not be applied closer than 100 feet to wells.
13. Animal waste shall not be applied closer than 200 feet of dwellings other
than those owned by the landowner.
14. Waste shall be applied in a manner not to reach other property and public
right-of-ways.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- ------------------ -g ---
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 6/20/03 . Specification Page 2

15. Animal waste shall not be discharged into surface waters, drainageways,
or wetlands by a discharge or by over -spraying. Animal waste may be
applied to prior converted cropland provided the fields have been
approved as a land application site by a "technical specialist". Animal
waste shall not be applied on grassed waterways that discharge directly
into water courses, and on other grassed waterways, waste shall be applied
at agronomic rates in a manner that causes no runoff or drift from the site.
16. Domestic and industrial waste from washdown facilities, showers, toilets,
sinks, etc., shall not be discharged into the animal waste management
system.
17. A protective cover of appropriate vegetation will be established on all
disturbed areas (lagoon embankments, berms, pipe runs, etc.). Areas shall
be fenced, as necessary, to protect the vegetation. Vegetation such as trees,
shrubs, and other woody species, etc., are limited to areas where
considered appropriate. Lagoon areas should be kept mowed and
accessible. Berms and structures should be inspected regularly for
evidence of erosion, leakage, or discharge.
18. If animal production at the facility is to be suspended or terminated, the
owner is responsible for obtaining and implementing a "closure plan"
which will eliminate the possibility of an illegal discharge, pollution, and
erosion.
19. Waste handling structures, piping, pumps, reels, etc., should be inspected
on a regular basis to prevent breakdowns, leaks, and spills. A regular
maintenance checklist should be kept on site.
20. Animal waste can be used in a rotation that includes vegetables and other
crops for direct human consumption. However, if animal waste is used on
crops for direct human consumption, it should only be applied pre -plant
with no further applications of animal waste during the crop season.
21. Highly visible markers shall be installed to mark the top and bottom
elevations of the temporary storage (pumping volume) of all waste
treatment lagoons. Pumping shall be managed to maintain the liquid level
between the markers. A marker will be required to mark the maximum
storage volume for waste storage ponds.
-------------------------------------------------------.----------------------------------- --- ------
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 6/20/03 Specification Page 3

22. Waste shall be tested within 60 days of utilization and soil shall be tested at
least annually at crop sites where waste products are applied. Nitrogen
shall be the rate -determining nutrient, unless other restrictions require
waste to be applied based on other nutrients, resulting in a lower
application rate than a nitrogen based rate. Zinc and copper levels in the
soils shall be monitored and alternative crop sites shall be used when these
metals approach excessive levels. pH shall be adjusted and maintained for
optimum crop production. Soil and waste analysis records shall be kept
for a minimum of five years. Poultry dry waste application records shall
be maintained for a minimum of three years.
Waste application records for all other waste shall be maintained for five
(5) years.
23. Dead animals will be disposed of in a manner that meets North Carolina
regulations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- - ---- - — - ----
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 6/20/03 Specification Page 4

Crop Notes
The following crop note applies to field(s): 2a, 2b
Corn: CP, Mineral Soil, medium leaching
In the Coastal Plain, com is normally planted when soil temperatures reach 52 to 55 degrees fahrenheit.
Review the Official Variety "green book" and information from private companies to select a high
yielding variety with the characteristics needed for your area and conditions. Plant 1-2" deep. Plant
populations should be determined by the hybrid being planted. Increase the seeding rate by 10% when
planting no -till. Phosphorus and potassium recommended by a soil test can be broadcast or banded at
planting. When planting early in cool, wet soil, banded phosphorus will be more available to the young
plants. An accepted practice is to apply 20-301bs/acre N and 20-30 lbs/acre phosphorus banded as a
starter and one-half the remaining N behind the planter. The rest of the N should be applied about 3040
days after emergence. The total amount of N is dependent on soil type. When including a starter in the
fertilizer program, the recommended potassium and any additional phosphorus is normally broadcast at
planting. Plant samples can be analyzed during the growing season to monitor the overall nutrient status
of the corn. Timely management of weeds and insects are essential for corn production.
The following crop note applies to field(s): 4b, 5b
Cotton CP, Mineral Soil, low -leachable
In the Coastal Plain, cotton is normally planted from April 15-May 5 when warm(above 65 F)
temperatures and dry weather are present and predicted to remain for at least 5 to 7 days after planting.
Avoid planting after May 20 if at all possible. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and
information from private companies to select a high yielding variety with characteristics needed for your
area and conditions. Plant 4-6 seed/row foot at a depth of 1/2-1 ". Adequate depth control is essential.
Recommended phosphorus and potash can be broadcast or banded at planting. Apply 20-25 lbs/acre N at
planting. Apply the remaining recommended N as a sidedress application 2 to 3 weeks after first square.
The total N needed is dependent on soil type. Apply 1.0 lb/acre actual boron either at planting or at
sidedress; or, foiiar apply 1/2 lb/acre actual boron with 1/4 lb/acre applied at early bloom and the other
1/4 lb/acre about 2 weeks later. The boron needs to be available to the cotton during fruiting. Tissue
samples can be analyzed during the growing season to monitor the nutrient status of the cotton. Timely
management of insects, weeds, and excessive vegetative growth are essential for profitable.cotton
production.
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 06-20-2003 Crop Note Page 1 of 10

The following crop note applies to field(s): 4a, 5a
Cotton CP, Mineral Soil, low -leachable
In the Coastal Plain, cotton is normally planted from April 15-May 5 when warm(above 65 F)
temperatures and dry weather are present and predicted to remain for at least 5 to 7 days after planting.
Avoid planting after May 20 if at all possible. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and
information from private companies to select a high yielding variety with characteristics needed for your
area and conditions. Plant 4-6 seed/row foot at a depth of I/2-1 ". Adequate depth control is essential.
Recommended phosphorus and potash can be broadcast or banded at planting. Apply 20-25 lbs/acre N at
planting. Apply the remaining recommended N as a sidedress application 2 to 3 weeks after first square.
The total N needed is dependent on soil type. Apply 1.0 lb/acre actual boron either at planting or at
sidedress; or, foliar apply 1/21b/acre actual boron with 114 lb/acre applied at early bloom and the other
1/4 lb/acre about 2 weeks later. The boron needs to be available to the cotton during fruiting. Tissue
samples can be analyzed. during the growing season to monitor the nutrient status of the cotton. Timely
management of insects, weeds, and excessive vegetative growth are essential for profitable cotton
production.
The following crop note applies to field(s): 2a, 2b, 4c
Cotton CP: Mineral Soil, medium leachable
In the Coastal Plain, cotton is normally planted from April 15-May 5 when warm(above 65 F )
temperatures and dry weather are present and predicted to remain for at least 5 to 7 days after planting.
Avoid planting after May 20 if at all possible. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and
information from private companies to select a high yielding variety with characteristics needed for your
area and conditions. Plant 4-6 seed/row foot at a depth of 1/2-1". Adequate depth control is essential.
Recommended phosphorus and potash can be broadcast or banded at planting. Apply 20-25 lbs/acre N at
planting. Apply the remaining recommended N as a sidedress application 2 to 3 weeks after first square.
The total N needed is dependent on soil type. Also, apply at least 201bs/acre sulfur either at planting or
at sidedressing. Apply 1.0 lb/acre actual boron either at planting or at sidedress; or, foliar apply 1/2
lb/acre actual boron with 1/4 lb/acre applied at early bloom and the other 1/4 lb/acre about 2 weeks later.
The boron needs to be available to the cotton during fruiting. Tissue samples can be analyzed during the
growing season to monitor the nutrient status of the cotton. Timely management of insects, weeds, and
excessive vegetative growth are essential for profitable cotton production.
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 06-20-2003 Crop Note Page 2 of 10

The following crop note applies to field(s): 1, 2, 2a, 2c, 3, 6
Cotton CP: Mineral Soil, medium leachable
In the Coastal Plain, cotton is normally planted from April 15-May 5 when warm(above 65 F)
temperatures and dry weather are present and predicted to remain for at least 5 to 7 days after planting.
Avoid planting: after May 20 if at all possible. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and
information from private companies to select a high yielding variety with characteristics needed for your
area and conditions. Plant 4-6 seed/row foot at a depth of 1/2-1 ". Adequate depth control is essential.
Recommended phosphorus and potash can be broadcast or banded at planting. Apply 20-25 lbslacre N at
planting. Apply the remaining recommended N as a sidedress application 2 to 3 weeks after first square.
The total N needed is dependent on soil type. Also, apply at least 20 lbslacre sulfur either at planting or
at sidedressing. Apply 1.0 lb/acre actual boron either at planting or at sidedress; or, foliar apply 1/2
lb/acre actual boron with 1/4 lb/acre applied at early bloom and the other 1/4 lb/acre about 2 weeks later.
The boron needs to be available to the cotton during fruiting. Tissue samples can be analyzed during the
growing season to monitor the nutrient status of the cotton. Timely management of insects, weeds, and
excessive vegetative growth are essential for profitable cotton production.
The following crop note applies to field(s): 5, 6, 7, 8
Small Grain: CP, Mineral Soil, low -leachable
In the Coastal Plain, oats and barley should be planted from October 15-October 30; and rye from
October 15-November 20. For barley, plant 22 seed/drill row foot and increase the seeding rate by 5% for
each week seeding is delayed beyond the optimum time. See the seeding rates table for applicable
seeding rate modifications in the current NCSU "Small -Grain Production Guide". Also, increase the
initial seeding rate by at least 10% when planting no -till. Oats should be planted at 2 bushels/acre and
rye at 1-1 1/2 bushels/acre. Plant all these small grains at 1-1 1/2" deep. Adequate depth control is
essential. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and information from private companies to
select a high yielding variety with the characteristics needed for your area and conditions. Apply no more
than 30 lbslacre N at planting. Phosphorus and potash recommended by a soil test can also be applied at
this time. The remaining N should be applied during the months of February -March.
The following crop note applies to field(s): 1, 4
Small Grain: CP, Mineral Soil, medium leachable
In the Coastal Plain, oats and barley should be planted from October 15-October 30; and rye from
October 15-November 20. For barley, plant 22 seed/drill row foot and increase the seeding rate by 5% for
each week seeding is delayed beyond the optimum time. See the seeding rates table for applicable
seeding rate modifications in the current NCSU "Small Grain Production Guide". Also, increase the
initial seeding rate by at least 10% when planting no -till. Oats should be planted at 2 bushels/acre and
rye at 1-1 1/2 bushels/acre. Plant all these small grains at 1-1 1/2" deep. Adequate depth control is
essential. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and information from private companies to
select a high yielding variety with the characteristics needed for your area and conditions. Apply no more
than 30 lbs/acre N at planting. Phosphorus and potash recommended by a soil test can also be applied at
this time. The remaining N should be applied during the months of February -March.
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 06-20-2003 Crop Note Page 3 of 10

The following crop note applies to field(s): 5, 6, 7, 8
Bermudagrass CP, Mineral Soil, Poorly Drained to Somewhat Poorly Drained.
Adaptation: Effective artificial drainage MUST be in place to achieve Realistic Yield Expectations
provided for these soils.
In the Coastal Plain, hybrid bermudagrass sprigs can be planted Mar. 1 to Mar. 31. Cover sprigs 1" to 3"
deep (1.5" optimal). Sprigs should be planted quickly after digging and not allowed to dry in sun and
wind. For Coastal and Tifton 78 plant at least 10 bu/ac in 3' rows, spaced 2' to 3' in the row. Generally a
rate of 30 bu/ac is satisfactory to produce full groundcover in one or two years under good growing
conditions. Tifton 44 spreads slowly, so use at least 40 bu/ac in 1.5' to 2' rows spaced 1' to 1.5' in row.
For broadcast/disked-in sprigs use about 60 bu/ac. Soil test for the amounts of lime, phosphorus,
potassium and micronutrients to apply preplant and for annual maintenance. Apply 60 to 100 lb/ac N in
the establishment year in split applications in April and July. For established stands apply 180 to 240
lb/ac N annually in split applications, usually in April and following the first and second hay cuts.
Reduce N rates by 25% for grazing. Refer to NCSU Technical Bulletin 305 Production and Utilization
of Pastures and Forages in North Carolina for more information or consult your regional agronomist or
extension agent for assistance.
The following crop note applies to field(s): 1, 4
Bermudagrass: CP, Mineral Soil, Moderately Well Drained.
Adaptation: Well -adapted.
In the Coastal Plain, hybrid bermudagrass sprigs can be planted Mar. I to Mar. 31. Cover sprigs 1" to 3"
deep (1.5" optimal). Sprigs should be planted quickly after digging and not allowed to dry in sun and
wind. For Coastal and Tifton 78 plant at least 10 bu/ac in 3' rows, spaced 2' to 3' in the row, Generally a
rate of 30 bu/ac is satisfactory to produce full groundcover in one or two years under good growing
conditions. Tifton 44 spreads slowly, so use at least 40 bu/ac in 1.5' to 2' rows spaced V to 1.5' in row.
For broadcast/disked-in sprigs use about 60 bu/ac. Soil test for the amounts of lime, phosphorus,
potassium and nvcronutrients to apply preplant and for annual maintenance. Apply 60 to 100 lb/ac N in
the establishment year in split applications in April and July. For established stands apply 180 to 240
lb/ac N annually in split applications, usually in April and following the first and second hay cuts.
Reduce N rates by 25% for grazing. Refer to NCSU Technical Bulletin 305 Production and Utilization
of Pastures and Forages in North Carolina for more information or consult your regional agronomist or
extension agent for assistance.
.-------- ..----- .. -
223002 Database Version 2,0 Date Printed: 06-20-2003 Crop Note Page 4 of 10

The following crop note applies to field(s): 4b, 5b
Peanuts, Coastal Plain: Mineral Soil
Peanuts are primarily grown in the coastal plain of North Carolina. Peanuts are very susceptible to
disease, therefore a great deal of planning should take place before choosing and planting a variety of
peanuts. The suggested planting date for peanuts is between April 20 and May 10. Peanuts should not be
planted until the soil temperature at a four -inch depth is 65 degrees fahrenheit. This measurement should
be recorded at noon for three consecutive days. The soil should be moist enough for rapid water
absorption by the seed and the planter should firm the seed so there is good soil -to -seed contact. Seeding
rates vary according to variety, seed quality and seed size. Many growers plant at a rate exceeding 100
pounds of seed per acre. Growers should average three to four seed per foot of row. Plant 1- 2 " deep.
Peanuts respond better to residual soil fertility than to direct fertilizer applications. If peanut fields need
fertilizer, the fertilizer should be broadcast before land preparation. Mixing potassium during land
preparation prevents accumulation of potassium in the top 2 - 3 inches or the pegging zone of the soil.
High levels of potassium in the fruiting zone is associated with pod rot. It is critical to not over apply
potassium. Potassium competes with calcium uptake at pegging time, resulting in a high percentage of
"pops". Peanuts grow best on soils limed to a pH of 5.8 - 6.2. Large seeded peanuts require a high
calcium content in the soil surface at pegging time. Many growers apply finely ground gypsum in a 16 -
18 inch band over the row at pegging time. Gypsum rates range from 600 - 800 lbs/acre when banded.
Granular gypsum sources can be broadcast at rates of 1200 - 1500 lbs/gypsum/acre. Boron is essential in
peanut production. Boron can be applied at a .51b/acre rate in preplant fertilizer or can be applied
through 2 foliar applications of .25 Ib/acre. The total rate of boron should not exceed .5 lb/acre. A
manganese deficiency can occur on soils with a pH greater than-6.2. If you suspect a nutrient deficiency
collect plant tissue samples to confirm the deficiency and correct the problem. Timely management of
weeds, insects and disease are essential for peanut production. Production and variety information can be
obtained through private company and University publications.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
223Q02 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 06-20-2003 Crop Note Page 5 of 10

The following crop note applies to field(s): 4a, 5a
Peanuts, Coastal Plain: Mineral Soil
Peanuts are primarily grown in the coastal plain of North Carolina. Peanuts are very susceptible to
disease, therefore a great deal of planning should take place before choosing and planting a variety of
peanuts. The suggested planting date for peanuts is between April 20 and May 10. Peanuts should not be
planted until the soil temperature at a four -inch depth is 65 degrees fahrenheit. This measurement should
be recorded at noon for three consecutive days. The soil should be moist enough for rapid water
absorption by the seed and the planter should firm the seed so there is good soil -to -seed contact. Seeding
rates vary according to variety, seed quality and seed size. Many growers plant at a rate exceeding 100
pounds of seed per acre. Growers should average three to four seed per foot of row. Plant 1- 2 " deep.
Peanuts respond better to residual soil fertility than to direct fertilizer applications. If peanut fields need
fertilizer, the fertilizer should be broadcast before land preparation. Mixing potassium during land
preparation prevents accumulation of potassium in the top 2 - 3 inches or the pegging zone of the soil.
High levels of potassium in the fruiting zone is associated with pod rot. It is critical to not over apply
potassium. Potassium competes with calcium uptake at pegging time, resulting in a high percentage of
"Pops". Peanuts grow best on soils limed to a pH of 5.8 - 6.2. Large seeded peanuts require a high
calcium content in the soil surface at pegging time. Many growers apply finely ground gypsum in a 16 -
18 inch band over the row at pegging time. Gypsum rates range from 600 - 800 lbs/acre when banded.
Granular gypsum sources can be broadcast at rates of 1200 - 1500 lbs/gypsum/acre. Boron is essential in
peanut production. Boron can be applied at a .5 lb/acre rate in preplant fertilizer or can be applied
through 2 foliar applications of .25 lb/acre. The total rate of boron should not exceed .5 lb/acre. A
manganese deficiency can occur on soils with a pH greater than 6.2. If you suspect a nutrient deficiency
collect plant tissue samples to confirm the deficiency and correct the problem. Timely management of
weeds, insects and disease are essential for peanut production. Production and variety information can be
obtained through private company and University publications.
- ------------ .--- .---- ---- --
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 06-20-2003 Crop Note Page 6 of 10

The following crop note applies to field(s): 2b, 4c
Peanuts, Coastal Plain: Mineral Soil
Peanuts are primarily grown in the coastal plain of North Carolina. Peanuts are very susceptible to
disease, therefore a great deal of planning should take place before choosing and planting a variety of
peanuts. The suggested planting date for peanuts is between April 20 and May 10. Peanuts should not be
planted until the soil temperature at a four -inch depth is 65 degrees fahrenheit. This measurement should
be recorded at noon for three consecutive days. The soil should be moist enough for rapid water
absorption by the seed and the planter should firm the seed so there is good soil -to -seed contact. Seeding
rates vary according to variety, seed quality and seed size. Many growers plant at a rate exceeding 100
pounds of seed per acre. Growers should average three to four seed per foot of row. Plant 1- 2 " deep.
Peanuts respond better to residual soil fertility than to direct fertilizer applications. If peanut fields need
fertilizer, the fertilizer should be broadcast before land preparation. Mixing potassium during land
preparation prevents accumulation of potassium in the top 2 - 3 inches or the pegging zone of the soil.
High levels of potassium in the fruiting zone is associated with pod rot. It is critical to not over apply
potassium. Potassium competes with calcium uptake at pegging time, resulting in a high percentage of
"pops". Peanuts grow best on soils limed to a pH of 5.8 - 6.2. Large seeded peanuts require a high
calcium content in the soil surface at pegging time. Many growers apply finely ground gypsum in a 16 -
18 inch band over the row at pegging time. Gypsum rates range from 600 - 800 lbs/acre when banded.
Granular gypsum sources can be broadcast at rates of 1200 - 1500 lbs/gypsum/acre. Boron is essential in
peanut production. Boron can be applied at a .5 lb/acre rate in preplant fertilizer or can be applied
through 2 foliar applications of .25 lb/acre. The total rate of boron should not exceed .5 lb/acre. A
manganese deficiency can occur on soils with a pH greater than 6.2. If you suspect a nutrient deficiency
collect plant tissue samples to confirm the deficiency and convect the problem. Timely management of
weeds, insects and disease are essential for peanut production. Production and variety information can be
obtained through private company and University publications.
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 06-20-2003 Crop Note Page 7 of 10

The following crop note applies to field(s): 1, 2a, 2c, 3, 6
Peanuts, Coastal Plain: Mineral Soil
Peanuts are primarily grown in the coastal plain of North Carolina. Peanuts are very susceptible to
disease, therefore a great deal of planning should take place before choosing and planting a variety of
peanuts. The suggested planting date for peanuts is between April 20 and May 10. Peanuts should not be
planted until the soil temperature at a four -inch depth is 65 degrees fahrenheit. This measurement should
be recorded at noon for three consecutive days. The soil should be moist enough for rapid water
absorption by the seed and the planter should firm the seed so there is good soil -to -seed contact. Seeding
rates vary according to variety, seed quality and seed size. Many growers plant at a rate exceeding 100
pounds of seed per acre. Growers should average three to four seed per foot of row. Plant 1- 2 " deep.
Peanuts respond better to residual soil fertility than to direct fertilizer applications. If peanut fields need
fertilizer, the fertilizer should be broadcast before land preparation. Mixing potassium during land
preparation prevents accumulation of potassium in the top 2 - 3 inches or the pegging zone of the soil.
High levels of potassium in the fruiting zone is associated with pod rot. It is critical to not over apply
potassium. Potassium competes with calcium uptake at pegging time, resulting in a high percentage of
"pops". Peanuts grow best on soils limed to a pH of 5.8 - 6.2. Large seeded peanuts require a high
calcium content in the soil surface at pegging time. Many growers apply finely ground gypsum in a 16 -
18 inch band over the row at pegging time. Gypsum rates range from 600 - 800 lbs/acre when banded.
Granular gypsum sources can be broadcast at rates of 1200 - I500 lbs/gypsum/acre. Boron is essential in
peanut production. Boron can be applied at a .5 Iblacre rate in preplant fertilizer or can be applied
through 2 foliar applications of .25 lb/acre. The total rate of boron should not exceed .5 lb/acre. A
manganese deficiency can occur on soils with a pH greater than 6.2. If you suspect a nutrient deficiency
collect plant tissue samples to confirm the deficiency and correct the problem. Timely management of
weeds, insects and disease are essential for peanut production. Production and variety information can be
obtained through private company and University publications.
The following crop note applies to field(s): 4b, 5b
Rye, Grain: CP, Mineral Soil, low -leachable
In the Coastal Plain, oats and barley should be planted from October 15-October 30; and rye from
October 15-November 20. For barley, plant 22 seed/drill row foot and increase the seeding rate by 5% for
each week seeding is delayed beyond the optimum time. See the seeding rates table for applicable
seeding rate modifications in the current NCSU "Small Grain Production Guide". Also, increase the
initial seeding rate by at least 10% when planting no -till. Oats should be planted at 2 bushels/acre and
rye at 1-1 1/2 bushels/acre. Plant all these small grains at 1-1 1/2" deep. Adequate depth control is
essential. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and information from private companies to
select a high yielding variety with the characteristics needed for your area and conditions. Apply no more
than 30 lbs/acre N at planting. Phosphorus and potash recommended by a soil test can also be applied at
this time. The remaining N should be applied during the months of February -March. The total N is
dependent on the soil type. Plant samples can be analyzed during the growing season to monitor the
nutrient status of the oats, barley and rye. Timely management of diseases, insects and weeds are
essential for profitable oat, barley and rye production.
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 06-20-2003 ' Crop Note Page 8 of 10

The following crop note applies to field(s): 4a, 5a
Rye, Grain: CP, Mineral Soil, low -leachable
In the Coastal Plain, oats and barley should be planted from October 15-October 30; and rye from
October 15-November 20. For barley, plant 22 seed/drill row foot and increase the seeding rate by 5% for
each week seeding is delayed beyond the optimum time. See the seeding rates table for applicable
seeding rate modifications in the current NCSU "Small Grain Production Guide". Also, increase the
initial seeding rate by at least 10% when planting no -till. Oats should be planted at 2 bushels/acre and
rye at 1-1 1/2 bushels/acre. Plant all these small grains at 1-1 112" deep. Adequate depth control is
essential. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and information from private companies to
select a high yielding variety with the characteristics needed for your area and conditions. Apply no more
than 30 lbs/acre N at planting. Phosphorus and potash recommended by a soil test can also be applied at
this time. The remaining N should be applied during the months of February -March. The total N is
dependent on the soil type. Plant samples can be analyzed during the growing season to monitor the
nutrient status of the oats, barley and rye. Timely management of diseases, insects and weeds are
essential for profitable oat, barley and rye production.
The following crop note applies to field(s): 2a, 2b, 4c
Rye, Grain: CP, Mineral Soil, medium leachable
In the Coastal Plain, oats and barley should be planted from October 15-October 30; and rye from
October 15-November 20. For barley, plant 22 seed/drill row foot and increase the seeding rate by 5% for
each week seeding is delayed beyond the optimum time. See the seeding rates table for applicable
seeding rate modifications in the current NCSU "Small Grain Production Guide". Also, increase the
initial seeding rate by at least 10% when planting no -till. Oats should be planted at 2 bushels/acre and
rye at 1-1 112 bushels/acre. Plant all these small grains at 1-1 1/2" deep. Adequate depth control is
essential. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and information from private companies to
select a high yielding variety with the characteristics needed for your area and conditions. Apply no more
than 30 lbs/acre N at planting. Phosphorus and potash recommended by a soil test can also be applied at
this time. The remaining N should be applied during the months of February -March. The total N is
dependent on the soil type. Plant samples can be analyzed during the growing season to monitor the
nutrient status of the oats, barley and rye. Timely management of diseases, insects and weeds are
essential for profitable oat, barley and rye production.
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 06-20-2003 Crop Note Page 9 of 10

The following crop note applies to field(s): 1, 2, 2a, 2c, 3, 6
Rye, Grain: CP, Mineral Soil, medium leachable
In the Coastal Plain, oats and barley should be planted from October 15-October 30; and rye from
October 15-November 20. For barley, plant 22 seed/drill row foot and increase the seeding rate by 5% for
each week seeding is delayed beyond the optimum time. See the seeding rates table for applicable
seeding rate modifications in the current NCSU "Small Grain Production Guide". Also, increase the
initial seeding rate by at least 10% when planting no -till. Oats should be planted at 2 bushels/acre and
rye at 1-1 1/2 bushels/acre. Plant all these small grains at 1-1 1/2" deep. Adequate depth control is
essential. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and information from private companies to
select a high yielding variety with the characteristics needed for your area and conditions. Apply no more
than 30 lbs/acre N at planting. Phosphorus and potash recommended by a soil test can also be applied at
this time. The remaining N should be applied during the months of February -March. The total N is
dependent on the soil type. Plant samples can be analyzed during the growing season to monitor the
nutrient status of the oats, barley and rye. Timely management of diseases, insects and weeds are
essential for profitable oat, barley and rye production.
..-•----- .. .......... ........ .
223002 Database Version 2.0 Date Printed: 06-20-2003 Crop Note Page 10 of 10

If your Waste Utilization Plan has been developed based on site specific information, careful evaluation
of future samples is necessary. Should your records show that the current Waste Utilization Plan is
inaccurate you will need to have a new Waste Utilization Plan developed.
The issuance of this COC does not excuse the Permittee from the obligation to comply with all applicable
laws, rules, standards, and ordinances (local, state, and federal), nor does issuance of a COC to operate
permit
under this pert convey any property rights in either real or personal property.
Upon abandonment or depopulation for a period of four years or more, the Permittee must submit
documentation to the Division demonstrating that all current NRCS standards are met prior to restocking
of the facility.
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0225(c) a compliance boundary is provided for the facility and no new water supply
wells shall be constructed within the compliance boundary. Per NRCS standards a 100 foot separation
shall be maintained between water supply wells and any lagoon or any wetted area of a spray field.
Please be advised that any violation of the terms and conditions specified in this COC, the General Permit
or the CAWMP may result in the revocation of this COC, or penalties in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.6A through 143-215.6C, the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 122.41 including civil penalties; criminal
penalties, and injunctive relief.
If you wish to continue the activity permitted under the General Permit after the expiration date of the
General Permit, an application for renewal must be filed at least 180 days prior to expiration.
This COC is not automatically transferable. A name/ownership change application must be submitted to
the Division prior to a name change or change in ownership.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this COC are unacceptable, you have the right to
apply for an individual NPDES Permit by contacting the staff member listed below for information on
this process. Unless such a request is made within 30 days, this COC shall be final and binding.
This facility is located in a county covered by our Raleigh Regional Office. The Regional Office Water
Quality Staff may be reached at [phone]. If you need additional information concerning this COC
or the General Permit, please contact Michelle Barnett at [phone] ext. 544.
Sincerely,
U
for Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Enclosures (General Permit NCA200000, Record Keeping and Reporting Package)
cc: (Certificate of Coverage only for all cc's)
Edgecombe County Health Department
Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Edgecombe County Soil and Water Conservation District
Permit File NCA233065
Permit File AWS330065,
NDPU Files ._.
s
,V6i,h------FI��-

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P. E., Director
Division of Water Quality
April 9, 2003
Waiter P. Bulluck
Phil Bulluck Farm
Rt 2, Box 459
Battleboro NC 27809
Subject: Certificate of Coverage No. NCA233065
Phil Bulluck Farm
Swine Waste Collection, Treatment,
Storage and Application System
Edgecombe County
Dear Walter P. Bulluck:
On March 14, 2003, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (Division) issued an NPDES General
Permit for swine facilities. The General Permit was issued to enable swine. facilities in North Carolina to
obtain coverage under a single permit that addresses both State and Federal requirements.
In accordance with your application received on January 28, 2003, we are hereby forwarding to you this
Certificate of Coverage (COC) issued to Walter P. Bulluck, authorizing the operation of the subject
animal waste collection, treatment, storage and land application system in accordance with NPDES
General Permit NCA200000. The issuance of this COC supercedes and terminates your COC Number
AWS330065 to operate under State Non -Discharge Permit AWG100000.
This approval shall consist of the operation of this system including, but not limited to, the management
of animal waste from the Phil Bulluck Farm, located in EdgecombeCounty, with an animal capacity of no
greater than an annual average of 5760 Feeder to Finish swine and the application to land as specified in
the facility's Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP). If this is a Farrow to Wean or
Farrow to Feeder operation, there may also be one boar for each 15 sows. Where boars are unneccessary,
they may be replaced by an equivalent number of sows. Any of the sows may be replaced by gilts at a
rate of 4 gilts for every 3 sows
The COC shall be effective from the date of issuance until July 1, 2007. Pursuant to this COC, you are
authorized and required to operate the system in conformity with the conditions and limitations as
specified in the General Permit, the facility's CAWMP, and this COC. An adequate system for collecting
and maintaining the required monitoring data and operational information must be established for this
facility. Any increase in waste production greater than the certified design capacity or increase in number
of animals authorized by this COC (as provided above) will require a modification to the CAWMP and
this COC and must be completed prior to actual increase in either wastewater flow or number of animals.
Please carefully read this COC and the enclosed General Permit. Since this is a new joint State and
Federal general permit it contains many new requirements in addition to most of the conditions contained
in the current State general permit. Enclosed for your convenience is a package containing the new and
revised forms used for record keeping and reporting. Please pay careful attention to the record keeping
and monitoring conditions in this permit. The Devices to Automatically Stop Irrigation Events Form
must be returned to the Division of Water Quality no later than _120 days following receipt of the
Certificate of Coverage. The Animal Facility Annual Certification Form must be corn feted and returned
to the Division of Water Quality by no later than March 1st of each year.
APNMR
Non -Discharge Permitting Unit Internet httpJ/h2o.enr,state.nc.us/ndpu
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Customer Service Center Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Action Employer 50% recycled110% post -consumer paper

Nutrient Management Plan For Animal Waste
07-16-2001
This plan has been prepared for:
Bulluck Swine Farm
Walter P. Bulluck
Route 2 Box 459
Battleboro, NC 27809
This plan has been developed
Margaret Knight
Edgecombe SWCD
201 St. Andrew Street
Tarboro, NC 2788E
252-827-5896
Gi/C
oper ignau=
Type of Plan: Nitrogen Only with Manure Only
OwnerlManagerMroducer Agreement
I (we) understand and agree to the specifications and the operation and maintenance
procedures established in this nutrient management plan which includes an animal waste
utilization plan for the farm named above. I have read and understand the Required
Specifications concerning animal waste management that are included with this plan.
Signature (owner) Date
signature (manager or producer) Date
This plan meets the minimum standards and specifications of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service or the standard of practices
adopted by the Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
Plan Approved By:jifl1wM
Tec cal peciaiist Signature ee
. ---- - -------------------..-.. i ..------------....--- - ...._......------ ---- --• -g - --- ------ ,---
b0.S063 Database Version 1.D6 Date Printed: 07-i6-2001 Corer Pa e 1

643UM 4jamo= V C01M ►. V V uaw + +n..w, v , - ..._ _ -a- -
I
The following Lagoon Sludge Nitrogen Utilization table provides an estimate of the number of acres needed for
sludge utilization for the indicated accumulation period. These estimates are based on average nitrogen
concentrations for each source, the number of animals in the facility and the plant available nitrogen application
rates shown in the second column.
Lagoon sludge contains nutrients and organic matter remaining after treatment and application of the effluent. At
clean out, this material must be utilized for crop production and applied at agronomic rates. In most cases, the
priority nutrient is nitrogen but other nutrients including phosphorous, copper and zinc can also be limiting. Since
nutrient levels are generally very high, application of sludge must be carefully applied.
Sites must first be evaluated for their suitability for sludge application. Ideally, effluent spray fields should not be
used for sludge application. If this is not possible, care should be taken not to load effluent application fields with
high amounts of copper and zinc so that additional effluent cannot be applied, On sites vulnerable to surface water
moving to streams and lakes, phosphorous is a concern. Soils containing very high phosphorous levels may also be
a concern.
Lagoon Sludge Nitrogen Utilization Table
Crop
Maximum
PAN Rate
lb/ac
I Maximum Sludgc
Application Rate
1000 ac
Minimum Acres
5 Years Accumulation
Mft imum Acres
10 Years Accumulation
Minimum Acres
15 Yeats Accumulation
Swine Feeder -Finish Lagoon Sludge - Standard
20 u
154
13.16
72.21
144.42
216.6
oY.
Ru
LIM
300
26.32
36.10
72.21
108,
09
-----------------------------------------------------•--------- ----------------------•----------....----------------..------------------••------------ ----------------..._.
645063 Database Vernon 1.06 Date Printed: 07-1&2001 Sludge Page 1

The Irrigation Application Factors for each field in this plan are shown in the following table.
Infiltration rate varies with soils. If applying waste nutrients through an irrigation system, you must
apply at a rate that will not result in runoff. This table provides the maximum application rate per hour
that may be applied to each field selected to receive wastewater. It also lists the rnaximmn application
amount that each field may receive in airy one application event.
Irrigation Application Factors
TW
1950
Fidd
Application Rate Application Artnxmt
soil sines inch it(inche
1
11e 4.fi0 0.72
,. ; -'- - -- �'----•-_ y nc r� a� a.. «. 3• n7_� F �ruif TAF Paor. 1

shown below summarizes the waste utilization plan for this operation. This plan provides an estimate of the number of acres of
►utrients being produced. The plan requires consideration of the realistic yields of the crops to be grown, their nutrient requirements,
itions to maximize nutrient uptake.
late of the amount of nitrogen required by the crop being grown and an estimate of the nitrogen amount being supplied by rnanure or
:ial fertilizer and residual from previous crops. An estimate of the quantity of solid and liquid waste that will be applied on each field
ited quantity of nitrogen from each source is also included_
re produced and the total manure applied is included in the table to ensure that the plan adequately provides for the utilization of the
erstion. Animal operations that generate liquid waste and utilize waste storage facilities (lagoons or holding ponds) may apply more or
- than is annually generated by the facility. In order to determine whether tree plan adequately utilizes the waste produced by the
/ table included in this plan should be reviewed to ensure that the design capacity of the storage facility is not exceeded during the
eats of the crop and the nutrient content of the waste, some nutrients will likely be over or under applied if animal waste is being
nalyzed before each application cycle and annual soil tests are required if animal waste is being applied. Soil tests should be used to
.tion amounts with the realistic yields of the crop to be grown. Nutrient management plans may require that the application of animal
event over application of phosphorous when excessive levels of this nutrient are detected in a field.
Year 1
Nitrogen
Comm.
Res.
Manure
Liquid
Solid
Liquid
solid
PA
Fert.
(IWA)
PA
Manure
Manure
Manure
Manure
Nutrient
Nutrient
Nutrient
Applied
Applied
Applied
Applied
Req'd
Applied
Applied
(acre)
(acre)
(Field)
(Field)
7otii
Use
RYE
Applic.
Applic.
1000
aeries
Acre
Acres
RYE
Unit
Period
N
N
N
Method
lUs/A
l/A
bons
1000
tons
e
88.6
68.8
Ha
5.5
Ioas
311-9/30
269
U
0
lrrl "
264
107.4
0-O
7 388-1
o-o
---"-----• --- ---------------------------------------" ---" - ------------•------------ - - - ---
se Version 1.06 Date Printed: 07-16-2001 WUT Page 1

Crop Notes
The following crop note applies to field(s): 1
Bermudagrass Coastal Plain, Mineral Soil, Moderately Well Drained.
Adaptation: Well -adapted.
In the Coastal Plain, hybrid bermudagrass sprigs can be planted Mar. 1 to Mar. 31. Cover sprigs 1" to 3"
deep (1.5" optimal). Sprigs should be planted quickly after digging and not allowed to dry in sun and
wind. For Coastal and Tifton 78 plant at least 10 bu/ac in 3' rows, spaced 2' to 3' in the row. Generally a
rate of 30 bu/ac is satisfactory to produce full groundcover in one or two years under good growing
conditions. Tifton 44 spreads slowly, so use at least 40 bu/ac in 1.5' to 2' rows spaced V to 1.5' in row.
For bmadcast/disked-in sprigs use about 60 bu/ac. Soil test for the amounts of lime, phosphorus,
potassium and micronutrients to apply preplant and for annual maintenance. Apply 60 to 100 lb/ac N in
the establishment year in split applications in April and July. For established stands apply 180 to 240
lb/ac N annually in split applications, usually in April and following the first and second hay cuts.
Reduce N rates by 25% for grazing. Refer to NCSU Technical Bulletin 305 Production and Utilization
of Pastures and Forages in North Carolina for more information or consult your regional agronomist or
extension agent for assistance.
The following crop note applies to field(s): 1
Small Grain: CP, Mineral Soil, medium leachable
In the Coastal Plain, oats and barley should be planted from October 15-October 30; and rye from
October 15-November 20. For barley, plant 22 seedidrill row foot and increase the seeding rate by 5% for
each week seeding is delayed beyond the optimum time. See the seeding rates table for applicable
seeding rate modifications in the current NCSU "Small Grain Production Guide". Also, increase the
initial seeding rate by at least 10% when planting no -till. Oats should be planted at 2 bushels/acre and
rye at 1-1 1/2 bushels/acre. Plant all these small grains at 1.1 1/2" deep. Adequate depth control is
essential. Review the NCSU Official Variety "green book" and information from private companies to
select a high yielding variety with the characteristics needed for your area and conditions. Apply no more
than 30 lbs/acre N at planting. Phosphorus and potash recommended by a soil test can also be applied at
this time. The remaining N should be applied during the months of February -March.
___..._.. ------ ---- ------ ------- -----... -I...... .
tr{Sob3 Dad Version 1.06 Date Printed 07-16-2001 Crop Note Page 1

Nutrients applied in `accordance with this plan will be suppliedfrom the
following source(s):
Commercial Fertilizer is not included in this plan.
S7
Swine Feeder -Finish Lagoon Liquid waste generated 5,339,520 galslyear
by a 5,760 animal Swine Finishing Lagoon Liquid operation. This
production facili has waste stora e c acities of AjMLteIX 180 days,
Estimated Pounds of Plant Available Nitrogen Generated per Year
Broadcast
12305
incorporated
21133
Injected
23273
Irrigated
13375
Actual PAN Applied
Year 1 21947
Year 2 0
Notes:
In source ID, S means standard source, U means user defined source.
------------------ '----------------------- .--------....---------••-------------------- •----------
645OW Mto, Printe& 07-16-2001 Source Page 1
-.v--

The Available Waste Storage Capacity table provides an estimate of the number of days of storage
capacity available at the end of each month of the plan. Available storage capacity is calculated as the
design storage capacity in days minus the number of days of net storage volume accumulated. The start
date is a value entered by the user and is defined as the date prior to applying nutrients to the first crop in
the plan at which storage volume in the lagoon or holding pond is equal to zero.
Available storage capacity should be greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to the design
storage capacity of the facility.. If the available storage capacity is greater than the design storage
capacity, this indicates that the plan calls for the application of nutrients that have not yet accumulated.
If available storage capacity is negative, the estimated volume of accumulated waste exceeds the design
storage volume of the structure. Either of these situations indicates that the planned application interval
in the waste utilization plan is inconsistent with the structure's temporary storage capacity.
Available Waste Storage Canacitv
Source Name Swine Feeder -Finish lagoon LxpW
Ika1 storage Ca aci a
Start Date 1/3)
180
Plan Year
Month
Available Store Da
1
1
180
1
2
152
1
3
t21
1
4
190
1
5
149
1
6
119
1
7
180
1
8
149
1
9
119
I
10
135
1
11
152
1
12
121
2
1
90
2
2
62
2
3
31
2
4
1
2
5
-30
2
6
-60
2
7
-91
2
8
-122
2
9
-152
2
10
-183
2
11
-213
2
12
-244
* Available Storage Capacity is calculated as of the end of each month.
645063 Database Version 1.06 Dare Printed: 07-16-2001 Capacity Page 1

ble
Year 1
Soil Saies
Total
Acre
Use.
Acres
RYE
RYE
Unit
Applic.
Pexiod
Nitrogen
PA
Nutrient
Raq'd
N
Comm.
F-rt.
Nutrient
Applied
N
Res.
OWA)
N
Applic.
Method
Manure
PA
Nutrient
Applied
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(acre)
Liquid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
Solid
Manure
Applied
(Field)
UWA
1000
A
tons
1000 gal.
t-
gX�t
1_88.81
68S
.WICK eed
1.0
Tons
IW-3/31
50
of
O
i hT
50[
20.0
0.0
1 73.3
0.0
Lagoon Liquids
Tatal A i 1 OM§n#
F3,761
Tmd Produced, 10
Balance 0
Manure Solids
Total
a
Total ProdO
Ba0
]mnn, *mibei ... means leaved, otherwise, owned.
2. Symbol " numis user entered data.
---
-- - - --------------
?atabase Version 1.06 Date �irtted: 07-1Cr20�1 WLTT Page 2

Required Specifications For Animal Waste Management
1. Animal waste shall not reach surface waters of the state by runoff, drift,
manmade conveyances, direct application, or direct discharge during
operation or land application. Any discharge of waste that reaches
surface water is prohibited.
2. There must be documentation in the design folder that the producer
either owns or has an agreement for use of adequate land on which to
properly apply the waste. If the producer does not own adequate land to
properly dispose of the waste, he/she shall provide evidence of an
agreement with a landowner, who is within a reasonable proximity,
allowing him/her the use of the land for waste application. It is the
responsibility of -the owner of the waste production facility to secure an
update of the Nutrient Management Plan when there is a change in the
operation, increase in the number of animals, method of application,
receiving crop type, or available land.
3. Animal waste shall be applied to meet, but not exceed, the nitrogen needs
for realistic crop yields based upon soil type, available moisture,
historical data, climatic conditions, and level of management, unless
there are regulations that restrict the rate of applications for other
nutrients.
4. Animal waste shall be applied to land eroding less than 5 tons per acre
per year. Waste may be applied to land eroding at more than 5 tons per
acre per year but less than 10 tons per acre per year provided grass filter
strips are installed where runoff leaves the field (see USDA, NRCS Field
Office Technical Guide Standard 393 - Filter Strips).
5. Odors can be reduced by injecting the waste or by disldng after waste
application. Waste should not be applied when there is danger of drift
from the land application field.
6. When animal waste is to be applied on acres subject to flooding, waste
will be soil incorporated on conventionally tilled cropland. When waste is
applied to conservation tilled crops or grassland, the waste may be
broadcast provided the application does not occur during a season prone
to flooding (see "Weather and Climate in North Carolina" for guidance).
...---"---- -- ------------------ ------------- ...---------- ---- .------
645063 Database Version 1.06 Date Printed 07-15-2001 Specification Page 1
I

7. Liquid waste shall be applied at rates not to exceed the soil infiltration
rate such that runoff does not occur offsite or to surface waters and in a
method which does not cause drift from the site during application. No
ponding should occur in order to control odor and flies.
S. Animal waste shall not be applied to saturated soils, during rainfall
events, or when the soil surface Is frozen.
9. Animal waste shall be applied on actively growing crops in such a
manner that the crop is not covered with waste to a depth that would
inhibit growth. The potential for salt damage from animal waste should
also be considered.
10. Nutrients from waste shall not be applied in fall or winter for spring
planted crops on soils with a high potential for leaching. Waste/nutrient
loading rates on these soils should be held to a minimum and a suitable
winter cover crop planted to take up released nutrients. Waste shall not
be applied more than 30 days prior to planting of the crop or forages
breaking dormancy.
11. Any new swine facility sited on or after October 1,1995 shall comply
with the following: The outer perimeter of the land area onto which
waste is applied from a lagoon that is a component of a swine farm shall
be at least 50 feet from any residential property boundary and canal.
Animal waste, other than swine waste from facilities sited on or after
October 1,1995, shall not be applied closer that 25 feet to perennial
waters.
12. Animal waste shall not be applied closer than 100 feet to wells.
13. Animal waste shall not be applied closer than 200 feet of dwellings other
than those owned by the landowner.
14. Waste shall be applied in a manner not to reach other property and
public right-of-ways.
15. Animal waste shall not be discharged into surface waters, drainageways,
or wetlands by a discharge or by over -spraying. Animal waste may be
applied to prior converted cropland provided the fields have -been
approved as a land application site by a "technical specialist". Animal
waste shall not be applied on grassed waterways that discharge directly
--- ---------------- ------- .....
6450b3 Data�aSC Venion 1.06 Date Printed. 07-16-2001 Spccification Page 2

Into water courses, and on other grassed waterways, waste shall be
applied at agronomic rates in a manner that causes no runoff or drift
from the site.
1 b. Domestic and industrial waste from washdown facilities, showers, toilets,
sinks, etc., shall not be discharged into the animal waste management
system.
17. A protective cover of appropriate vegetation will be established on all
disturbed areas (lagoon embankments, berms, pipe runs, etc.). Areas
shall be fenced, as necessary, to protect the vegetation. Vegetation such
as trees, shrubs, and other woody'species, etc., are limited to areas where
considered appropriate. Lagoon areas should be kept mowed and
accessible. Berms and structures should be inspected regularly for
evidence of erosion, leakage, or discharge. .
18. If animal production at the facility is to be suspended or terminated, the
owner is responsible for obtaining and implementing a "closure plan"
which will eliminate the possibility of an illegal discharge, pollution, and
erosion.
19. Waste handling structures, piping, pumps, reels, etc., should be inspected
on a regular basis to prevent breakdowns, leaks, and spills. A regular
maintenance checklist should be kept on site.
20. Animal waste can be used in a rotation that includes vegetables and other
crops for direct human consumption. However, if animal waste is used
on crops for direct human consumption, it should only be applied
pre -plant with no further applications of animal waste during the crop
season.
21. Highly visible markers shall be installed to mark the top and bottom
elevations of the temporary storage (pumping volume) of all waste
treatment lagoons. Pumping shall be managed to maintain the liquid
level between the markers. A marker will be required to mark the
maximum storage volume for waste storage ponds.
22. Waste shall be tested within 60 days of utilization and soil shall be tested .
at least annually at crop sites where waste products are applied.
Nitrogen shall be the rate -determining nutrient, unless other restrictions
------------- -------- --
645063 Database Vecsian 1.Q6 Date Pnntsd Q7-16-2001 Specification Page 3

-�:
require waste to be applied based on other nutrients'�resulting in a lower
application rate than a nitrogen based rate. Zinc and copper levels in the
soils shall be monitored and alternative crop sites shall be used when
these metals approach excessive levels. pH shall be adjusted and
maintained for optimum crop production. Soil and waste analysis
records shall be kept for a minimum of five years. Poultry dry waste
application records shall be maintained for a minimum of three years.
Waste application records for all other waste shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years.
23. Dead animals will be disposed of in a manner that meets North Carolina
regulations.
645063 Database Version L.06 Date Printed: 07-lCr2001 Specification Page 4

SLEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
A7, 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
MCDENK Raleigh, NC 27509
1 o. Phone: 9't9/571-4700 PAX' 919/571-4716
1i MrammUrt MAD P44 MAL FUrmoemccs
FACSIMILE
You should be receiving Z pages (including cover sheet).
If you do not receive all pages, please contact sender at 919/5714700.
TO: 50 ,q C0 'e-e' FROM:,64 5 zo'e—' �y-z✓�ll . _,_
ORGANIZATION: L'I'glo'e SUBJECT:
�FAXNUMBER.-A5A—'?3?— 66 ql DATE: /"i
MESSAGE:
{1 '-/ Z- r All A^- eye-7 9) n
C+<9vf
<-D14 A4ny��?17

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Groundwater Section
November 111998
Mr. James R. Baluss, Director
Edgecombe County Health Department
2909 Main Street
Tarboro, NC 27886
�Oply
Subject: Request For Investigation of the Phil Bullock, Jr. Farm Intensive
Livestock Operation, Battleboro, NC, Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Baluss,
I am writing to respond to the request you made September 25, 1998 on behalf
of the Edgecombe County Board of Health and the Health Department concerning the
subject Intensive Livestock Operation (ILO) -in the vicinity. of the.Morningstar-Baptist
Church Community. You requested our office investigate concerns the County had
regarding potential causes. of surface water and _ groundwater- contamination, some of
which we discussed after my receipt of your letter and at a prior community meeting.
On November 5, 1998 I visited the facility to evaluate its potential for causing
contamination that is of concern to the citizens of the Morningstar Baptist Church and
surrounding community. As you may recall, we had previously visited the area on
several occasions and inspected the wells that are -the focus of the groundwater concerns.
Prior to our office commencing a groundwater contamination investigation that
involves the installation of monitor wells (or test wells), collection of samples and the
drafting of a report, we collect other information needed to evaluate the priority of the
investigation and justify the use of State resources. This information includes but is not
limited to:
1. the concentration and nature of the contaminants that are the source of the
complaint,
2. the proximity of the potential source to the affected party,
3. gradient of the land surface and the resultant interpretation of possible
groundwater flow,
4. growidwater discharge and recharge features such as streams, lakes and ponds,
3800 BARRETT DRIVE, SUITE 101, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27600
PHONE 91 9-S71 -4700 FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POSY -CONSUMER PAPER
l

NV r. James R. Baluss
November 12, 1998
Page 2
5. location of other potential sources, and
6. soil and rock types in the vicinity.
It,should be noted the wells at the community were not impacted at a concentration above any
Groundwater Quality Standard. Some of the concentrations of Nitrate are high and getting close to
the standard of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Other than one well, no Fecal Coliform bacteria was
found and only a few wells tested positive for Total Coliform.These contaminants.are. generally
found close to the source of the groundwater impact.
My evaluation of the site and.information in the file suggests. that the Bullock -ILO is not a
source of contamination of wells at the Morningstar Community for the following reasons:
L The Bullock Farm is approximately 3400 feet from the community.
Contaminants don't generally migrate far. from a source:.prior to being..detected (i.e.- "the. apple
doesn't fall far from the tree"). The largest "contaminant plume" (petroleum) in this region at one
time approached 1400 feet in fractured rock. The Bullock Farm is over 2 times that distance. The
Bullock Farm has also not begun to apply waste to the fields. The lagoon is the only potential source
for consideration at this point and is approx 3400 feet from the church. Our -region has initiated
two investigations of ILO's both of which were actively applying waste within 100 feet of
potable supply wells. (See comment 4.) The impacted wells are many hundreds to thousands of
feet away from the Bullock ILO.
2. The topography for the most part is relatively flat and there were two streams between the
community and the farm.
Because the land is generally flat, there is not likely a strong "gradient or preferred direction of
groundwater movement unless close to a stream or pumping well. It is very improbable that the
Bullock farm is impacting the community. The streams would act as interceptors devices and
contaminants would be carried off site. No impacts to the streams were observed by the Water
Quality Section.
3. Other sources of contamination appear more likely.
Our office identified several other potential sources of groundwater contamination during past
inspections that are more likely candidates with respect to impacts to wells. These include fertilizing
of lawns and row crops, chicken houses and dog pens and homeowner septic tanks.
4. The soils in the area are typically sands, silts and clays. These materials slow the movement
of groundwater and contaminants. The average extent of contamination in these materials

Mr. James R. Baluss
November 12, 1998
Page 3
is generally 500 feet or so from the source. I am not aware of any case in the State where a
plume extended beyond 1500 feet in these materials. The longer plumes are normally
associated with bedrock contamination.
Information reviewed by our office suggests the construction methods used to install the
wells maybe a factor. The wells were not impacted at concentrations above the standards for Nitrate
or Fecal bacteria with the exception of Mr. Lewis' well (fecal identified). Several of the wells
however, tested positive for total coliform which is generally used as an indicator of a wells sanitary
condition. Inspection of the wells indicate many of them appear to have been constructed prior to
the State adopting well construction regulations. Many of the shallow bored wells were not grouted
according tocurrent rules. Water was observed entering the wells at joints in the casings as little as
6 to 9 feet below land surface or through holes in the side of the casing. Wells constructed prior to
the regulations (approximately January 1979) were "grand fathered in". As such, we would not
require corrective action or abandonment to a well that does ' not meet current construction
regulations unless the well was contaminated. The construction methods used place the wells at a
greater risk of becoming contaminated than wells constructed according to current regulations. Two
deep drilled wells owned by Mr. Paul Batts and Mr. James Whitehead report no contaminants.
In summary, the information collected by our office suggests that an investigation beyond
the scope of what has been completed is not warranted. I understand the community is frustrated by
the ILO and associated odors, however, the geological factors influencing the movement and
occurrence of contaminants does not support the suggestion that the Bullock ILO may be causing
the problems being experienced by the Morningstar community. I recommend the owners of the
wells experiencing water quality problems upgrade the wells to meet current standards or replace
the wells. The newer methods of well construction afford a greater IeveI of protection for their water
supply.
Should you or any of the commissioners have any questions, -please call me at 919/571-4700.
1 Iook forward to meeting with you and members of the board on Monday, November 16, 1998. It
is anticipated that Arthur Mouberry, Groundwater Section Chief will be accompanying me to the
meeting.
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Ken Schuster
Buster Towel]
momstar.doc
Sincerely,
S . J mmerm an, L.G.
Enviro ental Regional Supervisor
Raleigh Regional Office
N

i ivision of Soil and Water Conservation - Operation Review
[j Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Compliance Inspection t
0 Division of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
0 Other, -Agency,» Operation. Review
JQrRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DW'Q i»spcc•tion 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number C - 5� 1.41 �.� Dote of Inspection Y �f
- Time of Inspection Z 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted © Certified (3 Conditionally Certified [] Registered JE3 Not O perational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Count} 'L... E 7. e��'..................................
......................................................................................................................
OwnerName: ........................................................................ Phone No:.......................................................................................
Facility Contact:...............................................................................1•itle:...................... ............. Phone No:
MailingAddress: .............. .......................................................................................... ..........................
Onsite Representative,.... --C1.C�� �.... .. Integrator: ..................................................
wL........... . .
Certified Operator:...-, .... 1-1 ...................................... ........................ ............................... Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
Latitude • ° 4 Longitude "
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
eeder to Finish
Non -Laver
ED Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Desi
7
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
;n Capacity
'otal SSLW
Number of Lagoons 1E3 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JCI Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps JE1 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Streant Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If dischar-e is observed, was the conveyance man-made:'
h. If discharge is observed, did it reach Watcr of the State? (If ycs, notify DWQ)
c. IF discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in galhnin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (Il'ves, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'? ❑Spillway
StrLIC(U['C I Structure "_' SIruCWre 3 Su-ucturc 4 Structure 5
ldcntil•ier:
A.
T
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes !!❑,No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
Stl'UCLurc 0
Freeboardtinchcsl: ...... �......7........................................................................................................................................•.......................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of' the structures observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion, Yes �No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on buck
6

Facility Number: �3a_ 4, '� Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which arc not properly addressed andlor managed through a waste management or
closure plan'? ❑ Yes o
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes o
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type A r / �g vI t,-
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application'?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Doctimencs
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports}
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes PAo
❑ Yes ZNO
❑ Yes [�No
El Yes /VNo
❑ Yes /�4o
❑ Yes PIK0
❑ Yes 9�10
❑ Yes 9�Vo
❑ Yes XKNo
❑ Yes ❑TIo
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ;2'No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
o•yi. atioris;oi-• detieie;ncies • µere h6fed. dit.ririg 4bis'visit. - ;Y;ou wiil•Teceive rib rurther ;
.. corres�oridence. ah6u' f this .visit:
Ki
Comtiients (refer to question #) Explain'any°YES answers And/or any'recommendahons or any other comments , t a
,Use drawt704:ngs offacilrtyfto better. explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary)
t _D2)qtiT IA) t•v "VC- 7196 L A cn 6s
t
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature
Date: //2
Jll'
3/23/99

INactltty Number: J _ Jlp�� Date of 111spectjon
•
')dor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinernem building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes o
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 IV,
o
31, Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ❑, o
3/23/99

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Walter P. Bulluck
Phil Bulluck Farm
Rt 2, Box 459
Battleboro NC 27809
Dear Walter P. Bulluck:
LT?W,A
IT
A •
Ano"
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA Dr-PARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
December 30, 1999
i
An 1 �
Subject: Fertilizer Application Recordkeeping
Animal Waste Management System
Facility Number 33�b5-
Edgecotnbe•County.
This letter is being sent to clarify the recordkeeping requirement for Plant Available Nitrogen (PAN)
application on fields that are part of your Certified Animal Waste Management Plan.
In order to show that the agronomic loading rates for the crops being grown are not being exceeded, you
must keep records of all sources of nitrogen that are being added to these sites. This would include nitrogen
from all types of animal waste as well as municipal and industrial sludges/residuals, and commercial fertilizers.
Beginning January 1, 2000, all nitrogen sources applied to land receiving animal waste are required to
be kept on the appropriate recordkeeping forms (i.e. IRR1, IRR2, DRY1, DRY2, DRYS, SLUR1, SLUR2,
SLD1, and SLD2) and maintained in the facility records for review. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
compliance inspectors and Division of Soil and Water operation reviewers will review all recordkeeping during
routine inspections. Facilities not documenting all sources of nitrogen application will be subject to an
appropriate enforcement action.
Please be advised that nothing in this letter should be taken as removing from you the responsibility or
liability for failure to comply with any State Rule, State Statute, Local County Ordinance, or permitting
requirement.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Sonya Avant of the
DWQ staff at [phone] ext. 571.
Sincerely
�f
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
cc: Raleigh Regional Office
Edgecombe County Soil and Water Conservation District
Facility File
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1617 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50111c recycled/10%a post -consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Walter P. Bulluck
Phil Bulluck Farm
Rt 2, Box 459
Battleboro NC 27809
Dear Walter R. Bulluck:
1 � •
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
December 8, 1999
Subject: Conditional Approval
Animal Waste Management System
Facility Number 33-65_.
sEdgecombe,County
Our records indicate that your facility was conditionally certified in order to fulfill the requirements of
completion of your Certified Animal Waste Management Plan Certification. This letter is to inform you of your
unresolved conditional approval status. Any facility receiving a conditional approval must notify Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) in writing within 15 days after the date that the work needed to resolve the conditional certification
has been completed. Any failure to notify DWQ as required, subjects the owner to an enforcement action. As of
December 7, 1999, we have no record of any information from you, advising us of the status of your conditional
approval. Therefore, please fill out the attached form and have your technical specialist and landowner sign the form
in the appropriate areas.
The completed form must be submitted to this office on or before 45 days of receipt of this letter. Please be
advised that nothing in this letter should be taken as removing from you the responsibility or liability for failure to
provide DWQ with proper notification of your conditional certification status or possible failure to comply with the
requirement to develop and implement a certified animal waste management plan by December 31, 1997.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone]
extension 571.
Sincerely,
,A�-7r /. ave�
Sonya L. Avant
Environmental Engineer
cc: Raleigh Regional Office
Edgecombe County Soil and Water Conservation District
Facility File
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-16I7 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycledll0% post -consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
.lames B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 26, 1998
Walter P. Bulluck
Phil Bulluck Farm
Rt2,Box 459
Battleboro NC 27809
_ _ f
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Subject: Reissuance of Certificate of Coverage
No.AWS330065
Phil Bulluck Farm
Swine Waste Collection, Treatment, Storage and
Application System
Edgecombe County
Dear Walter P. Bulluck:
The Division of Water Quality modified the Swine Waste Operation General Permit originally issued to
this facility on May 12, 1997. In accordance with the issuance of the revised General- Permit, we are
forwarding this Certificate of Coverage (COC) to Walter P. Bulluck, authorizing the operation of the
subject animal waste collection, treatment, storage and land application system in accordance with
General Permit AWG100000. This approval shall consist of the operation of this system including, but
not limited to, the management of animal waste from the Phil Bulluck Farm, located in Edgecombe
County, with an animal capacity of no greater than 5760 Feeder to Finish and the application to land as
specified in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP).
The COC shall be effective from the date of issuance until April 30, 2003, and shall hereby void
COC No AWS330065 dated May 12, 1997. The COC shall hereby incorporate by reference any specific
conditions of the previous COC issued to this facility. The purpose of this COC is to allow coverage
under the revised General Permit. Please review the revised General Permit (enclosed) and pay
particular attention to Condition II.10 regarding tree removal from lagoon embankments, Condition III.1
regarding inspection frequency of the waste treatment, storage and collection system and Condition I1I.6
regarding notification requirements for system failures, spills'and emeigencies. Pursuant to this COC,
you are authorized and required to operate the system in conformity with the conditions and limitations
as specified in the General Permit, the facility's CAWMP, and this COC, with no discharge of wastes to
surface waters. An adequate system for collecting and maintaining the required monitoring data and
operational information must be established for this farm. Any increase in waste production greater than
the certified design capacity or increase in number of stocked animals above the number authorized by
this COC will require a modification to the CAWMP and this COC and shall be completed prior to
actual increase in either wastewater flow or number of animals.
Please be advised that any violation of the terms and conditions specified in this COC, the
General Permit or the CAWMP may result in the revocation of this COC, or penalties in accordance
with NCGS 143-215.6A through 143-215.6C including civil penalties, criminal penalties, and injunctive
relief.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equa[,Opportunity.Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Certificate of Coverage AWS330065
Phil Bulluck Farm
Page 2
Upon notification by the Division of this COC's expiration, you shall apply for its renewal. This
request shall be made within 30 days of notification by the Division.
This COC is not automatically transferable. A name/ownership change application must be
submitted to the DWQ prior to a name change or change in ownership.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this COC are unacceptable, you have the
right to apply for an individual non -discharge permit by contacting the engineer listed below for
information on this process. Unless such a request is made within 30 days, this COC shall be final and
binding.
The subject farm is located in the Raleigh Regional Office. The Regional Office Water Quality
Staff may be reached at (919) 5714700. If you need additional information concerning this COC or the
General Permit, please contact Sue Homewood at [phone] ext. 502.
Sincerely,
Z. - - 21/Z
for A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: (Certificate of Coverage only for all cc's)
Edgecombe County Health Department
Raleigh Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Edgecombe County Soil and Water Conservation District
Permit File

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Groundwater Section p
November 12, 1998
Mr. James R. Baluss, Director
Edgecombe County Health Department
2909 Main Street
Tarboro, NC 27886
Subject: Request For Investigation of'the Phil Bullock, Jr. Farm Intensive
Livestock Operation, Battleboro, NC, Edgecombe County
Dear Mr. Baluss,
I am writing to respond to the request you made September 25, 1998 on behalf
of the Edgecombe County Board of Health and the Health Department concerning the
subject Intensive Livestock Operation- (ILO)-ins,the,viciriity-of the -Morningstar Baptist—r :"iF--
Church Community. You requested our office investigate concern— s the County had
regarding potential causes of surface water -and groundwater. contamination,. some, of ---
which we discussed after my receipt of your letter and at a prior community meeting.
On November 5, 1998 I visited the facility to evaluate its potential for causing -
contamination that is of concern to the citizens of the Morningstar Baptist Church and, -
surrounding community. As you may recall, we had previously visited the area on
several occasions and inspected the wells that are -the focus of the 4groundwater concerns.
Prior to our office commencing a groundwater contamination investigation that
involves the installation of monitor wells (or test wells), collection of samples and the
drafting of a report, we collect other information needed to evaluate the priority of the
investigation and justify the use of State resources. This information includes but is not
limited to:
1, the concentration and nature of the contaminants that are the source of the
complaint, 1.
2. the proximity of the potential source to the affected party,
3. - gradient of the land surface and the resultant interpretation of possible
groundwater flow,
4. groundwater discharge and recharge features such as streams, lakes and ponds,
3eOO BARRETT DRIVE, SUITE'101, RALEIGH� NORTH CAROLINA27609""-7
PHONE [phone] ' FAX [phone] S:'
AN $gUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/110% PPdT-CON81yMER PApRR

-M
Mr. James R. Baluss
November 12, 1998
Page 2
5. location of other potential sources, and
6... soil and rock types in.the vicinity.
It should be noted the wells at the community were not impacted at a concentration above any
Groundwater Quality Standard. Some of the concentrations of Nitrate are high and getting close to
the standard of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Other than one well, no Fecal Coliform bacteria was
found and only a few wells tested positive for Total Coliform.These contaminants are generally
found close to the source of the groundwater impact. .
My evaluation of the site and information in the.file suggests that the Bullock ILO is not a
source of contamination of wells at the Morningstar Community for the following reasons:
1. The Bullock Farm is approximately 3400 feet from the community.
Contaminants don't generally migrate far -from a source.priorto being detected (i.e.- "the apple
doesn2t fall far from the tree" ). -The largest"contaminant plume" (petroleum) in this region at orie
time approached 1400 feet in fractured rock. The Bullock Farm is over 2„times that distance. The
Bullock Farm has also not begun to apply waste to the fields. The lagoon is the only potential source
for consideration at this point and is approx 3400 feet from the church. Our region has initiated
two investigations of iLO's both of which were actively applying waste within 100 feet of
potable supply wells. (See comment 4.) The impacted wells are many hundreds to thousands of
feet away from the Bullock LLO. 4
2. The topography for the most part is relatively flat and there were two streams between the
community and the farm.
Because the- land is generally flat, there is not likely a strong "gradient or preferred direction of
groundwater movement unless close to a stream or pumping well. It is very improbable that the
Bullock farm is impacting the community. The streams would act as interceptors devices and
contaminants would be carried off site. No impacts to the streams were observed by the Water
Quality Section.
3. Other sources of contamination appear more likely,
Our office identified several other potential sources of groundwater contamination during past
inspections that are more likely candidates with respect to impacts to wells. These include fertilizing
of lawns and row crops, chicken houses and dog pens and homeowner septic tanks.
4. The soils in the area are typically sands, silts and clays. These materials slow the movement
of groundwater and contaminants. The average extent of contamination in these materials

Mr. James R. Baluss
November 12, 1998
Page 3
is generally 500 feet or so from the source. I am not aware of any case in the State where a
plume extended beyond 1500 feet in these materials. The longer plumes are normally
associated.with bedrock contamination.
Information reviewed by our office suggests the construction methods used to install the
wells may be a factor. The wells were not impacted at concentrations above the standards for Nitrate
or Fecal bacteria with the exception of Mr. Lewis' well (fecal identified). Several of the wells
however, tested positive for total coliform which is generally used as an indicator of a wells sanitary _
condition. Inspection of the wells indicate many of them appear to have been constructed prior to
the State adopting well construction regulations. Many of the shallow bored wells were not grouted
according tocurrent rules. Water was observed entering.the wells -at joints in the.casings as.little.as
6 to 9 feet below land surface or through holes in the side of the casing. Wells constructed prior to
the regulations (approximately January 1979) were "grand fathered in". As such, we would not
require corrective action or abandonment to a well that does not meet current. construction
regulations unless the well was contaminated. The construction methods used place the wells at a
greater risk of becoming contaminated than wells constructed-aecdfding to cuirentfegulations: Two
deep.drilled wells owned by Mr. Paul Batts and Mr. James Whitehead reportno contaminants..
In summary, the information collected by our office suggests that an investigation beyond
the scope of what has been completed is not warranted. I understand the community is frustrated by
the ILO and associated odors, however, the geological factors influencing the movement and
occurrence of contaminants does not support the suggestion that the Bullock ILO may,, be causing
the problems being experienced by the Morningstar community. I recommend the owners of the
wells experiencing water quality problems upgrade the wells to meet current standard or replace
the wells. The newer methods of well construction afford a greater level of protection for their water
supply.
Should you or any of the commissioners have any questions, -please call me at 919/571-4700.
I look forward to meeting with you and members of the board an Monday, November 16, 1998. It
is anticipated that Arthur Mouberry, Groundwater Section Chief will be accompanying me to the
meeting.
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Ken Schuster
Buster Towell
momstandoe
Sincerely,
5S. mmerman, L.G.
Enviro ental Regional Supervisor
Raleigh Regional Office
M

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 12, 1997
Walter P. Bullock
Phil Bulluck Farm
Rt 2, Box 459
Battleboro NC 27809
A Zr!MA,
'T4
pA
C)EHNR
Subject: Certificate of Coverage No. AWS330065
Phil Bulluck Farm
Swine Waste Collection, Treatment, Storage
and Application System
Wgecombe County
Dear Walter P. Bullock:
In accordance with your application received on February 27, 1997, we are forwarding this
Certificate of Coverage (COC) to Farm No. 33-65, authorizing the operation of an animal waste
collection, treatment, storage and land application system in accordance with the State's General Permit
(attached). This approval shall consist of the operation of this system including, but not limited to, the
management of animal waste from the Phil Bulluck Farm with an animal capacity of no greater than 5760
Feeder to Finish and the application to 88.8 acres of land. The facility shall be located in Edgecombe
County with no discharge of wastes to the surface waters.
The COC shall be effective from the date of issuance until December 31, 2001. Pursuant to this
COC, you are authorized and required to operate the system in conformity with the conditions and
limitations as specified in the General Permit, the facility's Certified Animal Waste Management Plan
(CAWMP), and this COC. An adequate system for collecting and maintaining the required monitoring
data and operational information must be established for this farm. Any increase in waste production
greater than the certified design capacity or increase in number of stocked animals above the number
authorized by this COC will require a modification to the CAWMP and this COC and shall be completed
prior to actual increase in either wastewater flow or number of animals.
In accordance with General Statue 143-215.1OC, Animal Waste Management Plans shall include
the following components:
- A checklist of odor sources and best management practices to minimize these sources.
A checklist of insect sources and best management practices to minimize these sources.
- Provisions set forth for acceptable methods of disposing of mortalities.
- Provisions regarding emergency action plans.
Your existing Certified Animal Waste Management Plan must include the above elements, by
December 31, 1998. Documentation of the certification must be available to inspectors onsite. Submittal
:oUhe amended certification statement shall be required upon renewal of your permit coverage in 2001.
P.O. Box 29535; Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Please be advised that any violation of the terms and conditions specified in this COC, the General
Permit or the CAWMP may result in the revocation of this COC.
Upon notification by the Division of this COC's expiration, you shall apply for its renewal. This
request shall be made within 30 days of notification by the Division.
This COC is not automatically transferable. A name/ownership change application must be
submitted to the DWQ prior to a name change or change in ownership.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this COC are unacceptable, you have the
right to apply for an individual non -discharge permit by contacting the engineer listed below for
information on this process. Unless such a request is made within 30 days, this COC shall be final and
binding.
The subject farm is located in the Raleigh Regional Office.. The Regional Office Water Quality
Staff may be reached at [phone]. If you need additional information concerning this COC or the
General Permit, please contact Mike Uwandowski at [phone] ext. 362.
Sincerely,
MAY I�1]H]
oFi41N� -- A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
- REG�pRp©fi?��
cc: (Certificate of Coverage only for all cc's)
Edgecombe County Health Department
Regi
RaMgh-ona; W l=OfficeateVQuality-Section
Edgecombe County Soil and Water Conservation District
Permit Files
Facilities Assessment Unit