110006_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Type of Visit: 0 Compliance inspection Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation C) Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up 0 Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: __�rrival Time: Departure Time: L3230., FM County:
Farm Name:
Owner Entail:
_yu +�C�` bion: $99
Owner Name: L N b° ' Phone: g7 %-- (0-7q �$ &j --
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: _ �(,y� �C ret✓iy.. IC_4-
�~ Z - 6
Facility Contact: Title:�t�n�. Phone: ['� `7 a t
Onsite Representative: �,� ��'Sbi [ Integrator:
Certified Operator:,,, ��#jzj ' Certification Number: g }
Sack -up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: 4,349 C.R. V Wj%� Latitude: 3,
Longitude: '92, a-6 05:—
h rY ,�..°` .... - . F.' \'4 Vc� +L 4i�'�"�.`i' . IIS
Des,�i�gn,f� Cur�rgenttiRzy k ���Design Cnrrentf�;. �f �� Design Eurrent
r': fiM 3�6i �,T �. 4IY 'N `.. F3y 4.1yV ISI 6
rFeeder
M
Ca�Pactt� PapWet Puultry�'Capacity Po .,Cattle: Capacity Pop.
Finish Laver v Dai Cow
Feeder Non -La-- l Dai Calf
o Finish Dai Heifer
t�
Farrow to Wean ! ': '�D�ign Gurrenl D Cow
Farrow to FeederDry:Po'uitrF Ca act P.,o "' Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish Lavers Beef Stocker
Gilts Non -Lavers Beef Feeder
Boars Pullets -Beef Brood ow
j
Turkeys
•$IF' yaSjL
Other - Turkey Poults
Other ,. Other
Discharges and Stream imnacts
1. Is anv discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
YLNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[DNA
❑ 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
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
FIs there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
JK No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 1/4/1015 Continued

Facili Number: I- Date of Inspection: �L
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If ves, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 6 Lmcf b
.d
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes KNo [DNA ❑ 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
y
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
*'5k No
❑ A
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? 12 �l.LS
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
U1 No
❑ NA
E] NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
F No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
gjNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
❑ NE
Renuired Records & Documents
Waste Application
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
E4,No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ YesNo
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAIAIMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ NA
[:]NE
maintenance or improvement?
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes V`1 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 , 7❑ Application of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): 4%a#j 6,t/�e_ cYftM 6it4/i e [ W� /R/1ae4l 1 F:kOUe C ITS 7
13, Soil Type(s): %'
'�n_
: jg2n
CA -J
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP'?
Ayes
*'5k No
❑ A
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? 12 �l.LS
❑ Yes
rV No
❑ NA
[:]NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
rVr No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Renuired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
E4,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAIAIMP readily available? If yes, check
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
®WUP El 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
E]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
C,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment'?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412015 Continued
S

Facility Number: -� Date of Ins ection:
�q
KNo
❑ NA
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
[] Yes
5Q No
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
�j No
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
[DNA
�+
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [] Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
D?�No
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
J4 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27_ Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
FNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ 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
ZNo
[DNA
0 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
D?�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.
RYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
E94pplicatian Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were d to�lal problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
rKNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
K No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
'&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Corntnentsi(re#er+to question 0! Explain any YES answers and/or any additional • recommendation or.anyother. comments
Usefl¢rawtn o[,fseili �?"d tyto better a lain:sitvations(use additional pagesanery)•secssa
SSD N .77 01-10-90((
c&(, hva,feJ to 01-0R-
Or- u 1 D/ P1i
LA - T
g V Y
ct
kde
I. opt, IGV-
CAwb C-'ArOP5 C"I r"
�� R- w t�h t�J � vvtc�rtfihs 01PGi4SztS at-&- �(MbAC w P
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signator
Page 3 of 3
Phone: -[ — r & z C/
Me?
Date:
•--r
21412015

Division of Water Resour
Facility Ntiinber-- ] - O Division of Soil and nervation -- - — -
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: 40 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency Q Other 0 Denied Access
r Date of Visit: fD Arrival Time: 2.30 —1 DepartureTime: p� _] County: 8UC,.be Region: AIZC)_
Farm Name: -FIG ry l , y L Owner Email:
Owner Name: . Ctrnr� r_ _ A. ...i L �r h;44 Phone: S,7g-G j4_ - 4 ,Z
Mailing Address: ED BOY, 92(a _�-rttJx, NL 28 732 T
Physical Address: '13G Inure &tsk Lct_ L Ad -
Facility Contact: Title: Otiner Phone: &2 (,74L - L962
Onsite Representative: Tn� j Lt Integrator: NA
Certified Operator: 'fonv Nesb r }}
Back-up Operator:
Certification Number: A(& 2l3 SY
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: E/:J& JD e . uLatitude: �, 3� Longitude: $,2, 2(o, 05:
Design Current
Swine Capacity. Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Laver
Non-LayerI I ��]
Layers
Non -L
Pullets
Other
Poults
Design Current
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, notifj= DWR)
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 anv observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow 300 _3p_V
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dg Cow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes �Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[] Yes
`i'C No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 214/2015 Continued
ti

Facili Number: jDate of Inspection: Q
Waste Collection & Treatment 16
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? ❑ Yes
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: rr
Spillway?: D
Designed Freeboard (in): 22,19
Observed Freeboard (in): 6 , , t —
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
M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
[] Yes
No
V
❑ NA
[:] NE
❑ Yes
Ix No
❑ 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 permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks. and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10_ Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes. check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No [] NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn. etc.)
❑ PAN [] PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[% No
❑ NA
ONE
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
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
®WUP ❑Checklists [:]Design ❑ Maps [N Lease Agreements
[:]Other:
--rr�� fir!
21. Does record keeping neCd improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
pkV Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
J] 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: jDate of Inspection:
❑ Yes
V No
D NA
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste app tcation equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
OD No
0 NA ONE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
0 No
U NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
[)fl No
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Co NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
V No
D 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
[)fl No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the faciliy? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
® Yes
❑ No
Q NA
❑ NE
to Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
one 4:e 4
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
(I No
DNA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
® Yes
j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
[0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Gammetits (refei-oto guesbou#) Fxptatn any'i'ES;answersaandloi- any additional recommends#ons or, any other comia
drawings,ents: a�
[use afjfacilty to better 6iplAih.situations.(use additional pages a's n&essary)., .
56.15 4441 SSSc/dS haw{ plf.c(, 6• armlVa�f_
/la rI S LSD N -nx,19 16f oco &fl , 7 7
!N. Veji is �,,. wap,
an. L,oA5e an��cme f hi++.�t
b3tkP nt.+-ds �O ty -A -- u0 to�g,� tls.n� {rr�)6-t N, sOmt
r0 -C4 yx. a�"v, i� W Alf,, Q -e not VJ ta. UJUP,
a
IAj. Wt, W&st-, k-: mu"k Vkk W ��AI\ 1/ S_ o•- sp,,`Zj ( ° ph1_1 `o,,JX
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: -
Date:I Z
2/4/2015

M Division of Water Resources
❑
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number: 110006 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC110046
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Buncombe Region:
Date of visit: 09128/2016 Entry Time: 09:30 am Flit Time: 12:30 pm Incident p
Farm Name: T&C Dairy Owner Email:
Owner: George A Nesbitt Phone:
Ililailing Address: PO Box 936 Fletcher NC 287320936
Physical Address: 440 Lower Brush Creek Rd Fletcher NC 28732
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant 0 Not Compliant Integrator.
❑ Denied Access
Asheville
828-628-2852
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35° 28'35" Longitude: 82" 26'05"
436 Lower Brush Creek Rd, Fletcher. 4 miles SW of Fairview, 6 miles east of Fletcher, tum at Oak Baptist Church on to Lower
Brush Creek Rd. Go to dirt Rd 4th drive on left.
Question Areas:
Dischrge 8 Stream impacts Waste Cot, Stor, 8 Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other issues
Certified Operator: George A Nesbitt Operator Certification Number: 21355
Secondary OIC(s):
On -SIM Representative(s): Name Idle Phone
24 hour contact name Tony Nesbitt Phone : [phone]
On-site representative Tony Nesbitt Phone : [phone]
Primary Inspector. Beverly Price
Inspector Signature;
Secondary Inspectorlsj:
Inspection Summary:
Soils Analyses: 1 011 211 5 - fields with pH<6 get lime applications
Waste Anatyses: 9110115 LSD N=4.19 lb/1000 gal. 9116116 LSD N=2.77 Ib11000 gal.
14. Vegetables are not in the WUP.
20. Lease agreements have expired.
No longer using irrigation.
Some fields that receive animal waste are not in the WLIP.
21. No waste analysis to cover the Winter 2015 or Spring 2016 applications.
Phone: $;Zg' a96 3'6 8S
Date a
page_ 1

• 0
Permit: AWC110006 Owner- Facility : George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 09/28/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Cattle
Cattle -Milk Cow 300 304
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLW: 420,000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Waste Pond SLURRY POND 22.80 62.80
page: 2

•
Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility : George A Nesbitt Facility Number. 110006
Inspection Date: 09/28/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit- Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
Excessive Ponding?
Structure
❑
❑
■ ❑
Application Field]
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
❑
PAN?
Other
❑
❑
0 ❑
a. Was conveyance manmade?
❑
❑ 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
8. Da any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ M
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
M ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storax_ Treatment
Yes
No Na No
❑ M ❑ ❑
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
[]
[]
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
Excessive Ponding?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (l.e.J large
❑
■ ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
❑
PAN?
❑
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
T Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
8. Da any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance altematives that need
❑ M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M ❑ []
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
[]
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility : George A Nesbitt Facility Number:
110006
Inspection Date: 09/28/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Com (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Cover
Crop Type 3
Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 4
Food Crop (Fruits &
Vegetables)
Crap Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
French loam, 0 to 3%
slopes, occasionall
Soil Type 2
Hemphill loam, 0 to 3%
slopes, rarely fl
Soil Type 3
Reddies sandy loam, 0 to
3% slopes, occa
SOIL Type 4
Unison loam, 2 to 8%
slopes
Sail Type 5
Junaluska-Brasstown
complex, 2 to B% slo
Soil Type 6
Junaluska-Brasstown
complex, S to 15% sl
14_ Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
E ❑ ❑ ❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ N ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
0 ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WLJP?
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
0 ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
0
Soil analysis?
❑
page: 4

•
Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility : George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 09/28/16 Inpsectfon Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
yes
No Na We
Waste Transfers?
❑
❑
M ❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
❑
M ❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
❑
0 ❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
❑ ❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑ ■
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
i 111:1
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑ E
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non-ompliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the fatality fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
M ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑ M
❑
OtherIssues
yes
No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
M ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concem? If yes,
❑
M ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Application Field
Lagoon / Storage Pond ❑
Other ❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
CAWMP?
33_ Did the ReviewerlInspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative? ❑ M ❑ ❑
34_ Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ M ❑ ❑
page: 5

North Carolina Department of Environmental F'�FltyP Q 0311
Pat McCrory
Governor
Mr. Tony Nesbitt
T&C Dairy
P.O. Box 936
Fletcher, North Carolina 28732
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
October 2, 2015
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
T&C Dairy — Facility # 11-6
Buncombe County
On September 29, 2015, I conducted a routine compliance inspection of the waste handling
system for the T&C Dairy. The waste handling system and associated record keeping
appeared to be well maintained. Please refer to the attached inspection report
(Inspection Summary Page 1) for additional comments/observations.
Your assistance during the inspection was greatly appreciated. If you have any
questions regarding this inspection, please do not hesitate to contact me at (828) 296-
4500.
S' cerely,
Ed Williams
Environmental Senior Specialist
Enclosure
Cc: Gary Higgins, Buncombe County Soil & Water Conservation District 155 Hilliard
Ave., Ste.204 Asheville, NC 28801 w/enclosure
ARO Files
North Carolina Division of Water Resources — Asheville Regional Of a
2090 U.S. l• Owray 70, Sirannanoa, N.C. 2B778
Phone(828) M-4500
FAX [phone]
interne httpJ/portal.nc*nr.mg/webMq/
An Equal Qpportun4lAffirmative Action Employer

it
M Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number. 110006 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC110006 Denied Access
Inpsectlon Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Buncombe Region: Asheville
Date of Vzsm: 09129/2015 Enby Tmw: 11:30 am Exit Tune: 12:30 pm Incident 11
Farm Name: T&C Dairy Owner Eriail:
Owner. George A Nesbitt Phone: [phone]
Wiling Address: PO Box 936 Fletcher NC 287320936
Physical Address: 440 Lower Brush Creek Rd Fletcher NC 28732
Facility Status' 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator.
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35" 28'35" Longitude: 82° 26'05'
436 Lower Brush Creek Rd, Fletcher. 4 miles SW of Fairview, 6 miles east of Fletcher, tum at Oak Baptist Church on to Lower
Brush Creek Rd. Go to dirt Rd 4th drive on left.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts ■ Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator. George A NesM Operator Certification Number. 21355
Secondary 01C(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Tony Nesbitt Phone : 82M28-1956
Primary Inspector. Edward M Williams Phone:
Inspector Signature. Date:
Secondary Inspector($):
Inspection Summary:
The facility appeared to be well maintained and the record keeping was in good order.
page. 1

Permit: AWC110006 Owner- Facility : George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 09129/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Cattle
ATat7tle Niilk Cow 300 305
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLW: 420,000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Waste Pond SLURRY POND 22.80 60.00
1
page: 2

t . •
Permit AWC110006 Owner - Facility : George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 0929/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection . Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na Na
No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
Excessive Ponding?
Structure
❑
❑
i ❑
Application Field
❑
❑
PAN?
Other
❑
❑
0 ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
M ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■ ❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■ ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■ ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
M ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection Stora e & Treatment
Yes
No Na Ne
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
Excessive Ponding?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
i ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
❑
PAN?
❑
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or Gosure plan?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
■ ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste APPlication
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 100/6110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

• •
Permit AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number:
110006
Inspection Date: 09/29/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Fescue (Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 3
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley,
Oats)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ E ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
MID?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
[�
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ N ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
[]
Weekly freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

t
• 0
Permit: AWC1100M Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number. 110006
Inspection Date: 09/29/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Ma Ns
Crop yields?
❑
❑
M ❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
❑
0 ❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
i [11:1
i ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
31. Do subsurface file drains exist at the facility?
❑
M ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
M ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Lagoon I Storage Pond
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
M ❑
(]
Other issues
Yes No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
M ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
i ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface file drains exist at the facility?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon I Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or ❑ M ❑ ❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on-site representative? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ M ❑ ❑
page: 5

■ Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number. 110006 Facility Status:
Irnpsection Type: Compliance Inspection
Active
Pemdt: AWC110006
Inactive Or Closed Date:
❑ Denied Access
Reason for visit Routine County:
Buncombe Region: Asheville
Date of vistL- 09262014 Entry Time: 02:00 pm Exit Time: 3:30 pm Incident a
Farm Name: T&C Dairy
Owner Email:
Owner. George A Nesbitt
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: PO Box 936
Fletcher NC 287320936
Physical Address: 440 Lower Brush Greek Rd
Fletcher NC 28732
FacWty Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator.
Location of Farm: Latitude:
35° 28'3V' Longitude: 82" 26'05"
436 Lower Brush Creek Rd, Fletcher. 4 miles SW of Fairview, 6 miles east of Fletcher, tum
at Oak Baptist Church on to Lower
Brush Creek Rd. Go to dirt Rd 4th drive on left.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: George A Nesbitt Operator Certification Number: 21355
Secondary OIC(s):
On-Slte Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Tony Nesbitt Phone : [phone]
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspectur(s):
Inspection Summary:
Edward M Williams
450, 3
To—ki 201 3
CIL 1
�1kSlzz13
Phone:
Date:
page: t

Permit: AWC110006 Owner- Facility : George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 09/26/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Waste Pond SLURRY POND 22.80
page: 2

.r
•
Pen -nit: AWC 110006 Owner - Facility : George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 09/26/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Ka Me
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andfor document
Crop yields?
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
120 Minute inspections?
❑
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
Sludge Survey
❑
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
22. Did the facility fall to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
® ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
®❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
® ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
ff] ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Other
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
If Other, please specify
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
❑
CAWMP?
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-ompliance:
33. Did the ReviewerAnspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on-site representative?
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
® ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No fda No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andfor document
❑
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
® ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
® ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
® ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the ReviewerAnspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on-site representative?
❑
® ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
A ❑
❑
page: 5

0
Permit: AWC1 10006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 09/26/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type 1 Corr- SA— %et
Crop Type 2�-
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4 C o n
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
® ❑
0
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
Design?
❑
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
❑
[]
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
❑
❑
determination?
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ 00 ❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
®❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
R ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ns
Waste Transfers? r
i9. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
�R ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
® ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP? v
❑
Checklists?
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements? -
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify _
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ 00 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers? r
❑
Weather code? r
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility : George A Nesbitt Facility Number. 110006
Inspection Date: 09/26/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na He
❑ ❑ ❑
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
©❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Structure
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Application Field
❑
PAN?
❑
Other
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
�J ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
Z� ❑
❑
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)
❑
My[]
El2.
Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
E]gD
R ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
�B ❑
❑
State other than. from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na Me
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
®❑
❑
If yes, is waste. level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
0� ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures onsite that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
10 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement .9
❑
® ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
® ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
& ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yee No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ &]. ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

E Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 110006 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC110006 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: C2mQiignre Inspection inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: BunWmbe _ Region: Asheville
Date of Visit: 09/30/2013 Entry Time: 02:00 PM Exit Time: 0300 PM
Farm Name: TT! C Dairy
Owner: George A Nesbitt
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: PO Box 936 Fletcher NC 287320936
Physical Address: 440 Lower Brush Creek Rd Fletcher NC 28732
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 3,528'35" — Longitude: 82'26'05
436 Lower Brush Creek Rd, Fletcher. 4 miles SW of Fairview, 6 miles east of Fletcher, turn at Oak Baptist Church on to Lower Brush
Creek Rd. Go to dirt Rd 4th drive on left.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Certified Operator: George A Nesbitt
Secondary OIC(s):
Waste Cot, Stor, 8 Treat Waste Application
Other Issues
Operator Certification Number: 21355
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Tony Nesbitt Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Edward M Williams Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Date:
i0 1 °( 1 I 2 Sd` 1-f
V-1. 1 f — Page: 1

• 0
Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 09/3012013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
kaste Pond SLURRY POND 22.80
Page: 2

r�
u
0
Permit: AWC110006 owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 09/3012013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Beason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
0000
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ ❑
❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than
0000
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
from a discharge?
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑ ❑
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e_/ large trees, severe ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
❑
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
❑
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
❑
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

•
Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt
Inspection Date: 0913012013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Waste Application
PAN?
Is PAN > 10%110 tbs.?
Total Phosphorus?
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Facility Number: 110006
Reason for Visit: Routine
Evidence of wind drift?
Application outside of application area?
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Yes No NA NE
n
Cl
❑
❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑❑❑❑
0000
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page: 4

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? 0000
Page: 5
Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt
Facility Number :
110006
Inspection pate: 09130/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate x below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard? J
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?J
❑
Stocking? J
❑
Crop v
❑
yields?
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ ❑
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)? ❑ ❑
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ 4900
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate ❑ ❑
❑
❑
box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels ❑
Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon ❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26_ Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? 0000
Page: 5

Permit: AWC110006 Owner -Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 09/30/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification? 0000
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWD of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
Lagoon / Storage Pond
Other
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
in
11
Page: 6

INA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
December 9, 2011
Mr. Tony Nesbitt
T&C Dairy
P.O. Box 936
Fletcher, North Carolina 28732
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
T&C Dairy — Facility # 11-6
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
On September 29, 2011 1 conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of the animal
waste handling system for the T&C dairy. There following record keeping issues
should be addressed:
1. Waste Application - In some instances the acreage in the Waste Utilization Plan
(WUP) did not match the acreage used in the calculations on the SLUR -2 Form. For
example, Haggard Field #1 shows 11.8 acres in the WUP and you indicated that you
apply waste to 16 acres. Please contact the Buncombe County Soil & Water
Conservation District to review and/or update the WUP as necessary.
2. There was only one waste analysis in 2010. As of the day of the inspection, there
was only one sample collected in 2011. The samples collected on 9123110 and
9114/11 did not cover the Jan/Feb/April/May 2011 applications. Your permit requires
a waste analysis within 60 days of land application (60 days before or after). Please
see Permit Condition 111.5.
3. There were only three freeboard measurements documented since the inspection in
September 2009. Your permit requires you to document freeboard on a weekly
basis. Please see Permit Condition 111.2.
4. The waste analysis collected on 9114111 contained 0.4lb11000 gal. of Nitrogen (N).
This is significantly lower than the samples collected in the past. Please ensure that
a representative sample of animal waste is collected for analysis. The Asheville
Regional Office is available for guidance on sample collection.
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION - Asheville Regional Office (ARO)
2090 U.S. 70 Highway. Swannanoa, NC 28778.8219
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] One
Customer Service: 1-877.623.6748 NorthCarolina
Intemet www.ncwatergto%y.arq
An Equal opportunity 4 Affimraiive Action Employer Nat"Mil'✓

L
Mr. Nesbitt
Page 2
December 9, 2011
•
Please refer to the attached inspection report (inspection Summary Page 2) for
additional comments. Thank you for taking the time to meet with me. If you have any
questions regarding this inspection or need assistance of any kind, please do not
hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely, A
Beverly Ze
Environmental Specialist
Enclosures
C: Gary Higgins, Buncombe County Soil & Water Conservation District 155 Hilliard
Ave., Ste.204 Asheville, NC 28801
ARO Aquifer Protection Section Files

0 •
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 110006 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC110006 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County. Buncombe Region: Asheville
Date of Visit: 09/29/2011 _ Entry Tame: 01:00 PM Exit Time: 02:00 PM__ Incident #:
Faun Name: T&C Ddiry Owner Email:
Owner: Georae A Nesbitt Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: PO Box 936_ _ T ,Fletcher NC 287320936 _
Physical Address: 440 Lower Brush Creek Rd Fletcher NC 28732 ,^
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant N Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Fane: Latitude: 35°28'35"T — Longitude: 822§'05"
436 Lower Brush Creek Rd, Fletcher. 4 miles SW of Fairview, 6 miles east of Fletcher, tum at Oak Baptist Church on to Lower Brush
Creek Rd. Go to dirt Rd 4th drive on left.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Waste Cot, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Other Issues
Certified Operator: George A Nesbitt Operator Certification Number: 21355
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Tony Nesbitt Phone: [phone]
On-site representative Tony Nesbitt Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Beverly Price Phone: $Q 8- a9L-- If6 9 S
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s)-
Page: 1

0
Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number : 110006
Inspection Date: 0912912011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Soils Analysis: 10112/10
#21.Waste ApplicationJn some instances the acreage in the WUP did not match the acres used in the calculation on the SLUR -2
Forms (ex. Haggard Field#1: WUP=11.8 Ac., 16 Ac. was used in the PAN calculations).
Weekly Freeboard: There were only 3 freeboard measurements documented since last September.
Waste Analysis: There were two waste analyses - 9114111 N=0.4 lb/1000 gal. LSD and 9123110 N=3.3 Ib11000 gal. LSD.Waste
applications occurred in Jan/Feb/April/May that were not covered by these waste analyses.
Hay yields should also be included on the Annual Crop Yield.
The waste analysis collected 9114111 only showed 0.41611000 gal N which is significantly lower than past results. Please ensure that
a representative sample of animal waste is collected for analysis.Please feel free to contact the Asheville Regional Office for guidance
on sample collection.
Page: 2

•
Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt
i
Facility dumber : 110006
inspection Date: 09/29/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Q Cattle -Milk Co, 300 290
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLW: 420,000
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
kaste Pond SLURRY POND 22.60 70.00
Page: 3

•
I�
Permit: AWC110006 owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 09129/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges $ Stream impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? 0000
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, nobly 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) 0000
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes No NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard? ❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management Cl ■ ❑ ❑
or closure plan?
T. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
improvement?
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or Cl ■ ❑ ❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? Cl
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC1 10006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt
Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 0912912011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10°16/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
C T i
Com (Silage)
roP YPe
Crop Type 2 Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 3 Fescue (Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Dillard
Soil Type 2
Rosman
Soil Type 3
lotla
Soil Type 4
Unison loam, 2 to 8%
slopes
Soil Type 5
Junaluska-Brasstown
complex, 2 to 5% slo
Soil Type 6
Tate foam, 2 to 8%
slopes
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ n
16_ Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ S ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Page: 5

Permit: AWC 110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 09/29/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NF
WUP? ❑
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Lease Agreements? ❑
Other? ❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
Weekly Freeboard?
■
■
Waste Analysis?
■
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
24_ Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ 000
25. is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non -compliance -
Page: 6

Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number : 110OD6
Inspection Date: 09129=11 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
28. Did the facility fail to property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? if yes, contact a regional ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge, ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
Lagoon / Storage Pond
Other
if Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
on
■
■
Page: 7

E Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 110006 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC110�D6 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Buncombe Region: Asheville
Date of Visit: 09/29/2011 Entry Time:01700 PM Exit Time: 02:00 PM _ Incident #:
Farm Name: T&C Dairy Owner Email:
Owner. George A Nesbitt _ . Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: PO Box 936 Fletcher NC 287320936
Physical Address: 440 Lower Brush Creek Rd Flgtcher NC 28732
x.
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator.
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
436 Lower Brush Creek Rd, Fletcher. 4 miles SW of Fairview, 6 miles east of Fletcher, turn at Oak Baptist Church on to Lower Brush
Creek Rd. Go to dirt Rd 4th drive on left.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: George A Nesbitt Operator Certification Number: 21355
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title , Phone
24 hour contact name Tony Nesbitt Phone: [phone]
On-site representative Tony Nesbitt Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Beverly Price Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Date:
Page: 1

• i
Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 0912912011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
0 lb
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
aste Pond
SLURRY POND
22.$0
hr, N
Milo:. -
Pt` ^1P
Page: 2

Permit: AWC 110006 owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt
C�
Facility Number : 110006
Inspection Date: 0912912011 Inspection type: Compliance Inspection Reason for vistt: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ q) ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ❑ ❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ❑ � ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than
❑
( ❑
❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes
No NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
0000
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
❑
❑
(3
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
}
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, ❑ ❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or ❑ ❑ ❑
improvement?
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or ❑ ❑ ❑
improvement?
11. 1s there evidence of incorrect application? ❑ )q ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below. /�
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt
Faclllty Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 09/2912011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manureisludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside
o..jfapplication area?
❑
��
Crop Type 1 W k4IJ
Crop Type 2 CO TA S I [a� G
Crop Type 3 PS C,Lt. t k\ILA P41 Ye
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management ❑ V ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑ ❑ 0' ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ ❑ ❑
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available? ❑ '0 ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P? ❑
Page: 4

Permit: AM 110006
Inspection Date: 09/2912011
Records and Documents
Checklists?
Design?
Maps?
Lease Agreements?
0 .0
Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
ww p
Facility Number : 110006
Reason for Visit: Routine
7 -� 5)aJ 5' k,- P /a.� / 6 4C,
dog- /70/ k.�CJA. h0W ?V. iA�
Yes No NA NE
❑
Other? -r; I d
If Other, please specify
b; Co.r�t k'P t? A�'
21. Does record keeping need imp vement? tui bu-Wtr ` a r' ❑ ❑ ❑ G4. AL2
GtSellbl< RC �°' bit pCt.�jef Syovl�
If yes, check the appropriate box be p
wet P
Waste Application? U �Z i D �� /� t ❑
- i A Oil �eti � (�• B.
Weekly Freeboard? O
meASu �e•rc�"f
Waste Analysis?Qja3ho N 3.3 1q1floc5'4L ;*ACI iAS+ ❑
A• y D
�/�o• anall�sis � � f r-1 /1 t 16✓ /eoo 5,a• I. LS �*•• C)`410 ix // Iq�lq�l1
Waste Transfers? a ❑
Weather code? 0 K ❑
Rainfall? �{ ❑
Stocking? ❑
Crop yields? 0 11--, CDrr\ S; la�� fo Ir)c- e Cn 1�rCl�S�f-to
120 Minute inspections?Pj
c (A15Cr i r r� . n ❑
Monthly and 7" Rainfall Inspections Q
Sludge Survey ❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDS only)? ❑ ❑ 1124. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? 10 �(� t o ❑ ❑ ❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate ❑ ❑ ❑
box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels ❑
Non-oompliant sludge levels in any lagoon ❑
Last structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ ❑ ❑
Page: 5

Permit: AM110006 owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 09/2912011 Inspection Typo: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Q"\'� ❑
Vee Yn MA YC
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report ❑ JCS ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concem? If yes, contact a regional Q , Q Q
Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge, ❑ Ik ❑ ❑
freeboard problems, over -application)
3t. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? Q � ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
Other
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
is
Page: 6

1
O Division of Water Quality
=FaciI4umber / % (p O Dion of Sot? and Water Co ervation
Other Agtttry S _ : 4t�! •,� �..- ZU l�•
TYPeof Visit 0 Compliance Inspection Opation Rview O Structure _E.valuation O #ecj..
aaps cd n
ResonorViit dmpnOComplainOFollowup OReeral OEmrgency Otr dieto QCO
Date of Visit: ArrivaITime; Departure Time: Coun£r: ��v� Region:
Farm Name:�D. C— t21 — Owner Email:
Owner Name:,TCLA1,A _ � • Ak-S r�. _ _ Phone: s5
hlailingAddress: NG
I 0 L3o?C q3� // I �Ie_�-J'iet� izg�3
Physical Address: 43() _ Lpic�r �! t�5 (n ��a-lG Pba& F -t e- y. 11l% �-3�
Facility Conlacl: C - r4 e A._ _'" (OL't�t�I./ �?1�TiIIe: ed -5, 6-
t— Phune )ti o: ��Y—�z�� div
Onsite Representative: -_6, eo-r5 e!�._ Nom`--�9t _ Integrator:
V _
Certified Operator: t�-1 z v tS? & �ts r _ Operalor• Certification Number:
Bark -up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Vocation of Farm: Latitude: Do ❑u Longitude: 171°
Swine
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑Non -La er
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?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
015ai Cow 3li a ODO
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ RIZ Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State {gallons)?
Number of Structures: IZI
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notifv 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?
L❑ Yes G2'<'o ❑ NA ❑ NTE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
Cl NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
El No
El Yes
Id"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes Q'IGo ❑ NA ❑ NE
12/28/04 Contfnaed

t • •
I.3Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
- Facility Number: Date of Inspection
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
Q -14o
Waste Collection & Treatment
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination i ❑ Yes
0 No
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
[I[ Yes
r,`
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes. is waste level into the structural freeboard?
0 Yes
C] No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure i Stnicture 2 Structure 3 Stnic;ture .1
Siructurc
❑ NA
titj ucturc 6
Identifier: SI1 r OL
Spillway?:-
Desiened Freeboard 60-
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
[�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
21Vo
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
El Yes
NNo
❑ NA [ I NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
,2-j
� tvo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
4. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
Io
❑ 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?
I l . Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below,
❑ Yes
[2/No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn,
etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > l0% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drill ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) 12 o S i
A;,
13. Soil n pes) 1 !w �J ��S'd - h ._.. L LTA/ .' ��115 ' Fr el, � k
e' /
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
I.3Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
Q -14o
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination i ❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
I7. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
(VN
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
[] Yes
L No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers andlor any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
' J2 rS VV_*441y s�
Reviewer/Inspector Name ITIA� � � r Phone: Ag' - 9 D
Reviewer/Inspeewr Signature: Date: ID -13 7
(I,- 1212&W Continued

Facility Number: f — Oe of inspection /�-1 — /E •
Ree uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists F1 Design El Maps ❑ Other
❑ Yes
LXo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Ql o
❑ NA
❑ NE
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Ea -<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[;,Ko'
❑ 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
Q�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26_ Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes [2 No ❑ 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
02 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
{1d 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
Lid'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
ElEJ
Io
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge. freeboard problems, over application)
/
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail m discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
El Yes
0NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑Yes
Ltd No
❑ NA
❑ NE
A'ddttxonaC Comments and/or Dra"is:
128810
128810

A
List Improvements Made by Operation:
2.
4.
5.
6.
Facility Number: - Date of Inspection
1p}'73 4 v
Technical Assistance heeded
Provided
34. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
11'❑
35. Waste Pian Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
36. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
37. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
38. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
39. 2H.0200 re -certification
❑
❑
40. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
41. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
42.Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
43_ Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
44. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
45. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
46. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
47. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
48- Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
49. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
50. Site evaluation
❑
❑
51. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
52. Irrigation system design/installation
❑
❑
53. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
54. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
55. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
56. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
57. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
58_ Drainage work evaluation
❑
❑
59. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
❑
❑
60. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
61 _ Buffer improvements
❑
❑
62. Field measuremeuts(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
63. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
64. Waste operator education
❑
❑
65. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
66. Record keeping education
❑
❑
67. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
68. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
69. PLAT
❑
❑
70. Other
❑
❑
List Improvements Made by Operation:
2.
4.
5.
6.

w
BUNCOMBE
COUNTY
November 9, 2009
Burl(. mbe County Soil & Wate•Conservation District
'I'ony Nesbitt (f=acility 1 1-6)
P. O. Box 936
Fletcher, NC 28732
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
RECE C E D'
Nov - 9 2Gw9
Asheville Regional Office
c;�' ;:r Protection
Gary Higgins
Director
It was a pleasure meeting with you during our Operation Review on November 4, 2009. You are
doing a good job with maintenanceloperation of your waste management system and your record
keeping. There were no significant problems other than waste sampling within 60 days of
application.
Again, thanks for meeting with me on November 0'. We greatly appreciate your efforts to
maintain good water quality in the Cane Creek area. Please give us a call if you need anything.
Sin ely,
Gary Hi , + rector
Buncombe SWCD
✓ec: Beverly Price
NC DENR, Division of Water Quality
Joe Hudyncia
NC DENR, Division of Soil and Water Conservation
15S `~'iMard Ave, Suite 204 - Ashevill_ NC 28001
828 -250 aia5 - -
f 82B 251 49043
to
buncombecounty. org

w
0 Dh•ision of Water Quality, }
Facility Number 0 D_ b0siou of Sod and Water Coqservatio
(Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection QrbAeration Review O Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: frt Arrival Time: /.� Departure Time:vE= 0 ounty: "� Region:
Farm Name: d_'�1%�� / �[ Owner Email•
Owner Name: .Tc7lnn K . 1ve5Phon
Mailing Address: p 0. DSC 93 ( E1�dt . ;, ,Zf 73.2--
Physical
3.2--Physical Address:. 73 a Lp Ld .r tum !�' e �D ! .e j��_
/
Facility Contact: �x°a `l;rG'Azf K'' -414-F46,
/l %6 Title: Z& 4f e- Phone No:
2G
Onsite Representative: �a/�E x NG�y _ Integrator: �AIIA-
Certified Operator:fSa Operator Certification Number -
Back -up Operator: i7 Back-up Certification Number: ala�S
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35 ° ®4 01 Longitude: E ° ® DT
�•a moi• � � � �.tr76{ � f'�
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population '*Vet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
j ❑ Non -La ei
Dry Poultry
Non -L;
Pullets
Other
Puults
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 _
Cattle Capacity Population.
Dtairy Cow 3li D
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stockei
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
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?
M
❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[__1 NA
El NE
❑ Yes
El No
El Yes
o
❑ NA
El NE
❑ Yes
WN o
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28104 Continued

12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiv ng crops differ from th se esigna e in the A_ AW? , LS Yes
D No
❑ NA
❑ NE
FacilityNumber: (e • Date of inspection I �� •
E'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Waste Collection & Treatment
E3 N_o
❑ NA
❑ NE
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
2 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure,) Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier: rel r
Spillway?: A6
Designed Freeboard (in): -,,2,3
Observed Freeboard (in): C�
5. Are there any inunediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
Q o
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
0No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
0No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
El Yes
I!J No
El 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
EJ/No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Amlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[R/No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below_
ElYes
910
❑ 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 receiv ng crops differ from th se esigna e in the A_ AW? , LS Yes
D No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15_ Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? 1 L7 '""� ❑ Yes
E'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation designor wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
E3 N_o
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
[9' -No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
ErNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Cnmments,(refer to question €€): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other. comments. 't
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations_ (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: L111-215) - Llt2�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: /,p l�
12/18/04 Continued

4
Facility Number: j — Date of Inspection
Re aired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists El Design 1:1 Maps [I Other
❑ Yes 01 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0-<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. L24es [INo ❑ NA ❑ NE
ElWaste Application ElWeekly Freeboard 0 ckwaste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute inspections ❑ Monthly and V Main Inspections..,, //❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? E] Yes 611 o [:INA ❑ 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
2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
C1NA
ElNE
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
1-1yes2
�
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
ElE Yes
No
❑ 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 L✓J No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
b 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?
1-1yes2
�
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
0 -No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge. freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did ReviewerAnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
Bl�o
[INA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[21�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
1 �17ssr-� 5,E..
12/28/04

2. 5.
3. 6.
17/28/04
•
Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Technical Assistance Needed
Provided
34. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
35. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
36_ Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
37. Fors Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
38. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
39.2H.0200 re-certification
❑
❑
40. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
41. irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
42.Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
43. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
44. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
45. Sludge removaVclosure procedures
❑
❑
46. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
47. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
48. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
49. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
50. Site evaluation
❑
❑
51. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
52. Irrigation system design/installation
❑
❑
53. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
54. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
55. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
56. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
57. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
58. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
59. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
❑
❑
60. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
61. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
62. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
63. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
64. Waste operator education
❑
❑
65. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
66. Record keeping education
❑
❑
67. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
68. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
69. PLAT
❑
❑
70. Other
❑
❑
List Improvements Made by Operation:
I. 4.
2. 5.
3. 6.
17/28/04

•
�•-
• i lr
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Govemor Director Secretary
September 21, 2049
Mr. Tony Nesbitt
T&C Dairy
P.O. Box 936
Fletcher, North Carolina 26732
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
T&C Dairy — Facility # 11-6
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
On September 10, 2009 1 conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of the animal
waste handling system for the T&C dairy. The facility and record keeping appeared to be well
maintained.
Remember to collect your soil samples and complete your crop yield records by
December 31, 2009. In addition, you should complete the calculations (Load -Area Method) on
your manure spreader calibration form.
Please refer to the attached inspection report (Inspection Summary Page 2) for
additional comments. Thank you for taking the time to meet with me. If you have any
questions regarding this inspection or need assistance of any kind, please do not hesitate to
contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Beverly Price
Environmental Specialist
Enclosures
C: Gary Higgins, Buncombe County Soil & Water Conservation District 155 Hilliard Ave.,
Ste.204 Asheville, NC 28801
Aquifer Protection Section Files ARO
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION — Asheville Regional Office (ARO)
2090 U.S. 70 Highway, 8wannanoa, NC 28778.8211
Phone: 82&-296-45001 FAX. 82&-299-7043
Customer Service: 1-877-623.6748e
of Carolina
Inbemet: www.nowaterauar<1y.org �aturall�
An Equal Opportamuty 1 Affumati Acton Employer

E Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 11000.6 Facility Status: ye Permit: &&110006 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Insi)eSaignInactive or Closed Data:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Buncombe Region: Ashaville _
Date of Visit: 09/10/2009 Entry Time: 1DQ0 AM Exit Time: 11:00 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: JAQ Dairy _ Owner Email:
Mailing Address: F=er NC 287320936
Physical Address: 44D Lower Brush Qreek Rd Firtcber NC 28732
Facility Status: i Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator.
Location of Farm: Latitude: X18'35" Longitude: Q226')5" ,
436 Lower Brush Creek Rd, Fletcher. 4 miles SW of Fairview, 6 miles east of Fletcher, tum at Oak Baptist Church on to Lower Brush
Creek Rd. Go to dirt Rd 4th drive on left.
Question Areas:
© Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
CerEified Operator. George A Nesbitt Operator Certification Number: 21355
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name rifle Phone
24 hour contact name Tony Nesbitt Phone: [phone]
On-site representative Tony Nesbitt Phone: B28-628-1956
Primary Inspector_ Beverly Price Q Phone:
e
Inspector Signature- r , ei-ILA ! ' Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
21.Waste Application:SLUR-1 - need to document weather code; SLUR -2 - need to use one sheet/form per field
Waste Analysis: You need to have a waste analysis to cove all applications
Freeboard: Needs to be recorded weekly
Waste Analysis: 8127109 LSD N=6.0 lb/1000 gal.
Soils Analysis: 11121/08, Still need to coiled soils analysis for 2009
Crop yields need to be completed for 20D9.
Page: 1

i •
Permit AWC 110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number. 110006
Inspection Date: 09/10/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle -Milk Cow 300 275
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLW: 420,000
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
ste Pond SLURRY POND 22.80 60.00
Page: 2

•
Permit: AWC 110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbit! Facility Number: 110006
Inspection date: D9110/2009 Inspection Type: Compriance fnspedion Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ) 0000
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? Q ■ ❑ ❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a 11000
discharge?
Waste Collection Storage & Treatment
Yes No NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
0000
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le] large trees, severe
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■ Q Q
or closure plan?
7_ Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
110110
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance altematives that need maintenance or
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
Q ■ Q ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWC110006 owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt
Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 09/10/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Com (Silage)
Crop Type 2 Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 3
Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Dillard
Soil Type 2
Unison loam, 2 to 8%
slopes
Soil Type 3
Unison loam, 6 to 15%
slopes
Soil Type 4
Junaluska-Brass town
complex, 2 to 8% slo
Soil Type 5
Junaluska-Brasstown
complex, 8 to 15% sl
Soil Type 6
Tate loam, 2 to 8%
slopes
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of property operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No NA HE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the fadlity fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC110006 owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt
Inspection Date: 0$11012009 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Records and Documents
Facility Number: 110006
Reason for Visit: Routine
If yes, check the appropriate box below_
WU P?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
■ 1100
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Appliration?
■
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
■
Weekly Freeboard?
■
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
■
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
24. Did the facil'Ry fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Other Issues
Yes No NA HE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-complianoe of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
Page: 5

Permit: AWC 110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility N umber : 110006
Inspection Date: 0911012009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concem? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on-site representative? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page_ 6

0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 110006 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC110006 !.I Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Buncombe Region: Ashevillp,
Date of Visit: 09/1012009 Entry Time: 10-00 AM Exit Time: 11.00 AM _ Incident #:
Farm Name: T&C Dairy
Owner.
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: PO Box 936 Ektcher NC 2§§320936
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator.
Location of Farm: Latitude: 3578'35" Longitude: $2'26'05"
436 Lower Brush Creek Rd, Fletcher. 4 miles SW of Fairview, 6 miles east of Fletcher, tum at Oak Baptist Church on to Lower Brush
Creek Rd. Go to dirt Rd 4th drive on left.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: George A Nesbitt
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 21355
On -Site Representative(s): Name Titie Phone
24 hour contact name Tony Nesbitt Phone: [phone]
On-site representative Tony Nesbitt Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Beverly Price Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
w4; nq : 27.E
Page: 1

Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number., 110006
Inspection Data: 09/10/2009 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Vis It: Routine
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
este Pond SLURRY POND I 1 22.60 o
71
r
Page: 2

•
Permit AWC110006 owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: D9/1012009 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ o ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
Application Field
Other
a. Was conveyance man-made?
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
C. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3_ Were there any adverse impacts or potenti��sc .0+-S( �055al adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
discharge? SSV 1 So,�.z ��t- 460— tf J6�
Waste C !n lection Stora a & Treatment MLniM44 — 6 L %a P"\\
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate? `IL{-- roaJS�e
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard? d`W{
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
A
❑■
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ ❑ ❑
S. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, 0000
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or ❑ 1 ❑ ❑
improvement?
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
16. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or ❑ ❑ ❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? Cj1�— ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt
inspection Date: 09110/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection
Waste Application
PAN?
Is PAN > 100/o110 lbs.?
Total P205?
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Evidence of wind drift?
Application outside of application area?
Crop Type 1 Corrx S i 14651
Crop Type 2 tk)j /i -k-
Crop Type 3 v -e5 4-'0-bLgS
Crop Type 4 gal F&scv- -"
Crop Type 5
•
ft
Facility Number: 110006
Reason for Visit Routine
Yes No NA NE
Cl
❑
❑
-dd -0 btow-P -> is In (NaP bLd Wv-P S tafie,s'
r.k i� vu h{a a Cc.�os�' A� f
w PP
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
41 X ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ 4) ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑ ❑ P ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

1
Permit: AWG 1 i 0006 Owner - Facitlty: George A Nesbitt
Facility Number: 110006
tnspection Date: 0911012009 Inspection Type: Compliance tnspe6on
Reason for Visit Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑1
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
ya ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
AA&Sof (eJa SIoS� LSD u, Q.3 I6�I�'�l. '3127% L-S.�
Waste
6.0 llajioo Al. (�lt� �' 411p f
120 Minute inspections? }j
❑ 1"V Gov-[✓ '01(
409P�.
�q
Weather code? NO
1
Weekly Freeboard? uted 1P CKOL WLi I�
Transfers? la (�
❑
Rainfall? 0�G
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly? 01L
WasteAAr+ayr}-sis? Y� .Ae�c� t� wC0.4L^
5"R
Annual soil analysis? 111 xl loy N eed Co N- C'k 0�1
❑
Crop yields? PD+ *^c l f - ' O Gj
❑
Stocking? 0%4-
►LAnnual
AnnualCertification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ 000
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES
only)? ❑ ❑ A ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? An -
09 0 �0 0 ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ ❑ op ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ PQ ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous toss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ ❑ go ❑
Other Issues
Yes No NA NE
28_ Were any additional problems noted which cause non-complianoe of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑ 6 ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates? -b,&ry ark '5 f—e-
1 t
30_ At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑j ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AWC1 10006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 09/10/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ ❑ ❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on-site representative? ❑ ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? 0000
Page: 6

BUNCOMBE
COUNTY
NO R7H CA FPO 4
Bunf-nbe County Soil & WatoConservation District
November 14, 2008
George A. Nesbitt (Facility Number: 11-6)
T&CDairy
PO Box 936
Fletcher, NC 28732
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
f!JV 17 208
Asheville Regional O3ficI
Anijifer Protecti
Gary Higgins
Director
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today to do your operation review. Your waste
storage pond appeared to be in good working order and 1 did not observe any discharges or
problems with application to your fields. You do need to install a gauged marker in the slurry
storage pond to accurately measure the waste levels.
The only record keeping issue is the need to take waste samples within 60 days of application.
Again, thanks for meeting with me today and for your efforts to protect water quality in Cane
Creek.
Sincerely,
f
Gary Higgins
Buncombe S WCD
cc: 'Beverly Price
NC DENR, Division of Water Quality
Joe Hudyncia
NC DENR, Division of Soil and Water Conservation
155 Hilliard Ave.. Suite 204 - Asheville, NC 28801
P. 828. 250. 4785
f. 828 . 251. 4908
:*a
buncombecounty.org
t

Q Division of Water Quality T
11
Facility Number Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q -tither Agency '
Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection &(5p-eration Review 0 Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: t -/- 0T Arrival Time: Q i? Departure 'Time: County: 47u Region:
Farm Name: Owner Ismail:
Owner Name: Z767! Phone:-
Mailing Address: ,_aw.&x !T,34 _ „-, _ G 9A 7 -Z-
Physical Address: 'q -?P 4040--t 1. �tl• rL %, .�-
Facility Contact: ''Itle: 1=&."-e z:-, Phone No:
Onsite Representative:dew!w h. 44b 11 � Integrator:
L
Certified Operator: `�0� _�l_ Operator Certification Number: o�13f5
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
4o,wt B-&1. (41e
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gifts
Other
❑ Other
U
Latitude:
Back-up Certification Number:
="
Longitude:
ti- r
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
1 110 Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Moults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream I. muacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at.: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State`? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
ai Cow d $
❑ Daia Calf'
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dg Cow
❑ Non-DaiKy
El Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
]Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3: Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge'?
❑ Yes [;Ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
NNo
[INA
❑ NE
El Yes
��,❑)
LtiNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes Id No [I NA El NE
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection.
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard'?
❑ Yes 1;Ko
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 7J t
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes (:Ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes U�<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes [R<0 ❑ NA EINE
R. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? Ves ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) ,,__,__,,{d //
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require El Yes L'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Anplication �
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [2 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application'? 1 f yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes KrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, 7.n, 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
PIo ❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
P/No ❑ NA
ON E
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination'?❑ Yes
2<o ❑ 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
VNo❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings (if facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name j Phone: ';;-,(d -23b
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: A
J 017 12/28/04 Continued

0
Facility Number: — (p Date of Inspection I-11
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
❑ Yes
Mlo
[:INA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
io
[INA
❑NE
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Ld Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard{4aste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V
Rain Inspections ❑
Weather
Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
(2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
ET/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[;4
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
GNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
1a<0
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
6"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes E]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
E] Yes
QrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
No
30. At the time ofthe inspection did the Facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑
❑ 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
Q/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
ElNA
32. Did Reviewer/[nspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
2�N o
ElNE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
ElYes
LTJ No
❑ NA
El NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
;S 4 Al 'W
12128104

. Facility Number: - Date of Inspection 1 [ -1� - U •
Technical Assistance
Needed
Provided
34. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
35. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
36. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
37. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
39. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
39.21-1.0200 re -certification
❑
❑
40. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
41. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
42.Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
43. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
44. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
45. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
46. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
47. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
48. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
49. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
50. Site evaluation
❑
❑
51. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
52. Irrigation system designtinstallation
❑
❑
53. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
54. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
55. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
56. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
57. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
58. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
59. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
❑
❑
60. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
61. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
62. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
63. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
64. Waste operator education
❑
❑
65. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
66. Record keeping education
❑
❑
67. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
68. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
69. PLAT
❑
❑
70. Other
❑
❑
Llst Improvements Made by Operation:
1. 4.
2. 5.
6. 12/18104

A rEp
Q ...� Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
``{JJ � i " North Carolina Department of Environment and Nntural Resources
IIS
Q Y J i Colecn 11. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Aquifer Protection Section
August 11, 2008
Mr. Tony Nesbitt
T&C Dairy
P.O. Box 936
Fletcher, North Carolina 28732
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
T&C Dairy -- Facility # 11-6
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
On July 29, 2008, 1 conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of the animal
waste handling system for the T&C dairy. The facility and record keeping appeared to
be well maintained.
Please refer to the attached inspection report (inspection Summary Page 2) for
additional comments. Thank you'for taking the time to meet with me. If you have any
questions regarding this inspection or need assistance of any kind, please do not
hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ed Williams
Environmental Specialist
Enclosures
C: Gary Higgins, Buncombe County Soil & Water Conservation
Ave., Ste -204 Asheville, NC 28801
Aquifer Protection Section Files ARO
District 155 Hilliard
Oil?
NplifiCarolina
aturallY
North Carolina Division or Water Quality — Asheville Regional Office 2090 U.S. Highway 70 Swannarioa, NC 28778 Phone [phone]
Aquifer Protection Section FAX [phone]
Customer Service 1-877-623-6748
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled!10% Post Consumer Paper

■ Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency tt��11
FacilityNumber : 910006 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC110006 t_I Denied Access
Inspection Type: Qomoliance Insggction _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Rgutine County: BUncgmbe Region: Asheville_
Date of Visit: 07/29/2008 Entry Time:10:00 AM Exit Time: 11:30 AM _ Incident #:
Farm Name: I C Dairy Owner Email:
Owner: George _ANesbitt _ Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: PO Box 936 Fletcher NO28732OR36
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 38'35" Longitude: 82°26'05"
436 Lower Brush Creek Rd, Fletcher, 4 miles SW of Fairview, 6 miles east of Fletcher, turn at Oak Baptist Church on to Lower Brush
Creek Rd. Go to dirt Rd 4th drive on left.
Question Areas:
® Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
® Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representatives); Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Tony Nesbitt Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Ed rd Wil is Phone:
Inspector Signature: +f Date: C3U
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
The facility appeared to be well maintained and records were in order.
A waste analysis was not collected to cover winter 071 spring 08 applications.
Waste analysis: 6/1212007 ALD N=7.8 Ibs11000 gallons
6/25/2008 LSD N=9.3 lbs/1000 gallons
Soils analysis: 10118/2007
Page: 1

Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number : 110006
Inspection Date: 07/29/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle -Milk Cow 300 265
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLW: 420,000
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Froeboard
aste Pond I SLURRY POND I 1 1 22.80 36.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number : 110006
Inspection Data: 07129!2008 Inspection Typo: Compliance Inspection Ronson for Visit: Routine
Discharges S Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ e ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? 00011
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) C-)[300
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
00011
❑
2, Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
00110
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le.l large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
Improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt
Inspection Dale: 07129/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 110006
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Ap licatlon
Yoe No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10°/x110 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
fl
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Small Grain (Wheat,
Soil Type 3
Barley, Oa(s)
Crop Type 2
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 3
Fescue (Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 4
Food Crop (Fruits &
Vegetables)
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crap and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
n
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yea
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Page: 4

Y
ti
Permit: AWC 110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number
: 110006
Inspection Dale: 07!2912006 Inspection Typo: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No NA
NE
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
Cl
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■ Q
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute Inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
0
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPOES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
Cl
■ ❑
❑
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?
❑
❑ ■
C3
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑ Q
C1
Other issues
Yoe
No NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■ ❑
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
Q
■ ❑
❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
Page: 5

U
Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number : 110006
Inspection Date: 07/29/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes contact a regional Air Cl ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on-site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 6

f
r'
Buncokbe County Goverment
Buncombe County Soil and Water
Conservation District
155 Hilliard Avenue, Suite 204
Asheville, NC 28801
October 25, 2007
Tony Nesbitt (facility 11-6)
P. O. Box 936
Fletcher, NC 28732
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
Gary Higgins, District Director
Telephone: [phone]
[phone]
[e-mail]
OCT 2 6 2057
This letter is a follow-up to your operation review that was done on October 24, 2007.
For the most part, you are doing a good job with the maintenance of your waste
management system and land application of wastes. One issue with land application
records and PAN calculation was the use of field acreages that were not in the Waste
Utilization Plan. The Slurry 11 acreage and the acreage in the WUP tables must match to
insure correct application of waste and prevent over application of PAN.
I will update your plan to include crop changes and other minor discrepancies and give
you a copy of the revision. I will also include a table with the usable acreage for each
field totaled for ease of reference for the Slurry 11 form.
Both Bev Price and I noted that there is a potential for waste discharge from the small
ditch that runs North from the facility. As I mentioned yesterday, I will schedule an
engineer to come out and look at solutions to this problem. I will let you know when I
have that scheduled.
Thank you for the efforts you have made to protect water quality in the Cane Creek
Watershed. If you have any questions, please give me a call. A copy of your review is
enclosed
Sin rely,
Gary it ,Director
Buncombe SWCD
Enclosures
LZc: Bev Price
DLNR, Division of Water Quality
Cindy Safrit
DLNR, Division of Soil and Water Conservation

Facility Number
0 Division of Water Quality W
0 Div on of Soi!_W Water onservatlon
Gi,Mher Agency -ci?
Type of Visit 0 Compllance Inspectionoration Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of visit: v- 2 -C1 Arrival Time:
l.'1) Departure'Time: Couttiy:
VWL.Le Region: s/� 6' 1
Farm Name: '� �-
�a
Owner [;mail:
❑ N,\
Owner Name: r
lC�f
Phone:
Mailing Address: a, 13 ZiL
�j
❑ NE
C,
r
Physical Address:
rJLil� �
/ 7
r i,. Q-Iee L- Pl.��
❑ NA
dc) jct
Facility Contact: R
�'it.e.,
`(& l `�L —
fJ� 'Title: L�i.�� �-
l hone No:
Onsite Repr•esentati-•e:
t, A/cj/yl _ Integrator: All*
Certified Operator: L'eut"c
19 AI[��t,
IY�S�P +� Operator Certification Number: �> S—
hack-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ❑" ❑- 01& Longitude: ❑" ❑❑
rJ L'�ej,- h e i cC j�.� " Gr. Z 74. r l 'k t, e
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ l -arrow to Feeder
❑ marrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Lav
❑ PLrIICIS
❑ I nt'keVs
❑ ,ruriiev l`hults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream impacts
1. is any discharge obSCITCd from any pat't of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
n. WT'; the eorneyanee ratan-rnade''
b. I)id the disCharge reach �t:rters oi"rhe State? (Yves, notify' IAVO)
UOaiiy Cow3�'c�'. 0
❑ Dairy Call
❑ Dairy I-leifei
❑ Dry Caw
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Reel' Stocket
❑ Heel' Feeder
❑ Beef Broad Cnw
Number of Structures:
C. Wlt;tt is the CStin,ateti voitinic that rC,t<hCtl tVaterS ofihC State (f!ailetrss)''
d. Does discfuu'gc b}'patty tl,e +�'astc ntatr,,gcmcnt systcrn:' 1 if ves, ntFtily !)IVO}
2. iti there es'idcnec ul':r Inst tlischargc I'rorn any Ir+rt or tlrr operation"
3. Weru there :nw ;idverse impacts or pnsenti:rl act+erse intir,rel. to she Waters ol'the Stale
other than front a discharge"
❑1'es 9%o DNA EINE
❑ 1'cs
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Teti
❑ No
❑ N,\
❑ Ni:
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Ycs
El No
❑ )'es
DIN,
❑ NA
❑ NF.
❑ Yes
Q No
❑ NA
❑ N1:
!1/18104 Conthrited

/1
FacilityNumber: — 0-
� � Date of Inspection �•
Soil type(s)
G S Hr� er• +t b �L �� GuV•ti
Waste Collection & Treatment
4
,�,�
Do the receiving crops dif#'er from those designated in the CAWMP?
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
El Yes
QNo
❑ NA ❑ Ni:
a. Efyes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier: I4
2N o
❑ NA
❑ N1"
Spillway?: 4o
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application'?
❑ Yes
0'�o
Designed Freeboard (in):
❑ NF
18.
is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Observed Freeboard (in): W3
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity ol'any ofthe structures observed?
❑ Yes
Fj K0
❑ NA ❑ NF
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
E3<o
❑ NA ❑ NI --
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
envir amental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement'?
Fr' ?es
E�'i'Vo
[INA ❑ NF
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit'?
❑les �
2 No
❑ NA ❑ NI -1
(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
ttd T cs
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NI
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
Q No
❑ NA ❑ NF
mai ntenance/improvement'?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application'? if ycs, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ ]Go
❑ 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 or Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside
of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13.
Soil type(s)
G S Hr� er• +t b �L �� GuV•ti
Carve,
4
14.
Do the receiving crops dif#'er from those designated in the CAWMP?
[2'*Y es
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
E No
❑ NA
❑ NF
16.
Did the facility fail to Secure and/or operate per the imigation design or wettable acre determination ."❑
Yes
2N o
❑ NA
❑ N1"
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application'?
❑ Yes
0'�o
❑ NA
❑ NF
18.
is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
o
❑ 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):
!� 'yN kQr ct/.�.. 5 �! °; ,,� C -
G S Hr� er• +t b �L �� GuV•ti
Carve,
4
Reviewer/Inspector Name t
Phone: 7,Y
Ro1ewer/Inspector Signature: F
Date:
✓ 11/28/114 Contilrorrl

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components ofthe CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropirate box, ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Othcr
❑ Yes 2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 04o ❑ NA ❑ NE
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NF
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual
Certificatiorn
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspection
Weather
Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
El Yes
,-s-,�❑
l3 tvo
❑ NA
❑ Nli
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
[:]Yes
[:INA
❑ NL=
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit`?
El Yes
,[�rNo
ld No
❑ NA
❑ N17
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the pemait?
❑ Yes
[ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes 1�411 ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes LYNu ❑ NA ❑ NI
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
5} o
❑ NA
❑ N1-
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
L31No
❑ NA
❑ N1=
1l'yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office ofemergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
9No
❑ NA
❑ N1=
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NI:
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Ycs
o
❑ NA
❑ Nf;
Additional Comments.andlor Drawings:
12128/04
12128/04

•
❑
•
Facility Number: j - Date of Inspection
y '� -�
❑
Technical Assistance Needed
Provided
34. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment,
Ea/'
❑
35. Waste Plan Conditionai Amendment
❑
❑
36. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
37. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
38. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
39.211.0200 re -certification
❑
❑
40. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
41. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
42. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
43. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
44. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
45. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
46. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
47. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
48. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
49. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
50. Site evaluation
❑
❑
51. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
52. Irrigation system design/installation
❑
❑
53. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
54. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc,)
❑
❑
55. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
56. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
57. Crop evaluation/recommcndations
❑
❑
58. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
59. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
❑
❑
60. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
61. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
62. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
63. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
64. Waste operator education
❑
❑
65. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
66. Record keeping education
❑
❑
67. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
68. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
69. PLAT
❑
❑
70. Other
❑
❑
List Improvements Made by Operation:
2.
4.
5
3, 6. 12/28/04

0� W A rFq • p . Michael F. Easley, Governor
Wi lliam G. Ross Jr., Secretary
rNorth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
I L E
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
—*rr,rrurrr[Asxt.4!tdlii5v¢1C41CYrll+lFy ' Division of Water Quality
Aquifer Protection Section
October 3, 2007
Mr. Tony Nesbitt
T&C Dairy
P.O. Box 936
Fletcher, North Carolina 28732
Subject: Complaint Investigation
Animal Waste Handling System
T&C Dairy — Facility # 11-6
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
This letter is to summarize the results of a complaint investigation that I conducted on
September 26, 2007. The investigation was the result of a complaint received by our office
alleging inadequate buffers with regard to land application of animal waste on a field adjacent
to Willie Mae Way.
You indicated that you had applied waste on the Dotson Field on September 25't', The
waste had been disked in as required by your permit. Although it was difficult to
measure exactly to the edge of the waste application area, it appeared that the buffers
to residences and wells were adequate. I would recommend that in the future you put
out pin flags to ensure that you do not encroach on the required buffers due to the close
proximity of neighbors and wells.
Please refer to the attached inspection report (Inspection Summary Page 2) for
additional comments. Thank you for taking the time to meet with me. If you have any
questions regarding this inspection or need assistance of any kind, please do not
hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Beverly rice
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure
One
NohCruo na
Naturatty
North Carolina Division of Water Quality — Asheville Regional Office 2090 U.S. Highway 70 Swannanoa, NC 28778 Phone [phone]
Aquifer Protection Section FAX [phone]
Customer Service 1-877-623-6748
Internet! h2oenr.state.nc.us
An Equal GppodunilylAHirmative Action Employer — 50% RecycledllG% Posl Consumer Paper

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soll and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: j 10006 _ Facility Status: Active Permit: AWClfl=§ ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comoliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Comolaint County: Buncombe Region: Asheyille _
Date of Visit: 0 912 6120 0 7_ Entry T1me:01:15 PM Exit Time: 02:20 PM incident #:
Farm Name: T&C Dairy w Owner Email:
Owner: Georae A Nesbitt Phone: [phone] _
Mailing Address: PO Box 936 Fletcher NC 287320936
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°28'35" Longitude: 82°26'05"
436 Lower Brush Creek Rd, Fletcher. 4 miles SW of Fairview, 6 miles east of Fletcher, turn at Oak Baptist Church on to Lower Brush
Creek Rd. Go to dirt Rd 4th drive on left.
Question Areas:
a Waste Application
Certified Operator: George A Nesbitt Operator Certification Number: 21355
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On-site representative Tony Nesbitt Phone:
24 hour contact name Tony Nesbitt Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Beverly Price Phone: 829-296
Inspector Signature: Date: /013LO7 _
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Complaint was concerning application buffers. Mr. Nesbitt had applied animal waste on 9/25107 and had disked it in on 9126/07
(permit requirement). Therefore measuring exactly to the edge of the waste application area was difficult, Although close in some
instances, residence and well buffers appeared to be compliant with WUP. Mr, Nesbitt will need to be very careful In applying waste
to this field due to the close proximity of neighbors and wells.
Page: 1

•
i
Permit: AWC110006 Owner • Facility; George A Nesbitt Facility Number : 110006
Inspection Date: 0912612007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Complaint
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Naste Pond [SLURRY POND 22.80
Page: 2

• i
Permit: AWC110006 Owner • Facility: George A Nesbitt
Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 08/2612007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Complaint
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
0
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop andlor land application site need improvement? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Page: 3

6
•
Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number : 110006
Inspection Date: 0912612007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Complaint
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? 11000
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Q ❑ ■
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? 0000
Page: 4

w A rE,�pG • . Michael F. Easley, Governor
r
F�L
L-3 Copy William G. Ross ,Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
5 Coieen H. Sullins, Director
No=�; Division of Water Quality
Aquifer Protection Section
August 10, 2007
Mr. Tony Nesbitt
T&C Dairy
P.O. Box 936
Fletcher, North Carolina 28732
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
T&C Dairy — Facility # 11-6
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
On August 2, 2000, 1 conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of the animal
waste handling system for the T&C dairy.
Your WUP was updated in February 2007, however some of the maps do not
appear to be consistent with the Waste Application Table and your SLUR -2 Forms.
Please ensure that all fields receiving animal waste are included in the WUP.
A drainage ditch separating the two pastures to the west of your waste holding
pond collects runoff water. The runoff area is adjacent to the path which your cows
travel form the feeding area to the pasture. The upper end of the ditch appeared to
contain contaminated wastewater on the day of the inspection. This situation allows for
the potential for a discharge to an unnamed tributary to Cane Creek. Please be advised
that a non -permitted discharge of any type of wastewater to the waters of the State is
illegal as per NCGS 143-215.1. It is recommended that you contact a technical
specialist for assistance regarding this situation.
As a reminder, you have until December 31, 2007 to collect the remainder of
your soil samples.
None
ilicaro'na
rtrrrrr�t�
North Carolina Division of Water Quality —Asheville Regional Office 2090 U.S. Highway 70 Swannanoa, NC 28778 Phone [phone]
Aquifer Protection Section FAX [phone]
Customer Service 1-877-623.6746
internet: h2o.enr,state.nc.us
An Equal opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer paper

Mr. Nesbitt
August 10, 2207
Page 2
I have enclosed a copy of your certificate of coverage (COC). Please keep this
COC with your other records. I have also enclosed the SLUR -1 Form. Please begin
using this form as it contains the weather codes.
Please refer to the attached inspection report (Inspection Summary Page 2) for
additional comments. Thank you for taking the time to meet with me. If you have any
questions regarding this inspection or need assistance of any kind, please do not
hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Beverly Pace
Environmental Specialist
Enclosures
C: Gary Higgins, Buncombe County Soil & Water Conservation District 155 Hilliard
Ave., Ste.204 Asheville, NC 28801
Aquifer Protection Section Files ARO

U
N Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: J-UQQ6 _ Facility Status: Active Permit: 6WC1 10006 Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inaction _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine � . County: Buncombe Region: Ashevallp
Date of Visit: Q810212007 Entry Tlme:09:30 AM Exit Time: 17:00 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: T&C Dairy Owner Email:
Owner: Georce A Nesl itf _
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: PO Box 936 _ !, Fle��f UQ 28732093Q
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
Latitude: Longitude:
436 Lower Brush Creek Rd, Fletcher. 4 miles SW of Fairview, 6 miles east of Fletcher, turn at Oak Baptist Church on to Lower Brush
Creek Rd. Go to dirt Rd 41h drive on left.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts © Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: George A Nesbitt Operator Certification Number. 21355
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On-site representative Tony Nesbitt Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Tony Nesbitt Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Beverly Price Phone: SA u'
Inspector Signature: '4��LL6 ? ' Date: S /!O /6 7
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

Permit: AWC110006
Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt
Facility Number: 110006
Inspection pate: 08/02/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
#9. A drainage ditch separating two pastures to the west of the waste holding pond collects runoff water and during rain events can
discharge to an unnamed tributary to Cane Creek, The runoff area is adjacent to the path which the calving cows travel from the
feeding area to the pasture, The upper end of the ditch appeared to contain contaminated wastewater on the day of the inspection.
The potential exists for contaminated wastewater to discharge to surface waters.
#19. GOC not available. COC was on-site during 2006 inspection. A copy of the COC will be sent to Mr. Nesbitt. The COC should be
kept with other records.
#21. Mr. Nesbitt did not have the updated SLUR -1 Forms which have weather codes listed. An updated SLUR -1 will be sent to Mr.
Nesbitt. Weather conditions at time of application need to be documented,
Some of the maps in the WUP did not appear to be consistent with the Waste Application Tables. Any discrepancies in the WUP
should be corrected.
Soil Sample: 4/18107 for Dotson Field, The other fields need a soils analysis before 1213112007.
Waste Analyses: 113107 LSD Broadcast N=3.0 Ib/1000 gal.; Irrigation N=2.8 Ib11000 gala
6112107 ALD Broadcast N=7.8 Ib11000 gal.
Page: 2

Permit.* AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Data: 0810212007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Papulation
Cattle
Q Cattle - Milk Cow 300 314
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLW: 420,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Dale Designed Freoboard Observed Freoboard
rite Pond LSLU
RRY POND 22.80 45,00
- . - - --L -.1
Page: 3

Permit: A+NC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt
Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Dale: 08102/2007 inspection Typo: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges_ & Stream Impacts
Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
Cl
Discharge originated at:
or closure plan?
Structure
❑
❑
■
Cl
Application Field
❑
❑
■
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
OND
Cl
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
■
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
■
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other
than from a ❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
Cl
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
■
Cl
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect application? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt
Facility Numbor : 110006
Inspection Date: 08/0712007 Inspection Typo: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 3
Foscue (May)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
lotto loam, 0 to 2%
slopes, occasionally
Soil Type 2
Dillard loam,1 to 5%
slopes, rarely flo
Soil Type 3
Rosman fine sandy
loam, 0 to 3% slopes.
Soil Type 4
Stader loam, 1 to 5%
slopes, rarely flo
Soil Type 5
Unison loam, 8 to 15%
slopes
Soil Type 6
Unison loam, 2 to 8%
slopes
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crap and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Cerlificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWC110006 Owner • Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 08/02/2007 Inspection Typo: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP? ❑
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? Q
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
■
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after 7 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑
■
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
Cl
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑
■
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
■
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■
130
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those 011111111100
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
Page: 6

•
Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt
Facility Number : 110006
Inspection fate: 0910212007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Vislt:•Routine
Qtherlssues
Yes
No
NA
NE
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? 1f yes, contact a regional Air ❑
■
❑
❑
Quality representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on-site representative?
❑
■
❑
❑
33, noes facility require a fallow -up visit by same agency?
❑
■
❑
❑
Page: 7

George A. (Tony) Nesbitt
T&C Dairy
PO Box 936
Fletcher NC 28732
Dear George A. (Tony) Nesbitt:
0 Michael F, Easley, Governor
William G, Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan.Wl .Klim.pk;' �Jti, irector `
[; b-"1
i� olLis'so� o�latt;Qrality';}
October 1, 2004 �.i4 OCT -- 1 2004
1-C,'r;..-,tt^yp1l1r.", Z 10�
Subject: Certificate of Coverage No, AWC110006
T&C Dairy
Cattle Waste Collection, Treatment,
Storage and Application System
Buncombe County
On .lune 11, 2004, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (Division) issued a revised State General
Permit for swine facilities. The General Permit was issued in accordance with the directive of Senate Bill
733 (Session I.,aw 2003-28).
1n accordance with your application received on March 10, 2003 and in accordance with the directive of
Senate Bill 733, we are hereby forwarding to you this Certificate of Coverage (COC) issued to George A.
(Tony) Nesbitt, authorizing the operation of the subject animal waste collection, treatment, storage and
land application system in accordance with General Permit AWG200000. The issuance of this COC
supercedes and terminates your previous COC Number AWC110006 which expires October 1, 2004.
This approval shall consist of the operation of this system including, but not limited to, the management
of animat waste from the T&C Dairy, located in Buncombe County, with an animal capacity of no greater
than an annual average of' 300 Dairy cattle and the application to land as specified in the facility's
Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP).
The COC shall be effective from the date of issuance until September 30, 2009. 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 CAWMII 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 State General Permit. Since this is a revised State
General Pennit, it contains new requirements in addition to most of the conditions contained in the
previous State General Permit. Enclosed for your convenience is a package containing the new and
revised forms used for record keeping and reporling. Nease_pay careful attention to the record keeping
and monitoring conditions in this permit.
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.
Aquifer Protection Section - Animal Feeding Operations Unit
1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1638 One
NorthCarohna
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us Naturally
An Equal OpportunitylAffirmaWe Action Employer - 50% RecyclediiO% Post Consumer Paper

The issuance of this COC does not excuse the Permittee from the obligation to comply with all applicable
laws, rules, standards, and ordinances (local, state, and federal), nor does issuance of a COC to operate
under this permit convey any property rights in either real or personal property.
Upon abandonment or depopulation for a period of four years or more, the Permittee must submit
documentation to the Division demonstrating that all current NRCS standards are met prior to restocking
of the facility.
Per 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, storage pond, 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 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
heGeneral Permit, an application for renewal must be Filed at least 180 days prior to expiration.
This COC is not automatically transferable. A name/ownership change application must be submitted to
the Division prior to a name change or change in ownership.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this COC are unacceptable, you have the right to
apply for an individual permit by contacting the staff member listed below for information on this
process. Unless such a request is made within 30 days, this COC shall be final and binding.
This facility is located in a county covered by our Asheville 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 JR. Joshi at [phone].
Sincerely,
for Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Enclosures (General Permit AWG200000)
cc: (Certificate of Coverage only for all cc's)
Asheville Regional Office, Aquifer Protection Section
Buncombe County Health Department
Buncombe County Soil and Water Conservation District
Permit File AWC 110006
APS Central Piles

4 �A
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC110006 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Cgrngllance Insnection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: BgMtloe County: Buncombe Region: Asheville
//:?a
Date of Visit: 08/02/2007 Entry Tlme:09:30 AM Exit Time: 1*00 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: I&C Dairy _ Owner Email:
Owner: George A blesbitt
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: PO Box 93¢ Fletcher NC 287320936
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 38°28'35" Longitude: 82°26'05'
436 Lower Brush Creek Rd, Fletcher. 4 miles SW of Fairview, 6 miles east of Fletcher, turn at Oak Baptist Church on to Lower Brush
Creek Rd. Go to dirt Rd 4th drive on left,
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: George A Nesbitt Operator Certification Number: 21355
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Re prosentative(s): Name Title Phone
On-site representative Tony Nesbitt Phone-. 828-628-1956
24 hour contact name Tony Nesbitt Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Beverly Price Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Page: 1

Permit: AWC110006 Owner -facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number : 110006
Inspection Data: 08/02/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle r, VG
❑ Cattle -Milk Caw 300 13/
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLW: 420,000
Tvoe Identifier Closed Date Start Date Deslaned Freeboard Observed Freeboard
aste Pond SLURRY POND C� �.� Z� .7 +f � #
Page: 2

Permit: AWC110006
Owner - Facility: George A Nesbltt
0
Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Data: 08/02/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Via It: Routlne
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yea No
NA NE
1, Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ ®
❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑ ❑
M ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ ❑
IR ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, nctify DWQ)
❑ ❑
1' ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ 0
❑ ❑
3. Were there any adverse Impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
B
❑ ❑
discharge?
Waste Collection Storage & Treatment
Yes No
NA NE
h. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑ a
❑ ❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any Immediate threats to the Integrity of any of the structures observed (Led large trees, severe
❑ 1100
erosion, seepage, etc,)?
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ❑ ❑
or closure pian?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, ❑ 40 ❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or IN ❑ ❑
Improvement? Pirea -to L AFAc Pend, j5,._4cvee-, wetOt- po
Waste Application"', P'ray , Cot,uS', S'lry-.•.watf�/ �,Ta1-.nSt Yes No NA NE
dik,l) loll ecki' ev �a•.' inAd dv t V- P.,-/ 414j4 -o ,A,V
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or ❑ M ❑ ❑
Improvement? -OM 7'rQ vt 1 +� mal arca +,a R4SA -'"�
11. Is there evidence of incorrect applicattiion + +r°`�� pRS F J �`t�t_5.c dr`(� • ❑ lk ❑ ❑
I ^� t cit E, k I �S tb a,\ VA na,+.4A
If yes, check the appropriate box below. bra
toCant Cr.e ..k .
Excessive Ponding? &'k, S -? W0 ��[.1� t��5`� C1Sc❑p
Hydraullc Overload? 4tie.Jal's POS• ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? p lG ❑
Page: 3

0
Permit: AWG110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number : 110006
Inspection Date: 08/02/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
PAN? O,C ❑
Is PAN > 10%,110 lbs.? ❑
Total P205? ❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil? ❑
Outside of acceptable crop window? ❑
Evidence of wind drift? ❑
Application outside of application area? ❑
Crop Type 1 [o,rn Sda,^ -0-
Crop Type 2 .1v�
Crop Type 3 r eSL6t-e
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management 0000
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
01000
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per thp irrigation deign or weft ie ac r determi�tatioq? ,Qy
taS I /S5
[)❑
0
❑
NO 10A5#,- a
t�,10.TtC-
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
19
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Crtificate of Coverage and Permit readily av ilable?
d.
O zs-c
®
❑
❑
❑
64'/e- 7a^n C°Pn a /�-u.,�. _ Sa., cup► a vc,
t' u' `-- .
❑
o
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP rea ily available?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP? 0�—
❑I.
Page: 4

�. � � ��.% i ! ' c .!''�'.S�- C *•c�%i.�If �-►%a t I�'�/0-f`C�L'1 �yi /� AC.LL Q� L
%ri 4 f� n � Q�V I � r�� �'J i%C-1�'e • �O► � t' cl � � I�
Permit: AWC110006 Ownor - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Numbor : 110006
inspection Onto. 06/02/2007 Inspoctlon Typo: Compliance Inspection Ranson for Visit-, Routine
Records and Documents Yos No NA NE
Checklists? 0 K ❑
Design?
Maps? 0
Other?
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.Ira z
oK C CPrfec�Di�r a-, Stu2-
Waste Application? SLUR— Ok�- 5+` ute 7 ❑
Tia+fs�as;-1-10+, error -S.
120 Minute inspections? o A ❑
Weather code? t`.) ¢e► d Tj-, i P
Weekly Freeboard? �� ❑
Transfers? N A Cl
Rainfall? QAL ❑
Inspections after > 1 Inrk rainfall & m
Waste Vo-{�CAJmonthly? 0 (C ❑
Wridly� � oQt�F N =3.0 lb%inba Aj
Waste Analysis? I �3� ' SSD 3 ❑
Annual soil analysis? 2/gifo4 ,k G. 11 0l j0i Ain N^ 7.8 Iblonu 5/'r C)
LjjjjCrap yle?Ys?0K W'kkk 0 set I ,s -a ^'-pias z 007 ❑
id')-- 'W41n„��a� h`���t06 1 9c1{•• 01
2 ldT
Stocking? tS ��- rta❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ R
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fall to Install and maintain a ralnbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑ ❑
®
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ppn{ '0^ r0 f° ❑ 0
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fall to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ ❑
19
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ 41
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ ❑
®
❑
Other Issues
Yes No
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
A a
❑
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑ ®
❑
❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
❑ a
❑
❑
Quality representative Immediately.
Page: 5

•
•
Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 1100D6
Inspection Date: 08/02/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Yae Nn NA NF
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/ Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on-site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑1911❑
❑ in ❑ ❑
❑ to ❑ ❑
Page: 6
r

Mr. Torry Nesbitt
T&C Dairy
P.O. Box 936
Fletcher, North Carolina 28732
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
. Michael F. Easley, Governor
FILEWilliam G. Moss lr., Secretary
COPY
North Carolina Department of Environment ant! Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Aquifer Protection Section
August 21, 2006
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
T&C Dairy — Facility # 11-6
Buncombe County
On August 18, 2006, Bev Price and I conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of the animal
waste handling system for the T&C dairy. Overall, you are doing a good job maintaining your waste
management system; however, there are some record keeping issues that must be addressed.
All fields currently being used for land application are not in your waste plan. Please update
your waste plan accordingly. No waste analysis was performed to cover January through May, 2006
applications. A waste analysis must be provided within 60 days (120 day window) of application.
Please refer to the attached inspection report for additional comments. Thank you for taking the
time to meet with us. If you have any questions regarding this inspection or need assistance of any kind,
please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincer ly,
I
400-�Ed W liams
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure
Cc: Gary Higgins, Buncombe County Soil & Water Conservation District 155 Hilliard Ave., Ste.204
Asheville, NC 28801
Aquifer Protection Section Files ARO -
One
Xh��ttCara ina
�Vntrrrr��l�
North Carolina Division of Water Quality — Asheville Regional Office 2090 U.S. Highway 70 Swannanoa, NC 28778 Phone [phone]
Aquifer Protection Section FAX [phone]
Customer Service 1.877.623-6748
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity/AHlrmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% post Consumer Paper

'f
0 0
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 110006 Facility Status: Act__ Permit: AWL110006 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Cgrriollance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ _ _ County: Region: Asheville
Date of Vlsit: 08118(?QQ§ Entry Time:09:00 AM Exit Time., 11:00 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: T&C fairy _ Owner Email:
Owner: Gggrae A Nesbitt Phone:
Mailing Address: PO Box 936 _ Fletcher NC 2$7320936
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35.28'35" Longitude: 82"26'05"
436 Lower Brush Creek Rd, Fletcher, 4 miles SW of Fairview, 6 miles east of Fletcher, turn at Oak Baptist Church on to Lower Brush
Creek Rd. Go to dirt Rd 4th drive on left,
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: George A Nesbitt Operator Certification Number: 21355
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representatives): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name George A Nesbitt Phone: [phone]
On-site representative George A Nesbitt Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Beverly Price Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Edward M Williams Phone:
Inspection Summary:
Waste plan need updating to include all fields (contact Buncombe Co. SWCD, Gary Higgins).
No waste analysis to cover January - May, 2006 applications.
Waste analysis: LSD N=3.4 lbs/ton
Soils analysis: 6/21/2005 5/22/2006
Page: f

• 0
0
Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number : 110006
Inspection Dale: 08/1$12006 Inspection Type: Compiiance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
© Cattle - Milk Cow 300 260
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLW: 420,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Data Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
k1ste Pond SLURRY POND 24.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Faclilty: George A Nesbltt Facility Number : 110008
Inspection Data: 08/18/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit. Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yea No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ 0 ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ Cl Q
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
11000
■
❑
Cl
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
000
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage &Treatment
Yee
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
000
❑
■
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe ❑ ■ Cl ❑
erosion, seepage, etc,)?
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7, Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
Cl
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
0111100
improvement?
Waste Application
Yee
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
❑
❑
■
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
0000
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

0
Permit: AWC110006 owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt
Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 08/1812006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Ap Ilcp ation
Yee No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
Cl
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1 Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 2 Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crap Type 3 Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1 Biltmore
Soil Type 2 Kinkora
Soil Type 3 lotla
Soil Type 4
Tate
Soil Type 5
Fletcher
Soil Type 6
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
Cl
❑
❑
■
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
0
Cl
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Cl
Page: 4

permit: AWC110006 Owner • Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number : 110006
Inspection Date: 0811812006 Inspection Typo: Compliance Inspectlon Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? Cl
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ■ Cl ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after n 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
0
Waste Analysis?
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Old the facility fall to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑
■
Cl
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
Cl
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑
■
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
■
Cl
Other Issues
Yes
_NoNA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■
❑
❑
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ Cl
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately,
Page: 5

Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt
Inspection Date: 0811812006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on-site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 110006
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

155 HiWurd Avenue, Suite 24M
Asheville, NC 26801
November 29, 2005
0 BUNCOMBE COUNA
SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Tony Nesbitt (Facility 11-6)
P. O. Box 936
Pletcher, NC 28732
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
(828) 25(W785
FAX: [phone]
It was a pleasure meeting with you during our Technical Assistance Review on
November 16, 2005. You are doing a good job with maintenance/operation of your waste
management system and your record keeping. There were no significant problems noted
during the review. Our staff will work with you on any items noted in the review,
particularly in running PLAT on your application fields, and revising your waste
management plan. If required by your permit, we can assist you in installing a gauged
marker in your slurry pond as well. 1 have enclosed your copy of the review for your
reference.
Again, thanks for meeting with me on November 16'". We greatly appreciate your efforts
to maintain good water quality in the Cane Creek area. Please give us a call if you need
anything.
Sinc rely,
z
45�4�
GBg Hi ins, Director
�Y
Buncombe SWCD
L.�cc: Beverly Price
NC DENR, Division of Water Quality
Rocky Durham
NC DENR, Division of Soil and Water Conservation

I
r ypu yrvoulx v L;ompnanco inspection v operationrcevtew v btructure tvaivanon w-recnnicat AssistanceReason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: © Arrival Timc: Departure Time: County: ��'�+�-' Region:
Farm Name: d __ C lJ aQ/'i� _-_ _! Owner Email:
Owner Name: eJ Phone: -
Mailing Address: ''►'
Physical Address: fl OW �t K .,4/ (, /Z�� i�'2
Facility Contact dl l Title: ��f''G
Phone No�lv'��+rL
K
Onsite Representative. �i�r Integrator:
k
Certified Operator: 4 t{�._ �, _ Operator Certification Number: en � s
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ❑ o Longitude: ED ° ❑ u
a,f
1;44A a-11
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Design:''
Poultry.4,Cnpacity,
it�T •;" r
ori . - ,Cattle'
'I❑ Non -Layer I I It.
,&j Gilts I_ 1 11.1
Boars
❑ Other
-Dry Poultry i.'r
m; s
❑ La ers K
on -Layers
❑ Pullets
Turkeys
❑ TurkeyI'otiits
Other
:Design Curirent,L'
Capacity Papulation;•`
ro
Dairy Caw
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy lieifei
❑
Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
Beef 5tocket
Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl I
Number of Structures:
Discharges & 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?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (lt'yes. notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated vohimc that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Docs discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If ycs, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge Dorn 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 5 Io ❑ NA ❑ NF
❑Ycs
❑No
DNA
ONE
❑Yes
❑No
❑NA
ONE
❑ NA
❑ N
❑ Yes
No
❑lL
❑ Yes
eNo
❑ NA
❑ Nil
❑ Yes►2<L)
[INA
❑ NI?
12128104 Corrlinued

Facility Number. G — *e of Inspection •
' Hwired Records & Documents
i9. Did the facility fail to havdCertificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? El Yes ❑ NA ❑ NC
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes R<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ ❑ Maps Design g p El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below,
201cs
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Q Waste Application 'Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Anal sis ❑ Waste
Transfers
❑,A,nnCertificatio
n
Q<ainfall �tocking [;Crop Yield [Iute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rain
�ual
Inspections 941 Bather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? . t
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
✓❑(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
lid Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
0'�o
❑ NA
❑ Nr --
E27.
27.Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
L—J-1"es
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
�Mo
❑ NA
❑ NL
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
W<o
❑ 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
41110
❑ 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
R<o
❑ NA
❑ NL
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
��/
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
L7 No
❑ NA
❑ Ni
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
Io
❑ NA
❑ NE
10411
Swed 4#1L'4'
LJ144 l
Q7.(�d �FlnNc�o^
I V2 104

i •
Facility Number: G - Date of Inspection
Technical Assistance _
Needed
EXovided
34. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
P
❑
35. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
36. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
37. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
38. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
39.2H.0200 re -certification
❑
❑
40. Five & Thirty day Plan of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
41. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
42.OrganizeJcomputerization of records
❑
❑
43. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
44. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
45. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
46. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
47. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
48. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
49. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
50. Site evaluation
❑
❑
51. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
52. Irrigation system design/installation
❑
❑
53. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
54. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
55. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
56. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
57. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
58. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
59. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
❑
❑
60. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
61. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
62. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
63. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
64. Waste operator education
❑
❑
65. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
66. Record keeping education
❑
❑
67. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
68. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
69. PLAT
,❑
✓U
❑
70. Other
❑
❑
Lilt improvements Made bypperation:
4.
5.
3. 6. _ 12/2"4

�� • Fueflity Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collectlon & 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) Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in)•
❑ Yes 52 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
LP
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
2No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion; seepage, etc)
6. Are there structures on-site,whiWare not. properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
[R Ivo
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management br closuie plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes,.and the situation poses an Immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do.any of the structures need main tenance.orIimprovemerit? ❑ Yes
G21qo
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? R 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
�,/
L✓I Nv
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks; or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
[R' qo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[:]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l 0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manum/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 fromthose designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes ['No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site treed improvement? ❑ Yes Q0No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determinations❑ Yes tL���I NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes Gk<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes 53 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Y�
r
Reviewer/inspector Name Phone: VV*—&JsV—Wn
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: —
12/28/04 Continued

J4
OF W A�Fi9 • Michael F. Easley, Governor
OG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
rNorth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
p Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Aquifer Protection Section
November 25, 2005
Mr. Pony Nesbitt
T&C Dairy
P.Q. Box 936
Fletcher, North Carolina 28732
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
T&C Dairy — Facility # 11-6
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
On November 15, 2005, 1 conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of the animal waste
handling system for the T&C dairy. You are doing a good job maintaining your waste management
system as well as your waste application records.
As you are aware, your State General Permit AWG200000 was revised and reissued October 1,
2004. In addition to the records you are currently keeping, the following items must be documented In
accordance with the permit: 1) weather conditions, 2) rainfall, 3) waste pond inspections after a
greater than one Inch rainfall and monthly, 4) crop yields, 5) stocking records and 6) calibration of
land application equipment. It is recommended that you contact the Buncombe County Soil & Water
Conservation District for assistance with calibration. Additionally, you are currently recording freeboard
levels two to three times per month. Freeboard levels must be recorded on a weekly basis. Lastly, you
have waste analyses for August -2004 and October 2005 but no analysis for the Spring 2005 application
events. A waste analysis must be provided within 60 days (120 day window) of application.
A copy of the inspection report Is attached for your records. Thank -you for taking the time to
meet with me. If you have any questions regarding this inspection or need assistance of any kind, please
do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Beverly Price
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure
Cc: Gary Higgins, Buncombe County Soil & Water Conservation District 155 Hilliard Ave., Ste.204
Asheville, NC 28801 hie
Aquifer Protection Section Files ARO I`1` hCr"aliV
,1�ntrrrn�t�
North Carolina Division of Water Quality— Asheville Regional Office 2090 U.S. Highway 70 Swannanoa, NC 28778 Phone [phone]
Aquifer Protection Section FAX [phone]
Customer Service 1-877-623-6748
Internet: h2a,enr.statemc.us
An Equal dpportunitylAWmative Action Employer — 50% RecyclodMO% Post Consumer Paper

M Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 1.1.0008_ _ Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC 110009 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Roytine County
Inactive or Closed Date:
Sw cont be__ Region: Asheville
Date of Vlslt: 1111512005 Entry Time:09:00 AM Exit Time: 10:40 AM Incident M.
Farm Name: TLC [ airy _ _ _ _ - Owner Email:
Owner: georgp A Nesbit(.
Phone: 828 -62B -2B52 „!
Malling Address: 1?013_s_836 _ _ _ Fle r1c r_NC 2873"6
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: longitude: B2"2805"
436 Lower Brush Creek Rd, Fletcher. 4 miles SW of Fairview, 6 miles east of Fletcher, turn at Oak Baptfst Church on to Lower Brush
Creek Rd. Go to dirt Rd 4th drive on left,
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts © Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: George A Nesbitt Operator Certification Number: 21355
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On-site representative George A Nesbitt Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name George A Nesbitt Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Beverly price
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Date: // -'2'7 - 0,5 -
Page: 1

Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 11/15/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Soil Analysis: 3/1812005
Waste Analyses; $1512004 N=9.6 Ib11000 gal for Broadcast; 10/28/2005 N=3.4 lbl1000 gal Broadcast.
21. Record Keeping: Need to document 1)weather conditions 2)Rainfall 3)Waste pond inspections after a greater than one inch
rainfall and monthly 4)Crop yields 5)Stocking 6) Calibration of land application equipment.
Freeboard levels have been recorded two to three times per month. Freeboard should be recorded every week.
There was no waste analysis for the Spring 2005 application events. A waste analysis should be provided within 60 days(120 day
window) of application.
Waste application is no longer spray irrigated; slurry tank is the only method of application. A new slurry tanker (5350 gallon) was
purchased in October 2005.
Page: 2

•
0
Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Data: 10/25/2005 Inspection Typo: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle -Milk Caw 300 278
Total Design Capacity: 300
Total SSLW: 420,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Frooboard Observed Froeboard
kaste Pond SLURRY POND 120.00
Page: 3

�J
f�J
Permit: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt
Facility Number: 110006
Inspection pate: 10/25/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
or closure plan?
Structure
❑
❑
■
❑
Application Field
❑
❑
■
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑
■
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
■
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
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?
1
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a ❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Cl
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
Cl
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
00110
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
8. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
001111
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
Cl
Cl
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 4

•
•
Permit: AWC110006 Owner • Facility: George A Nesbitt
Inspection Date: 10/25/2005 Inspection Typo: Compliance Inspection
FaclIIty Number: 110006
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste App lfcation
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
Cl
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bere soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Graln (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 3
Com (Silage)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
Cl ■ ❑ Cl
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 5

• i
Perm It: AWC110006 Owner - Facility: George A Nesbitt Facility Number: 110006
Inspection Date: 10/25/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? Cl
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
■
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
■
Inspections after> 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
■
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
■
Stocking?
■
Annual Certification Form (NPOES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑
■
❑
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
■
❑
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑
■
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 6

• 0
Permit: AWC110006 Owner - FociIlty: George A Nesbitt
Facility Number:
110006
Inspection Date: 1012512005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
OtherIssues
Yes No
NA
NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑ ■
❑
❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on-site representative?
❑ ■
❑
❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ ■
❑
❑
Page: 7

155 1][1111ard Avenue, Suite 204
Asheville; IVC IWI
November 16, 2005
0 BUNCOMBE COUNT
SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Tony Nesbitt (Facility 11-6)
P. O. Box 936
Fletcher, NC 28732
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
RECEIVED
NOV 17 2006
Asheville Regional Office
Aqud'er cIrritec lor-
[phone]
FAX. [phone]
It was a pleasure meeting with you during our Technical Assistance Review on
November 8, 2006. You are doing a good job with maintenance/operation of your waste
management system and your record keeping. There were no significant problems noted
during the review. Our staff will work with you on any items noted in the review,
particularly in running PLAT on your application fields, and revising your waste
management plan. The additional application fields will need to be added to the plan. I
have enclosed your copy of the review for your reference.
Again, thanks for meeting with me on November Ie. We greatly appreciate your efforts
to maintain good water quality in the Cane Creek area. Please give us a call if you need
anything.
Sincerely,
Gary Hi ins, Director
Buncombe SWCD
Beverly Price
NC DENR, Division of Water Quality
Cindy Safrit
NC DENR, Division of Soil and Water Conservation

0
1{
R19-0%9-110 na--
O Division of Water Quality
Facility Number O Dlidelon of Soil a5q Water Conservation NOV 17 2006
ther Agency
I
Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection GrIoperation Review O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical AssistancQ v µ ..
tactiOf
Reason for Visit O Routine 0 Complaint O Follow up 0 Referral Q Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
ice
Date or Visit: ArrivaI Time: Departure Time: County: C Region: w'Vl
Farm Name: d G alOwner Email:
Owner Name: 9 e i tLt Phone: X2 r
Mailing Address. _.. 1-_�; V & % 1 El&lc tw A., au z
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: &dpQtna. H _ 6-760�4 eAitko 'riiic: - kt°k.-e-c_ Phone No:
Onsite Representative: ✓ r ,rYt—°J +t integrator:
Certified Operator: eUl -4 " &j/ Operator Cerlification Number:
Back-up Operator: 4 ,i¢ Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: LaIltude: ❑ o ❑ t ❑ u Longilude: ❑ () ❑ s ❑ u
UJ -70 SO A,49, ao?,u, Cr+e —a / Lower 17i -t+ 6ft
,I---►►`�!� �ti ,�,.� t
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
10 Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑
Layer
---- - ❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ 'furkc s
❑ Turkey Points
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream !-mpacls
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated a1: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
b. Diel the discharge reach waters ofthe Stale:' (Ifyes, notify DW(1)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
a1 Cow (�� dr7
❑ Dai ry Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Noil-Dairy
❑ Beef Stockei
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Heef Brood Coy
C. What is the estimated Volume that reached waters ol'the State (gallons).'
Number of Structures: ❑
d. Docs discharge bypass the waste nlanagenlenl system? (it yes. notify DWO)
2. Is there evidence Ofit past discharge: from any hart of the operatiun')
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse: intilacts to the Waters ol'thc State
other 111,111 front a discharge?
❑ Yes 2<o ❑ NA ❑ Nig
❑Yes
F-1 No 0 N
❑NH
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ N1
El Yes
El NA
❑NI:
❑Yes
,❑N
LdN ❑NA
❑NI:
El Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NI
12128104 Coli fill urd

• Faciilto- Number: K - • 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?
StructureI}� Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4�
Identirter:��f�j 1/ I nFc,".4EIVE®
t
Spillway?:
2006
Designed Freeboard (in): A 1
Observed Freeboard (in): Raninnai Q
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures.obser�vbU7=+ �fDtt?Ctic]'
(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 2Vo ❑ NA ❑ N1::
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ Nle
Stru lure 5 Structure 6
I
❑`Yes Ck<o [INA ❑ NE
❑ Y c s RINo ❑ NA ❑ N13
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 K3"No ❑ NA ❑ Nle
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑'Yes EI -No ❑ NA ❑ Nl:
(Not applicable to rooied pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any pail of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes Mello ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [-lo ❑ NA ❑ NF
maintenance/improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application'? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 201N"o ❑ NA ❑ NI,
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs [I Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops difler from those designated in the CAWMP?
P"Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NF.
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
FKo
❑ NA
❑ N1:
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acre detennination?❑ Ycs
D'<
❑ NA
❑ NF
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
20
❑ NA
❑ NI` -
18.
Is there a lack of'properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
o ❑ NA
❑ NIS,
Comments (refer to question 4): 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):
tit f Ne e V 4c, lAw-- '"C' 1.Y" o f yte,
st� l"�,
h.,,,o Q star er /ash � tw#-
V 04 /tvv /
7
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Rev iewer/Inspeclor Signature:
Phone:
Date:
11/28/114 Continued

' .Facility Number: jt— Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 2<o ❑ NA ❑ NF
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available'? If yes, check
❑ Yes
2rlo
❑ NA
❑ NG
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concent?
❑ Yes
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
..��
2 o
❑ NA
❑ NI.
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Yes
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I"
Rain Inspections El
Weather
Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
Ld No
❑ NA
❑ NE_
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
NNo
[:1 NA
[:1 NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
[:12 Yes
,L__7,,
o
❑ NA
❑ NI
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
El NA NA
❑ N
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge`/
❑ Yes
��G,,
[; o
ElNA
[IN1-
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification`?
��Cs
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NIS
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes GIo ❑ NA ❑ NI
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
[] Yes
Bl�o
❑ NA
❑ Nl
and report the mortality rates that were higher than nornial?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concent?
❑ Yes
EfNo
❑ NA
❑ NI
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
ETNo
❑ NA
❑ Nl-
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with aft on-site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
[I NF
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
,[ErNo
L� 'tVo
❑ NA
❑ N11 -
Comments and/or Drawings:
12/28/04

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection
Technical Assistance
Need
Provided
34, Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
"['{%
1
.L 1S
❑
35. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
36. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
37. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
38. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
39. 21-1.0200 re -certification
❑
❑
40. hive & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
41. Irrigation record keeping assistance ❑ ❑
42. Organize/computerization of records ❑ ❑
43. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
44. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
45. Sludge removallclosurc procedures
❑
❑
46. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
47. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
48. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
49. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
50, Site evaluation
❑
❑
51. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
52. Irrigation system design/installation
❑
❑
53. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
54. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
55. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
56. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
57, Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
58. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
59. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
❑
❑
60. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
61. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
62. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
63. Mortality MMPs
❑
❑
64. Waste operator education
❑
❑
65. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
66. Record keeping education
❑
❑
67. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
68. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
69, PLAT
,❑
❑
70. Other
❑
❑
List Improvements Made bX Operatlon:
2
4.
5,
REc.,-,
Nov [vu�
Ashevilie Reaior«
--Aquifer pT,)t,�* ,
3. 6. 1212VO4

0 BUNCOMBE COUN71
SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
155 Hilliard Avenue, Suite 204
Asheville, NC 28801
December 20, 2004
George A. Nesbitt (Facility Number: 11-6)
T&CDairy
PO Box 936
Fletcher, NC 28732
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
This letter is in follow-up of the Operation Review on 8-24-04. During the review, no
discharges from your dairy operation were observed. Your waste management system is
functioning properly for collection and storage of waste. The areas for improvement
noted on the review pertain mainly to record keeping. Detailed records need to be kept
for the amount of waste applied to each field and the PAN needs to be calculated for each
field.
A new maximum waste level marker will need to be installed in the slurry storage pond.
Our staff can assist with the design of this marker and determining the elevation for
placement. We are currently very involved with flood restoration work, but let us know
and we will make every effort to get there as soon as we can.
Sin rely,
Higgins
Gay gg s
Buncombe SWCD
cc: Bev -Price, NC DENR, Division of Water Quality
Rocky Durham, Division of Soil and Water Conservation
,�
tr`r �'�1
�•1
4
:s'3
V
This letter is in follow-up of the Operation Review on 8-24-04. During the review, no
discharges from your dairy operation were observed. Your waste management system is
functioning properly for collection and storage of waste. The areas for improvement
noted on the review pertain mainly to record keeping. Detailed records need to be kept
for the amount of waste applied to each field and the PAN needs to be calculated for each
field.
A new maximum waste level marker will need to be installed in the slurry storage pond.
Our staff can assist with the design of this marker and determining the elevation for
placement. We are currently very involved with flood restoration work, but let us know
and we will make every effort to get there as soon as we can.
Sin rely,
Higgins
Gay gg s
Buncombe SWCD
cc: Bev -Price, NC DENR, Division of Water Quality
Rocky Durham, Division of Soil and Water Conservation

Technical Assistance Site Visit Renmk
O Mision of Soil and Water Conservati
Otural Resources Conservation Service
oil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
16
Facility Number //� - pate: T_- 2 ` C ' Time:
Farm Name -'-f y
Mailing Address, t
Onsite
Representative
True Of Visit
V�3 uperauon review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry gFeattle ❑ Horse
5 Time On Farm: a
County 22!06+.�, Phone:
L a c t 2,4 .1
T Integrator
Purpose Of Visit
Response to DWO/DENR referral
Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
Response to complaint/local referral
Requested by producer/integrator
Follow-up
Emergency
Other...
Design Current design Current
Ca2aclty Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Capacity Po ulation
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
['hairy
❑ Non -Dairy
J❑ Other I I i
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes i(a no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes lidno
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes O'no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes Z no
requiring DWQ notification?
5• Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes lino
and/or public health?
B. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes 26o
Structu e1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier 14
Level (inches) '
CROP TYPES
SPRAYFIELD
SO1�TYPES
7, What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number - �pDate:
0
PARAMETER
0 No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
[111. Level in storm storage
26.
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducar
11
13❑
12. Waste structure integrity compromised
28. Forms Need plat In comment section)
El
E]❑
13. Waste structure needs maintenance
❑
❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
11
E)❑
15. Over application < 10% or < 10 ibs.
30. 2H,0200 re-cartification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (POA)
❑
❑
31. Irrigation record keeping assistance
El
El
❑177 Deficient irrigation records
Uo• Late/missing waste analysis
❑ 19. Latetmissing lagoon level records
32. Organ Izelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
33. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
34. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop Inconsistent with waste plan
35. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
36. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
37. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
38. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
39. Marker check/calibration
,❑-,/
ltd
❑
Regulatory -Re
40. site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
41. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:ElE]❑Other...
42. Irrigation system design/installation
Date:
43, Secure Irrigation Information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
44. Operating Improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
45. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
46. Evaluate WAD certificationlrachucks
❑
❑
47. Crop evaluationlrecontmendations
❑
❑
2.
48. Drainage worklevaluatlon
❑
❑
49. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
50. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
51. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
52. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
53. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
54, Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5.
55. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
56. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6
57. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
58. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03110103

M
Facility Number= - =�] Date:
COMMENTS:AL
/
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST
SIGNATURE
Date Entered:
Entered By: I••
3 03/10/03

o�oF wA rFgQG Michael r. Easley, Governor
• William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
r North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
❑ ^� Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Aquifer Protection Section
October 20, 2004,
617
Mr. Tony Nesbitt
T&C Dairy e "
P.O. Box 936
Fletcher, North Carolina 28732
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
T&C Dairy — Facility # 11-6
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
On October 10, 2004, 1 conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of the animal waste handling
system for the T&C dairy. The waste application records were complete and very well maintained.
Two areas of concern were noted during the Inspection. A small amount of run-off was observed
in the drainage ditch next to Lower Brush Creek Road. The run-off was apparently a result of cows
grazing on the pasture area next to the road. This run-off has the potential to reach surface waters.
Measures should be taken to ensure that no animal waste is allowed to leave the property and potentially
have an adverse Impact on surface waters. Additionally, the waste storage pond liquid marker was not in
place on the day of the inspection. This is a violation of the General Permit# AWG200000. A Notice of
Violation addressing the waste pond marker will follow this letter. A copy of the inspection report Is
attached for your records.
Thank -you for taking the time to meet with me. If you have any questions regarding this
inspection or need assistance of any kind, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Bev Price
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure
Cc: Gary Higgins, Buncombe County Soil & Water Conservation District 155 Hilliard Ave., Ste.204
Asheville, NC 28801
Davis Ferguson, ARO Division of Soil & Water
Aquifer Protection Section Files ARO
NOre
[tltCttro ina
aturn14
North Carolina Division of Water Quality — Asheviiie Regional Office 2090 U.S. Highway 70 Swannanoa, NC 28778 Phone [phone]
Aquifer Protection Section PAX [phone]
Customer Service 1-877-623-6748
Internet: h2o.enrstate.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity/Affltrnative Action Employer -50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Type of Visit @ Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Eval. Q Tech. Assistance O Conf. for Removal
Reason for Visit O• Routine p Complaint Q Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number t t —7 u _I Date of Visit: 10/8/2004 Time: 12:411 m
=Not Operational Q Below I'ltreshold
® Permitted ® Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above 11treshold: .........................
FarreName:T&C.l?airx...................................................................................................... County: Mmimomba ....................................... ARQ............
Owner Name: G.9Qr9e..A►,.J.QMY).............. Nesoil;l,........................................................ Phone No:
N'tailing Address: rQ.Itlax.93.b............................................................................................ FIRAchRr..N.C.......................................................... 2.7.3.2..............
FacilityContact: ........Title:................................................................ Phone No: ...................................................
OnsiteRepresentative: ........................................................................................................... Integrator:.........................
Certified Opt rator:.Gparp~.A ............................... N.011A A.............................................. Operator Certification Nuniber:113.55 .............................
Location of Farm:
36 Lower Brush Creek Rd, Fletcher. 4 tulles SW of Fairview, 6 mites east of Fletcher, turn at Oak Baptist Church on to
Lower Brush Creek Rd. Go to dirt Rd 4th drive on left.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude F 35 • 2$ 35 64 Longitude 82 • 26 05 .,
Design Current
:Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
''
C Dairy
300 295
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
❑ -Dairy
❑ Barrow to Wean
E] Farrow to Feeder
10 Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity"
300
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
420,000
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons
Eanittftia,Prtindv!'Celi►I`Tr w
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 matt -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 Ilow in gal/min?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system' (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ® Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection &'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 SMICtllre 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ..... Slucry..FDnd..................................................
...................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 60
12112103 Continued

(Facility Number:_ 11-6 Date of Inspection 10/8/2004
1
5. Are there any immediate threats to the i*ty
of any of the structures observed? (ie/ treeRevere 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
® 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
® Yes
❑ No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc > 30f
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) small grain
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below ❑ Yes ® No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes ® No
Air Quality representative immediately.
wk,.'^'reriS',."i,�.+Fdy.;'a"`. ,+ .a{M�;^t7:£'dtz1':iT'L@'��.'�°:i'?S,�i k'r'rfS�3Ns:.�•tla»e y.,f, r..,..
Comments,(refer to,.questionio).� 1E f lain any YES answers and/org�any+recommendations or'any4 ntlier commentsi
3'8Xfci ^t'61.'.x�r„r ""�• 'kli�`°F.".fAK r.«a� ,kit .+�+ '►-`L§�,w. '`�y.,+Y xi;r .:� $ S.� f t. �J+w.'.:i ..-.1 - ,r
yUse drawings.of foci y to betteriexplain4situatAS.,(us dditlanai pages asEnecessary) ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes a
yrr.' 15� "qR 11 I
.ti:.. �v..,:_,r%:. k�.FF�'�'.,Ia''�'��h.il.
#3 A small amount of run-off was observed in the drainage ditch adjacent to Lower Brush Creek Road. The run-off was apparently a A
result of cows grazing on the pasture area adjacent to the road. The run-off could potentially reach surface waters.
#9 Freeboard was adequate but waste pond storage marker was not in place. Marker had apparently been knocked down when pumping
waste from the pond.
rr:Vax'' � y;i?.R"�L7i.��}Reviewer/Inspector Name Befreic;W'
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ✓ Date: 62 10 Q
12/12/03 Continued

I,aCllity Number. 11.-6 Date of Inspection 1U/8120fi4
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
s •
® No
Required Records & Documents
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes ® No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes ® No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
31.
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes ® No
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes ® No
26. Fait to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes ® No
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
❑ Yes ® No
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
❑ No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33.
Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1 ° Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
A'ddii�ongl Comments{and/or DrnwiriC/'s• ��.^yt� ,t:, r" - '"` "` �-, ��� _ S ��7 �� � ,.
12112103
12112103

A r� Michael F. [Insley, Governor
�� W 0 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Unvironment and Natural Resources
�/] r Alan W. Klimek, 11. E. Director
Division of Water Quality
-r Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
Asheville Regional Office
WATER QUALITY SECTION
December 17, 2003
Mr. Tony Nesbitt
T & C Dairy
Post Office Box 936
Fletcher, North Carolina 28732
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
T & C Dairy
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
On December 16, 2003, 1 conducted a Routine Compliance Inspection of the animal waste
handling system for T & C Dairy. The inspection showed that the farm was in compliance with
regulations being administered by this Agency; 15A North Carolina Administrative Code 2H .0200.
Your facilities were well maintained and operated. A copy of the report is attached for your records.
If you should have questions regarding this inspection or other water quality issues, please
contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Larry, rost
Environmental Chemist
Enclosure
xc: Gary Higgins
Davis Ferguson
S
59 Woodfin Place Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone] Customer Service 1-877.623-6748

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operatlon Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ [denied Access
Facility Number 1l 6 Date of Visit: 12/tb/20113 '1'inle; 13110
O Not Operational O Below 'Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified E3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ..................
FarmNantes:I.A.C.1hiry...................................................................................................... County: H ulamttft........................................ AR ............
Owner Name: .GQXt;lr.t�ti.(.�tt1uY.).............. ![e kjift......................................................., Phone No:lI-k2%............
.....
]Mailing Address: P.Q.t3.u93.fi............................................................................................E19191mr..AC.......................................................... U7.32..............
Vacifity Contact.:..............................................................................'Title:...................
..
Phone No:
OnsitcRepresentative:
............................................................... ...............................
I............ integrator.......................................................................................
Certified Operator:.Qrju:gt».f1 ............................... NR.Ofill..............................................
Operator Certification Number:2,13,51 .............................
Location of Farm:
36 Lower Brush Creek Rd, Fletcher. 4 miles SW of Fairview, 6 miles east of Fletcher,
turn at Oak Baptist Church on to
Lover Brush Creek Rd.
Go to dirt Rd 4th drive on left.
t
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry
® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 '
28 35
Longitude 82 • 26 O5 «
design Gitrrent�` ` >
Design Current
Design Gut'rent
Swille
Cit acltv.. Pe'ulatinn ;pl'aufiry
Ea ttcit : Po 'uli;tion.
Cattle :,C "cit Pd5ulbtltin4
❑ Wean to Feeder
l' er
a
® Dairy 300 300
❑Feeder
Ex' E[]Non-Layer
❑Non -Dairy'
to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Totil Desigii,"Gapacif}% 'C
TotalNSj
300 It
Dlseltarees & Stream Instincts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
e. II'discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'? Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than fiom a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard flus storm storage) less than adetluatc? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Slrncture 3 Structure 4 Slruelure 5 Structure 6
idcttli 1 ler: ....,....pund.1l.1 .............................................
Freeboard (inches): 60
05103101 Conthated

Facility Number: ] 1-6 Date of Inspection 12116/2QQ3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
lVaste Apolication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload [
12. Crop type [rescue (Graze) Fescue (Hay) Corn (Silage & Grain)
r
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No .
❑ Yes
® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reuuired 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?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ® No
® No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
facility appears to be well maintained and operated. Record keeping is adaquate.
Reviewer/Inspector Name ,L
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
--.7
❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
Date:
05/03/01 / Continued

155 Hilliard Avenue, Suite 204
Asheville, NC 28801
August 25, 2003
Mr. Tony Nesbitt
T&CDairy
P. Q. Box 936
Fletcher, NC 28732
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
BUNCOMBE COUN"I
SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
I enjoyed meeting with you on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 and doing your operation review. There
are no problems with the stability of your waste storage structures and no discharges were observed.
You are doing a good job with the maintenance of the system. I noted on the review form that you
currently have 296 head on the lot. The non -discharge rule requires that waste be sampled and
analyzed for its nutrient content within 60 days of application. Please be sure to take a sample and
have it analyzed when you land apply waste the next time. The analysis can then be used to calculate
the plant available nitrogen or PAN in the next crop cycle. We can supply the forms for record
keeping if you need them. I will call you to set up an appointment to work on the revisions to your
waste utilization plan. We will add any fields that need to be added at that time. We will try to set the
elevation for the maximum waste storage level at that time also.
I have enclosed a copy of the review for your records. If you need assistance of any kind, please give
me a tali. Again, thank you for meeting with me on Wednesday.
Sincerely,
4_4n 4 l
AF
Gary Higgins, irector
Buncombe SWCD
Cc: Larry Frost
DENR, Division of Water Quality
Rock Durham
DENR, Division of Soil and Water Conservation

1 T
eehnieal Assistance Site Visit R
O Division of Soil and Water ConservatioTl"
Q Natural Resources Conservation Service
O'Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number ©- Date: Time: Time On f=arm:
Farm Name �� [� County.t, Phone:5��—�
Mailing Address ���}( Gam(, r I c.: , i^ %
Onsite� ! ,
RepresentativeyEti IV�� 5 ,ii Integrator
Type Of Visit
P -Operation Review
❑ Compliance inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry attle ❑ Horse
Purpose Of Visit
outine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWCISWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producerlintegrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Ca acit Po ulation
❑ Wean to f=eeder
❑ Feeder to f=inish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
hairy C
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands?
❑ yes 2 no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
❑ yes ER"n"o
surface waters or wetlands?
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
hairy C
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands?
❑ yes 2 no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
❑ yes ER"n"o
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
❑ yes Vno
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
❑ yes Cha
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment
❑ yes D -r10
and/or public health?
Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure?
[R/no
[:1 yes ono
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Identifier � o
Levet (Inches)
CROP TYPES6-
SPRAYFIELD -� y /
SOILTYPES-.17Il 71- Ail-,
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
A"
03/10/03

IJ
Facility Number �1 - Date:
PARAMETER
0 No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
C] 9. Waste spit! contained on site
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
tL�'
❑
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
Waste Plan Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26, Conditional
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
[115. Over application < 10% or < W lbs.
30, 21-1.0200 re -certification
[116. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
31. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. ient irrigation records
e issing waste analysis
32. Organ lzelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. a elmissing lagoon level records
33. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
34. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
35. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
36. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
[123. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
37. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
38. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
[�
❑
39. Marker chock/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
40. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
41. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
[]Referred to NCDA Date:
El Other...
42. Irrigation system design/installation
❑
❑
Date:
43. Secure irrigation Information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
44. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
45. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
46. Evaluate WAD certificationlrechecks
❑
❑
47. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
2
48. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
49. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
50. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
1:1❑
❑
3
51. Buffer Improvements
❑
❑
52. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
53. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
54. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5.
55. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
56. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6
57. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
58. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

\j
9 0
Facility Number 4 - E� Date:
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST � f
SIGNATURE
Date Entered;
Entered By:
3 03/10103

t
0 0
O nivlsian of Water Quality, �L' w
O vision of 5011 aqd' Water Con ervation
Wb
her Agency d7 ts��1ki i p 4tr1't
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection QOperation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason far Visit (t�outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
slate vt Visit: l�'� •T ' ��-• 'l'imc: I � � �
Facillt�• Number
-10 not O nerational Belotiv Threshold
Permitted [] Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm dame: r L �CL.�l'(( _ Countv: Z.ILUC "D`Yvf.�d-e-
Owner Name: x' Phone No: 8,;Ls~ &xfy M(5 -c.
Aladin(; Address: __ 2 () x e-
/ C
Facility Contact: J 4' � /K^ Title: �,�w.-Ir(C Phone
Onsite Representative:�•ata/+iAL275ip y u ifs w Integrator: r
sr
Certified Operator: de_U c+ /YLI
er"J" operator Certification Number: 021315
Location of Farm:
Cl Swino ❑ Poultry 06attle ❑ Horse Latitude [�' ®" Longitude 0
Design Current
swine Capacity Population
El Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ FarroAr to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Ca aeity Population Cattle Ca aelty Population
❑ Laver I I 215 -airy 0 'p I L2 q0
JEJ Non -Laver I ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity ;fid 0
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 S rav Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps FETNo Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Im acts
Is any discharge observed from any pan of the operation? ❑ }'es D No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Strrav Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is obsen-ed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ)
[:))'es ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon systent" (lf yes. notify I NVQ? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'' ❑ yes ONO
Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ yes LYJ No
asle Colleetion & "treatment
t. Is storage capacivti (Freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes VNo
Structure ,1 Structure ? Structure ; Structure 4 Structure Structure G
Identifier: [�
Freeboard (inches): 7 tI
05103/(11 Continued

•
0
iilily Number: t{f -- � tl,,tc lit' 111"11 -clioll
lrc Ihe['c sttuclures on -sic which :n'e nol prnpCrly add[•essed MILL/Or nla[ra"C(I du•ou�rlh a waste nlallagCnlCnt or
clt,surc plan*?
f If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify D%VQ)
Cir, any oi' Iltc structures aced Ila ill lenaacehIliprovefilen t?
i)ocs :Illy part of the +v,lstc lML1lagcrllcllt system other than waste su-uctures require maintenance/ialprovcmcnt'
I ka any stuctures lack xlequatc. +auged mark(l's Will) rc(11.111'Cd m,1.611unl and minimum liquid level
OCV;111011 markings'.'
loo A1lpli alioll
Ale thele any buffers 111:)[ need nusintcnancc/ilnprnvcrncnl:'
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ 13xcessive I'+,nding ❑ PAN
7�
❑ Yes
Vn
❑ Yes
@14fo
❑ Yeti
P -No
P-Ycs
❑ No
❑ Ycs
P Ntl
❑ Yes
0 -No
(-'rol) type
Do II1c rceciving grill,; clil•fcr with those in the Ccrlil•icd Animal Was -le i'.'l.ula IC111cm Plan 1CAWMPI?
a) Does the facility lack aulequaue acrea,c l'or bind application:'
h) Does the tacility 11CCd a wcu;lhlc acre determinatit)n:'
�:) This facility is pendcti I'ni a wenashle acro cicti rnlin,uinn?
Does the receiving Ctl)I, tICCII ilT)I)l"OYCIIIC[lt?
Is there a lack of adc(Itulte waste application equipment?
quired Records & Documents
Fnil to have CCI.11lICa[C Ill• Cnver-l-lc & Gcner:li Pcrnlit I-CuLdily av�silablc'?
Docs the facitily fail 10 have al: con)l.c,nents of the Certified Animal Waste Managemenl flan readily availnhlc'?
Sic! WUP, checklists, design, maps. etc.)
Dines record keeping need impl-oven)ent? 60 irrigation, frechoard. Waste analysis & soil sample reports)
Is facility fall in con)ph"llicc with ;illy applicnble setback criteria ill of ect at Il)e tinge of design?
Did the facility fail to
have a actively certified operator in charge'
fail to notify regional DWQ ofen)ergency si(uatiotls as re(luirecl by General Permil?
fie/ discharge, freeboard problerns, over application)
I )id keviewerllnspector fail to discuss rcvicwhnspectilm with on -silt representative?
Does facility r'c(Irlir'c :t fallow -up visit by san)c aWeIICV?
Wore ally addition;d prohlcnls noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMI")
;Vii yit►I tfioris;�ti ¢rrf�icil�nci s•%tern;n4t;eil-din irig 111is;visit.' y0jl Wilj-reaoiveIlei futthel•; ---
cnrres�o»dcncc al»it.tt: this .vl5tt..
nln)ents (refer to question ti): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
W drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
❑ `t'cs 2*i o
❑ Yes 2'No
❑ Yes [i No
❑ Yes 2-k,
❑ Yes 2N n
❑ Yes ^o
❑ Ycs allo
❑ Yes G2 "O
IL; `Yes ❑ No
0 Yes [k<o
❑ Yes P"NO
❑ Yes [ ?,No
❑ Yes Mfo
n I L ll I�s� sir
",fk

"acility Ntimher;
dor Issues
Does the discharge pipe from the conl'inement building to the storage pond or lagoon fad to discharge atlor below ❑ Yes 0'Rc)
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
�. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours! ❑ Yes O -NO
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (ix. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt• ❑ Yes 2 No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
i.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface ol' the lagoon? ❑ Yes 2NO
t. Were nny major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shuncrs, ctc.) ❑ Yes []-No
I . Do the animals feed storage hins fail to have appropriate cover'? ❑ Yes E�.mo
'. Ido the flush links lack a submerged fill pipe or it permruient/ternporary cover'? ❑ Yes M Ado

,.. servation
IviongufSYll and Water Conservation
O.vthe 'A' enc
Type of Visit J3 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date or Visit: OZ lime;
ro Not O wralional Q I1elow'1'hreshold
j Permitted 0 Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold :.........................
Farm Name: .....,.C.: ...... .R................................................................ County:....... .��.�+t.� ...... ......................
,
Owner f> ........................ P8Z
:.. ....r ................. lione No:
............................................. ....... ..
Mail{ng Address:.. '.�. ....:�1�....... ...... .>!': ...... i ....v ......� w .......................... ..........................
Facility Contact: .,l...r .........."!:�................. Hite:.. , tFr ..................... Phone
Onsite Representative:.,:..�(.�%!��A ...,f.! ���� r,T.................................... tntegrator:......... 4A .........................................................
Certified Operator:...�,p2.�,,,,,, �, -> ,r.r ..... operator Ccrtiticntion Number ...............
Locsition u1' Farm: /
6 jr P -L ..O V ,T.0e0 APD Aj]
r,+✓ r% .!
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • �� ��� Longitude �• �� ���
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
-'Swine capacity Population.
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Ca'vacity Population
❑ Wenn to Feeder
❑ Layer
Dairy
-T&V' .. .
CI Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ harrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ harrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
319•x]
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
p Bi9—f�
Number of Lagoons [,-it,,/,�'4
Holding bonds / Sblid 7'rttps
Subsurface trains Present JJ0 Lagoon Area J❑ Spray Field Area
No Liquid Waste Management System
I)Mliarees S: Stream Jltnyaets
1, Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? []Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. It'discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State". (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection K Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'! ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
tructury I Structure. 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure G
Identifier: ...........................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches):
05/03/01 Contlytired

Facility Number: T777 Date of Inspection .. _ 0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the mtegrtty 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'?
S. 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? A10,yg ,ly
Waste Annlll'atiOn
14. Are there any<buffers.that-need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
❑ Yes ❑ No
[]'Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
,Yes ❑ Na
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
(� c /I.C�J/ /�► F s ryZ //oN Tom* 100 6 e
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
jor
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvenieiit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Required Records & Documents '
17. Fait have Certificate Coverage & General Permit Permit ❑ Yes
to of or other readily available? OV .4
AjNo
1$.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20.
is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
25. Were any additional problems -noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #}:. Explain any YE§ answers andlbr any recvmmeniiations or, any other comments -
Ilse drawin sof facili to better.ez lain situations use additnonul wa es as hecessar •.; ---"--
Copy �.._
g _tJ . F n ( s ..,. p Me y}. tl ❑ Field Cop ClFinal Notes
(� c /I.C�J/ /�► F s ryZ //oN Tom* 100 6 e
—
jor
Reviewer/Inspector Name
ReviewertInspector Signature: Date:
05/03/01 Continued

Stf'te of'North Carolina `
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. (toss, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Mr. Tony Nesbitt
T & C Dairy
Post Office Box 936
Fletcher, North Carolina 28732
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
z
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT ANo NAruRAL RESOURCES
WATER QUALITY SECTION
November 7, 2002
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
T & C Dairy
Buncombe County
On November 7, 2002, 1 conducted a Routine Compliance Inspection of the animal waste
handling system for T & C Dairy. The inspection showed that the farm was in compliance with
regulations being administered by this Agency; 15A North Carolina Administrative Code 2H
.0200. Your facilities were well maintained and operated. The gauge marker for your holding
pond is missing and should be replaced immediately. Once the marker is replaced you should
monitor the level of your pond weekly and record the results for your records. Your annual soil
sampling has not been completed for 2002, you should immediately complete this sampling. A
copy of the report is attached for your records.
If you should have questions regarding this inspection or other water quality issues, please
contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
L ry Frost
Environmental Chemist
Enclosure
xc: Gary Higgins
Davis Ferguson
Asheville Regional Office, 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50°/u Recycledll 10% Post Consumer Paper

Facility Number t t 6 "We of visit: 1117/2t10Z Time: t)90t}
O Not Opera tid nal O Below Threshold
® Permitted 0 Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above'I'lireshold: ..............
Farm Name: 1AG.1?Alt•X................................................ ................. County: IjjmRrtpxuRte........................................ ARQ............
Owner ,Name: Gquxge..A............................... 1. gND.111........................................................ Phone No: (. 2. ].fi r.2&5e�..ct[. (�2 )..G -�� G.................
MailingAddress: P.Q.1ux.9.3.6............................................................................................ E1Adgr..K.......................................................... 2.02 ..............
Facility Contact: Gairge.A..Nabitx........................................ .Title:.AW:Iler.................................................. Phone No: 828.618,2852 ........................
OnsiteRepresentative: .................................................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:.GaRgrge.A .............................. NObitt............................ .................. Operator Certification Number: 113.5,5 .............................
Location of Farm: _
36 Lower Brush Creek Rd, Fletcher. 4 miles SW of Fairview, 6 miles east of Fletcher, turn at Oak Baptist Church on to
Lower Brush Creek Rd. Go to dirt Rd 4th drive on left. .►
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 " FT871 35 u Longitude 82 • 26 05 L,
-Design `Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current . Design Current
Poultry Capacity: Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer 9 Dairy 300 296
1[:] Non -Layer �,[] Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design, Capacity.. 300
Discharges & Stream Ln. ttaucts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ® No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
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?
❑ Yes ® No
NIA
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway [:]Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ..........pard.1...........................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): X96
05/03101 Continued

Facility Number: 11-6 Date of inspection 1 11/7/2002 +
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment'?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe eros on,
❑ Yes
® No
seepage, etc.)
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
closure plan?
C-1 Yes
®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
❑ Yes
®No
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
Cl 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
❑ Yes
® No
elevation markings'?
® Yes
❑ No
Waste Application
(ie/ discharge; freeboard problems, over application)
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11. Is there evidence of over application'? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
®No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Graze) Fescue (Flay)
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
®No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment'?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
�-
t7.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
®No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
ReviewerAns ector " A w.m
Name NIN51't
P 4 s ON
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
®No
19,
Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
®No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge; freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
®No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
®No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
®No
® No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
m+ -- 9L'"'�•;�i.�+r'._Sit 'y3PaF41F'r�
otnl�lents,(i to tp q es tont#) lixplttlrf any Y S, answers and/or any Wommendit inns nr a _©that comments .:...
�
_. !'+$r,"a''aa;eik Z�;?i1G"E:11—
=ilse dra Ings°oifaclllyto betters aiplalnsi uatsons (use addsttunalpages as necessar;.y): E] Field Copy Final Notes
�-
Guage marker for the pond needs to be replaced and weekly levels monitored and recorded.
Soil sampling for 2002 has not been done.
Record keeping needs to be improved.
ReviewerAns ector " A w.m
Name NIN51't
P 4 s ON
i 01
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: / p Z
05103101 Continued

- i =
ivision or Water Quality&� i r
• < ivision of Snit and Water Conservation
yzjtk r;.l l
Other A enc z c•_ t
w3o DEC 1 g 2001
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
/; r •'il i_G f}rSFjEJ.C�OFFTZ.!
ceReason for Visit Routine O Complaint Q Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Otter ❑'Dneds
s
�•, _ _ _.ility urn111 :1 • i r' \ isil: 1 ' Time: chi G
hacilit,y Number t
0 Not O rcrational 0 Relow''l'hreshold
Permitted 0 Certified ❑ Conditionally Cerlilied ❑ Registered Date L.a.st Operated or Above Threshold: ....................
harm Name: ....' County: .,1.i.il!1C..ca,k.4JE�. ........................�..�.
1'hunc Nu: /C�sia
Owner Nanre:.:,1CUI1t.1...... .............��..... ..£'n5.511:. ................................
// r2lY. iF�c }. r.......:."..........."....�..........................
llailinl; Address:.,. U....0— P&........ i4: ........... .F�..1 .t�1,...I................ V.C... ..........................
facility Contin: ..,L.l. .i ..r... .t..L.1..5•�f.1.. wSr'..4ff' 'l'itlr:.. !,'f.�Sr�� r ................................ Phunc Irl: ?�LL6 :s..�......
Onsite Representativc:.�'.,e—QC,c1�..�..4.��u./��u��SG/`Ir.. Integrator.... :f!/ff..................................................................
Cerlilied Operator:... '. ..( .,.:......�f1�.../j.e:��!.�............................. Operator (:crtilis:rtiun 1umt�cr:. S
......................
Location or harm:
"7f� r'v-t-" 4)1WV, 61d v EZI
f
T
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry 9Cattle ❑ Worse Latitude 10.5- 1* I _aX I' I .7 �•1 Longitude 19 ;;l— • 1 1&1 • 1 v5 "
Design Current
Swine C'annrilty Pnnnintinn
❑ Wean to Fecdcr
❑ Fecderto Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow io Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ LaycrFff Dairy
❑ Nan-Laycr ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW 00 0 (6.
Number or Lagoons I� ❑ Subsm-race Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Arca ❑ Spray I irld Arra
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps t�1, 1 ❑ No hquid Waste iManagentcnl Syslem
Diti'cltar ocs & titr•cant Impact
1. Is any discharge oh,r'ervcd from any start ol'the olm-ation" ❑ Ycs 'J�(No
I)iscttarL.'c originolCd at: ❑ Lagrrott ❑ Spray Ficld ❑ O[IICI'
N. I1 diSClial'LC IS OhNCrVC& Wtu IIIc C0 IIVC%'.uICC Hart -:flack:' ❑ Yes ❑ NO
h. ll disc3ttrrcc is did it rr:arh W1 llrr411'thc slatc? (11,yCs., nald'y I)WQ) ❑Ycs ❑ No
C. 11,ditirharoe is 111'sel-vCd. what k the csliirl:llc:l I'low ill �aUnfill?
d. diSdINI1'u h\•I)a.. a laLia}n sv.-tem" (I I nulik. I M,Qt ❑ Ycs ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of hast discharge ITann any (out ol'thc operalionl"•' ❑ Yes Nr�
3. Were there any adverse impacts nr Itulcn[ial adrCru irttitac[s to the li' IICIS Of lhC State Other than frOttt a LUSCllargO ❑ Yes kNO
W,astc C:ullection & Trealrrrenl
4. Is storage Capacity (frcChrru(d illus stnrrtt strlra"Cl Icss titan udrdlilt c'! ❑ spillway ❑ Yes, INO
ftitro:aurc tilru�'lurC ' S[Ilicturc .......NiltU
,ICL�...:...... ilruClUr� tirrliCILIN h /
ILIUMrl IC:' .............................
Frecharlyd [inchrs):
--
0.5/0,1/01
000111irr [it'll

Fucility�lusnl)er: 6/ --(r, Date ufluNI)CClion
5., Are thea any immediate Ihrcats to tlic integrity otally of the structures obsct'vedY (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑tires No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures nn -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan' ❑ Yes A No
(If anp ol't;ueslions 4-6 was answered yes, sand the situation poses an
insrrsediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Dir any ol'the structures need nsaintenance/iinprovclie tit'? ❑ Yes XNu
8. Docs any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require imainlenance/improvement'? ❑ Yes J�YNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with requirednaxintur and minimum liquid level
elevation markings' Yes ❑ No
Waste Applicatiuis
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/i in prove tit ell C! ❑ Yes ❑ No
11. Is there evidence tlf over application'? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ❑ No
12. Crop type 0-4,1 V_ c l
cu -
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the C •rtificd Animal Waste Management flan (CAWMP)'? ❑ Yes XNo
14. it) Does the facility lack Ldetlunte acreage for land application' ❑ Yes XVo
h) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination' ❑ Yeti �fNo
O This facility is peildetl for it wellablC acre dclvi'Ininaliiin! ❑ Yes ,2�No
15. Does the receiving crop need intpruvenlenl? ❑ Yes [�o
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application cquiprtlent'! ❑ Yes A No
Itenuired Records &- Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Pcrinit m, other Permit readily available'?
j 'es
❑ No
'18,
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Ceoil'icil Animal Waste Management plan readily available'
(ic/ WUP, checklists. design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
Nu
19,
Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ irrigation, frechoard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
Ary cs
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicahle setback criteria in cflcct at the time ol'design'?
❑ Yeti
gNo
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge'!
❑ Yes
kNo
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit'!
(ICI discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
NO
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss I-eview/inspection with on-site representative'?
❑ Yes
&No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency"
OYcs
❑ No
j25. Were any additional problems noted Which cause noncormpliancc ofthe Certified AWMP' C3 Yes {� No
IQ NU violations lir defic'ie'ncies Were noted (luring this visit. YOU will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question If): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
�
A/c,
'' A .� s't d fL�.►sv�-*'"� kJ!/ rt-�l� �.ys rl
RcviewerlInspector Name
}reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: /,a_� iv'_61
05M.i!01 .1 C milintlo'd

.. Facility Number: r e of Inspection V 0 Printed on.. 514!2001
Odor Issues
26,
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building, to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
RNo
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours'?
❑Yes
gNo
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application`? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
JKNo
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
J� 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
JtrNo
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
QNo
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a pernianent/temporary cover'?
❑ Yes
EJ No
Additional ommen s and/orDrawings:
05103101
05103101

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
N ichael F. Lusby, (:�overuur
WATER QUALITY SECTION
September 21, 2001
Mr. Tony Nesbitt
T & C Dairy
P.O. Box 936
Fletcher, North Carolina 28732
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
William G. RUSE, .1t'.• Secretary
Ore-ory ). Thotpe. 1'11..1_),
Acitu-, Director
Division Quality
Subject: NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY
Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
T & C Dairy - #11-6
Buncombe County
The compliance inspection that I conducted September 20, 2001, of T&C
Dairy's animal waste management system again showed deficiencies with
operating requirements contained in the General Permit for Cattle Waste
Operation. Certificate of Coverage AWC11.0006 for this General Permit was
issued to you on June 2, 2000.
The deficiencies outlined by order of their reference in the
inspection report were (I) lack of a liquid level marker in the holding
pond and (2) non-current waste analyses (within 60 days of waste
application) and incomplete records of the Plant Available Nitrogen (PAN)
per crop/field (SLUR -2 form). Additionally, the permit requires that
freeboard level in the holding pond be formally monitored at least weekly
with records maintained on site.
Asheville Regiunal Office, 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Phone: [phone] Pax: 828/251-6452
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Reeycledll 10% Post Consumer Paper

n
�J
Page 2
September 21, 2001
Mr. Nesbitt
A copy of the inspection report is attached for your review together
with a supply of SLUR -2 forms for calculating the nitrogen balance for
each crop/field (PAN). Please make the necessary corrections to address.
these deficiencies as soon as possible. Should you wish to discuss this
matter in more detail or wish additional assistance, do not hesitate to
contact me; telephone [phone].
Sin ely,
4
x L. Haner
Environmental Chemist
xc: Gary Higgins of
Davis Ferguson
Asheville Regional Office, 59 Woodiin Place, Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycle&& 10% Post Consumer Paper

Type of Visit *Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit' O Routine O Complaint O Follow up 'O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ 1)enied1Accdss �'•r .
y Facility Number 11 6 Date of Visit: 9/24/2041 Time: 4900 Prtnted on. 9/20/2001
=Not erational O Below Threshold W
® Permitted M Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .......................
FarmName: I&C.0nia........ ................. ........ ...................... .......................................... County: Mla>xG9jnhgL .......................... ___ ...... ,°. R ............
Owner Name: dmba..&....... ».»..... Nesbitt ......... .............................................. Phone No: (�Z�].hZB:2852. ax.�>�2>�}..�28-I�S(t....... _.....
MailingAddress: `Q.II Q��. ........ ...... ................................. ....... .......... ..... ..MC. .............. ........... ........................ 2$7.3.2............
.Facility Contact: !~a�slxP�. �`��t�X''.lYe�b�ltt............. .......... Title: Leas.=......, ..... .......... —......... ............. Phone No: 8,18.4.2x:.1.25(. ............. _.......
OnsiteRepresentative:.._..._............................._......_.....................................................•-•- Integrator: .......... ..................... .............................................
Certified Operator:.GBarge................................... Nisbit1........ ........ - ............ ................. Operator Certification Number -2,13155 .............................
Location of Farm:
436 Lower Brush Creek Rd, Fletcher. 4 miles SW of Fairview, 6 miles east of Fletcher, turn at Oak Baptist Church on to
,Lower Brush Creek Rd. Go to dirt Rd 4th drive on left. Y
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ' 28 L 35 44 .Longitude 82 • 26 & QS
i ; ` Design. Citr%e�t D�sigu;
�.viuiue �a Capacity:.Popttl#tion Poultry .:Cpacfj
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Other
a. =
'Gu4ent
IN Dairy I 300 I 300 f
``T-061-1,;LW
300
420,000
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon systern? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse irupacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collmdon & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ....1w1diiW4=d....... ...... ................. _....... .............. ....»........... ......... ........ ........... ........ ........ _.»........... ...................................
Freeboard (inches): 60

Facility Number: 11-6 • Date of Inspection 9/20/2001 .•inted on: 9/20/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Apullcation
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Com (Silage & Grain)
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reuuired 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 Pian 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 ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
�] No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no furtber correspondence about this visit.
{t~rtquesh Expl=ain ariy YE,:�n w�ers:altt_ i�ecomr�i��endation ar�ariohe�}.f�[ .o�tritm.�ents.
�
Why W�INAp� M.F'�i
se dra sings d fazilit' to�b t eraex Iain;s_ituatiiins.-{use additional "Mages as necessaty): ❑Field Copy ❑Final Notes
# 9 - freeboard adequate - no marker observed -
AL
#17- Certificate of Coverage and General Permit not present with other waste mgmt records
#19- Freeboard records not being maintained in accordance with permit
Records of waste application (SLUR -1) OK, SLUR -2 for PAN calculations not completed due to lack of current waste analysis
Farmer missed 60 day window - sample recently mailed for analysis. Results of soil analysis OK
Reviewer/Inspector Name Ma'x:flaner,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103/01 y Continued

Fartlity Number: 11-6 of Inspection 1 9/20/2001 Printed on: 9/20/2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ® Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drill 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 bladc(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
t nttlt ntntficictgm6dion0rawifigil: i M. a l UP��. PW
026 - Farm is in rural community - farmer will install pipe extension when needed.
05/03/01

e �*.� k.; x y� �`S.;y:-.1». .�..';t°:`:i„�.�y}..;,:....r-� N•. t�: t' k r �. ! .,zj "' �s {,r ji�.;.r .s����:F'^•e:„e .se'•+�,ar� �Y i
iivisian t�teQuality
*ofWr
ivision of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Oth6r Agency„
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Ca -goon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number E)a!e of �'irit: iiui r 1'r•inted on: 7/21/2000
Q Not 0 �erationol Q Below Threshold
*Permitted v_,.Cyeerrtitied l© Conditionally Certified 191ltegistered pate Last Operated or Above T hreshold: .............
Farm Name: 1 v �.1.. �. Countv:.. �t�.............................................
...... ....... . G r
Lo
Owner Name:... ..l`•,....iv.A�l�}t ................... Phone Nrr:...,.ze..,(ka........... ..rl.. x.: ....................•
... ..... r.`..,.,.....``............................................... ....
Ph
Facility Contact: ..... ........, 1'itle........................................................... one No:
FlailingAddress: ........�....�....!......x` ... .. ..... f �.�.�................$ 7.3 ..........................
Onsite. Representative ..................•.................................•..........•....... Integrator: ............................................. .........................................
Certified Operator._ ... . ............................................ ............................................................. Operator Certification Number: .........................................
..
Location of Farm:
"W;
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 ` " Longitude ' � �«
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer Dairy QO z
❑ Fceder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer Non Dairy
❑ barrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish 'Total Design Capacity
❑ Gills
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons JEJ Subsurface Drains Present I ❑ Lag"„n Areu ILI 5prrry Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps FO—No Liquid Waste ,Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ YesNo
Discharge originated at: [3Lagoon ElSpray Field E]Other
a. Udischarge is ohservcd, was the conveyance man-made" ❑ Yes [-]No
h. If discharge is ohservcd, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, nosily DWQ)
[3 Yes ❑ No
c. li' discharge. is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/thin''
d. Dries discharge bypass a lagoon system" (Ifycs, notify DWQ) ❑ Ycs ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes a
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge`! ❑ Yes ; o
Waste Collection R 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
SLRuIcturc I StruCrurc 2 SU•ucturc 3 Structure 4 Struciurc 5 Structure G
1dcr�ti ficr: ................ ....I..........•...................................................................................................................................................
+<r ...............................
Frechoul'd (inches):
5/00 Continued on back

�s•�.Ts+s'�rc»...,,,w,^�,��t�R�,F-�te'-n<�#r�,W,ry ....,.��„�--.3r---•,_, �.��..� ......- _ ..... ,.. ■ •--- - - a.. .. .. r. ;s17
Facility Number: AfInspection
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes z�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? 1 -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?• Oyes ❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ' No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes o
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differtwith 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? (___hWjdZX a,
Required Records & Documentss 'aa6J&
17.• Pail 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) I$.
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
I• 'f'!1R.Yt4tp�toos.olr• 00ricknOos •ivre Mored• 00669 Ois•visit; • :Y;o 'Vi rye 4o fu!'th$t'. .
corres orideh& ab6uf this :visit:
E
ne dr$wwrt,,m.�. y �•p..e��Lw �a�ax�r�snr�+�� � �'�'
fav l�, p� { - Coo Ov. OX- , -- L �,� l f, ,,
7 'a bfa,,-r Orr &&� (
4f y- OY-G_04ke" XVT Drq
❑ Yes (dNo
❑ YesNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 00
❑ Yes 9'No
❑ Yes �(No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes \VNo
❑ Yes Ro
❑ Yes //` I
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ' o
❑ Yes No
Reviewer/Inspector Name 4ft . R "' !°
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: lel j j 1 L Date: /712ccel

Facility Number: / � s ; 1)* inspection s Printed on: 7/21/2000
Odor Issues !I
26. Does the discharge pipe from thc.t:onfinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge w/or helow fes ❑ No
F%
Additional ommen an or Drawings:
liquid leve, of lagoon or storage pond wtth no agttation.
A6
PAW
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
1?kNo
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, a ha�li
❑ Yes
❑ No
roads, building structure, and/or public property) N 1/
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
14
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Additional ommen an or Drawings:
4� �r
A6
PAW
5/00

NORT&ROLINA D ARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
D1vissoN OF WATER QUALITY
ASHEVILLe REGIONAL OFFICE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
December 20, 1999
Mr. Tony Nesbitt
T & C Dairy
P.O. Box 936.
Fletcher, North Carolina 28732
subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
T & C Dairy - #1.1-6
Buncombe County
Dear mr. Nesbitt:
on December 16, 1999, Y conducted a routine on --site
inspection of animal waste management system for the T & C
Dairy Farm. The inspection showed that the farm operation
generally was in compliance with its certified animal waste
management plan and regulations being administered by this
Agency; 1.5A North Carolina Administrative Code 2H .0200. A
copy of the report is attached for your review.
The report is consistent with the draft inspection
form completed in your presence and left with you following
the inspection. Comments and recommendations are entered on
ppae 2 of the report. Hopefully the level marker in the
ho7din� basin can be repaired without difficulty.
Regarding question #19, pplease develop a routine of
completing the field ap lication records and providing
appropriate nitrogen ba ance calculations.
Thanks very much for your cooperation during this
inspection. Do not hesitate to contact me at 251-6208 if
you wish to discuss this report in more detail.
Si rely,
L.4 . Han r
Environmental Chemist
xc : Gary Higgins
Davis Ferguson
Forrest Westall
INTERCHANGE BUtLOINO, 89 WOOOPIN PLACE, A6HEVILLE, NC 2880 1-24 1 4
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACT10N EMPLOYER - 150% RECYCLEOl10% PORT•CON@UMER PAPER

Q Division n# So
3•"', n rail: �'�i'" 'k^ ,� r�:S' y"�- ;�, �`� t r .
-
�j�a� �
on °#:a
a ren
, ht rAgency,,-.i-'
i Facility Number 11 6Date of Inspection 17116J99
Time of Inspection 1015 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Permitted 0 Certified [3 Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered JCJ Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: I&C.Dala..... ............................................................................................. County: Oummuft....... -..............
_...W.....
Owner Name: dlRllli IL .................................. NtK.9hat........... _.................. ......................... Phone No:1�3� : -2� � -1�2 -1?"�f .....................
Facility Contact: Cx A, ``'Tt11�Y''..N bilk.........._.......... Title: J[,Mlm................ ...... _..-............ Phone No: SuAbud!e.-..........................
MailingAddress. POAA&.936 ................ _..... ............................. ........................................ her -.XC. ... ... ............................................. ... 7A7U .............
Offsite Representative: GoArge.A.`79uy..!Ibicnbitt......_.................................... Integrator :..................... _................. _................ .................
Certified Operatox_:Go ree.A.............................. I�i�.`ibltt.......................................... Operator Certification Number: 2]1355 ... ........................
Location of Farm:
�4.Ltr�et:.0l�b.i�.t:ee�.Rsf..k�etsber,. 4.�pnul�,SlY.stf.��ai�rxia�x.+�.�til�.est.�.Elr���.tuur�q.�alt.!<?su,.O.aA�t.�utur�fi.sto.to.........
..
Latitude 1 35 1 • ®6 35 Longitude 82 a ®9 OS u
Design' Currcut '
Design Cnirrent
Desigq Current '
swineCa ad Po relation
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
capacity..Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
® Dairy
113
250 200
❑ Feeder to Finish
. ❑ Non -Layer
1 Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
250
❑ GiIts
Boars
Total SSLW.
350}000
Number of Lagoons 1
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps C
Area
)disc mss& Stream L paras
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
h, if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) [] Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
AAk Coliggdo l,i Treatmeat
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway [:]Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 1
Freeboard(inches)................7.2%....................................,............................................................................................. ................. ..... ........... ................ ......
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back
a

Facility Number: 11-6 . We Inspection
6. Are there structures on-site which arc not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure pian?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses as
Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
S. 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 Ag tion
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type Rye
r t 1LlCU uu 1 dj&WUU
121I6199
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Pail 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.)
I9. 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?
®:-Nd-*kvWd6ds:oO ddickndes •wane Abted dui'g thio Yiis . ;1tou:vYiik ireeeilve ilio flirt e�
corresoorideitce about this :visit::.... ' .. ' :. ::. :::: :
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
N -Level marker has fallen over in holding pond -needs to -be corrected. �►
117 Permit being processed.
- Forms for application per field and for nitrogen balance calculations are not being completed. Correct forms given to
1� ORC during inspection. Both IRR -1 & IRR -2 and SLUR -1 & SLUR -2 forms may need to be used, depending
upon method of application (reel type spray gun or spreader)
r .i,. H :.;�a-- _ raj . ;
ap: �•i
Reviewer/Inspector Name` 'a�, ''` . `'i �.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

5
Printed on 12120/99
Faculty Number: 11-6 Date of Inspection 1 12/16/99
Did" bim
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ® Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i,e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes IN No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
rc will install pipe extensions when needed - farm in rural community
+
r

a
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection U 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Permitted,2 Certified [3 Conditionally Certified Q Registered 113 Not Operational Date Last Operated: ..........................
Farm Name: ..................... f�.S/ ...... County:.......... lj.
_....................._..................................... .......................
OwnerName: .............. ......:.... ..P1:L Al.4t....................................... _................. Phone No:.......................................................................................
Facility Contact:
Title:
Mailing Address: ..........N,6 %r a.3i �eLeA
Onsite Representative: ,,,,.. p....................................
...
Certified Operator: ............. 6elb..... A ............ ..... .... .
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator: ...................................... . .................. . ..........................
Operator Certification Number:..... , .........,...
Latitude =a=' 011 Longitude =• =' =`•
Design
Current -t' r= iDesl rt Current ' ; `,
Design Current t:
j_.. ,':Capacity
Population. , EoulEiyr;,1 a =, ,FCA'Oat + .Po ulation .':ICattle
Capacity Population,
.: ❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Layer �" ❑Dairy
`'
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer .; ❑ Non Dairy
li
❑ Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder
q ❑Other �eir
k l:
❑ Farrow to Finish
r
:
a gr' si
Tdtat Design Capaci4y
.; ❑ Gilts,
(
''❑Boars
is{o.1�IK�i �.ry� !4.; TUt8I �7ATW
7l
`!"Ijl'�
uw r b oohs .:
❑ g Arm
Spray Arread
>3d g : ps
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
r
2Field
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: []Lagoon ❑ Spray Field []Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'! ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: u1
Freeboard(inches): R....... ........... ......_..._....__............_........ _..... _............... .... .... ._..................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

[Facility Number: Ote of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -Site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
T 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? yV�jj /#�„
Waste Application l (�CJ
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
1.2. Crop type
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? 3 —7 #1Z
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 & DOCnments ��"�""'—���p%17. t=ail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?/ja r'
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, frceboard, 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. t=ail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did RevieweriInspector 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 ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
�Y'es ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Yes ❑ No
/❑_Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Q Yes ❑ No
PLO •viol'pttl¢tis "Ord It do to •*ro 00too Oodog Ns' visit; Yoo *111-tepoto Oaif�ttboc
corres• aTidei>& about this visit.:
•-ur\-+ e T a t + +c � � "� a e . �
ts�ravvl �iL7 YRS l V Wi +iI I�Qliili
�„ -r�vNu ur r r- t •s•
�• � 1LTOL�7 a� ��4�%T �• 1�4 �'
Reviewer/Inspector Name "Il? 5�'a'l"t+l"s
.., .ii' Y 3';1?',s„° • 'lI;
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
3123!99

Xl'ie ! 6. HUNT JR.
GOVCIINOR
Y'. --, ,-r--:ff7.
�f NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF �
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
AsHEVIL.LE REGIONAL. OFFICE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
September 29, 1998
Mr. Tony Nesbitt
T & C Dairy
Q.O. Box 936
Fletcher, North Carolina 28732
Subject: NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY
Compliance Inspection
Animal waste Handling System
T & C Dairy - #11-6
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
On September 22 1998, I conducted a routine on-site
inspection of animal waste handling system for the T & C
Dairy Farm. The inspection indicated that the farm was not
in compliance with regulations being administered by this
Agency; 15A North Carolina Administrative Code 2H .0200.
Specifically, a requirement of the Waste Utilization Plan
is that the manure waste be analyzed within 60 days of
application of the manure. The last application of this
waste was in May, 1998. A copy of the inspection report is
attached for your review.
The report is consistent with the draft inspection
form completed in your presence and left with you following
the inspection. In an effort to assist you in correcting
this sampling deficiency, I recommend that you contact Mr.
Gary Higgins of the Buncombe County Soil & Water
Conservation Service [phone] or Mr. Bill Yarborough
of the NCDA&CS Agronomic Division [phone].
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you
have any questions concerning the Report or any other
related matters, please do not hesitate to contact me at
251-6206.
4'S n rely,
Z���
x Hane
Environmental Chemist
xc: Gary Higgins
Davis Ferguson
Bill Yarborough
Forrest Westall
INT=RCHANOR 9UILo1N0, SP WOOOPIN PLACt, AsNCVILLi, NC 28801 •2414
PMONC 048.281 •6208 FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / A/PIRMATIV[ ACTION EMPLOYRR - 00% ItEcYCLlOIi 0% POST-CONOUMER PAP[R

t: inv,anin u, sun anu yr oxer LonServation - vperanon neview
n Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Compliance Inspection
Division of Water quality - Compliance Inspection
13 Other Agency - Operation Review
o. o. ao. o
' 24 hr. (hh:mm)
n Registered M Certified Q Applied for Permit p Permitted 0 .:.. . .....::.:.
ry.................................................................................................... Buncombe ARO
J9h1l..&ITSKlx)................... MORI ........................................... 828:b2i-2Mr2...........................................................
Ge�ac "T.on " L�iesbelkt p.... y Lessee..............:._.........
828-62&]95.6 .................................................... I
...............•---.......... .. NG............................. .... 0132- ............
Tvny..1~leahlt#...............................................................................
........................... ...................................................
.........
G49rsf .. ................................ ga. tt........................I...........I......... , . U.M11 ...... .......................
A'
1 ♦.
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
5x1 Wean iii l eei3er
aq l.'eyer '
_
.Iiasry
25 Ziiil
[� r�crlo 11mssTi
�'�j Non -Gayer'
�L Non -l1 airy
irD I'inrow la Wean
-------------•- -.-..
i! l arrow r rimer
[�
l j i arrow to f'mi 1
Total Design Capacity
250
r! tiiils
I!_I 1h4
-
Total SSLW
350,000
Number bf Lagoohi / Holding Ponds j'i .Suhqu acerD ain.4 Prete Lngsnon AR� _Sprny 1' eTii Arco
;j`lQn`truiiTWas3c anagcmc`ntS�':iem�-�'--- --��
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? Ycs No
2. 15 any discharge observed from any part of the operation? Yes No
IN:• I,;rrr•: , rh in;,l,,l ;rl Lagoon Spray Field ; Other
a 11 rli . 1, ,r.•. i ..+I•': , t .: [ , ,I.. I[,.: i', u, , :rn. , It,:nl .n,;t11• ..Yes , , No
I. II ,[; #,, r,.. i ..•I, :c r :[..!i'[ it :.::, !, �a:l I:, : =+, 1Ij {;I, [,�,, Yes , . Na
I# .Ij :� [•:u r,• s , „[,-:cr, ,',j, „lI:II j� th'.� � �.3n,r.+3.,•i[ 1 [s•« in I�'I[ ,3rin '
.I I f... iii '�•I,. rt i�,. [„ I..,.....I I'i n.•. ,,I �t �I'•,,," f!! �'i•.: 31. �,j#t j }5! (II
Yes ;No
3. is there evidence of pact discharge from any part of lite operation? I Yes , No
4, Were there Any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? Yes No
5, Does any part of the waslc management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require Yes : No
maintennncermprovemcut?
6. Iv I'acility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? Yes No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? Yes No
7/25/97 Continued on hack

Facility um er: I I_ . W".
0
8. Are tlicrc lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to he properly closed? Yes No
-Strnetnrem tl,ngnnn40MId1nct Ponih, Flush Pita, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (frechoard plus slorm storage) less than adequate? Yes No
................ .t ................. ..... ............................... ......... .......................... ............ ........................ .............. ...................... ............ I.......................
I 1 ..:f I I ............... I..i).............. ................. I... I....................................................................................................................... ............... I...................
10, is seepage observed from any of Ilio structures? Yes No
It. Is erosion. or anv other threats to The integrity of any of the strictures observed? Yea No
12. Do any of the structures need main tenance/impmvement? Yca No
(If any or questions 9-12 wa.s answered yes, and the situation pose+ an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of ilia structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? Yca No
lk�Mgtn Aptilh-Mbin
14. is Marc physical evidence of over application? Yes No
(if in excess of WMP. or runoff entering waters of the Slate. notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ........Corn.(Silog+w.&.Grnin1...............................................................
16. ho the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management flan (AWMI')?
17. Docs the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land Application?
18. flocs the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. hoes facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. hid Rcviewer/inspector rail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
22. Docs record keeping need irnptovemen17
Fur l:eriil led or Perst'04ed Facillticr Unli
23. Does the facility fail to have n copy of ilia Animal WaAc Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems nolcd which cause noncompliance of the Cerlilied AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
n No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further
correspondence about this visit.
Yes Nig
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
VYes No
Yes . No
A'cs No
Ycs ' No
tis�`�It vlrr t illi Iii-tw i>=i tfhtu'Afi ire r itdti r�i a I a yjt
-: .. :1 •:{riy. 's �'1'il1Yr1 'r=1i'rf�.;,ht�tit\Y � •ta,. r..• .•3•m:.. i� ..i' ':'�.!J..:. .j.if'i. ,ry f,: aCij .F ..
21"RITTYPU i -MIT MORD WAS`i`i'APPT.TA'I'IOR-`i glIOW MR Vti :ice ci�Wn��f' Alfii:if=i5'ri ff'1`>� i:t�
AND POUNDS PER ACRE OF: NITROOFN APPi.iEi) PER PIr:1.D. Ilse ppm of spray gun anti litne applied anti resulls of waste
analysis showing plant available nitrogen per 1000 gallons (PAN) to calculate PAN applied and resulting NITRO SEN HALANC1; in
pounds per acre (recommended loading loos PAN applied)
t: MANURE ANALYSIS iIAS NOT BEEN PERFORMED. ANALYSIS Ml1S'r Iii. PERFORMED WITI IiN 60 DAYS OF
PPi.ICATION. ADDITIONALLY. SOIL ANALYSiS MI1S'f 13F; PERFORMED ONCE PER YEAR.
Reviewerlinspector Name
.. Revlewerlinspector Signatu

•
n
U
Example:
Systems April 1997
Irrigation Records using Forms IRR -1 and IRR -2:
•
Joe Pigford maintains a 3,000 head feeder -to -finish operation. His
estimated volume of lagoon liquid generated annually is approximately
2.8 million gallons. He conducted a waste analysis on February 8, 1996
and April 10, 1996. Both analyses showed that the waste contained
2.5 pounds of plant -available nitrogen (PAN) per 1,000 gallons. He
irrigates two crops with wastewater using a traveling gun that applies
300 gpm.
Tract I MS
e
'.,
r"
DOW loon
,�
i
• Tract T1004: corn—traveling gun pulls are considered Fields Ito
4, 6 acres each.
• Tract T1005: Bermuda hay --traveling gun pulls are considered
Fields 5 and 6, which are 8 and 4 acres respectively.
North Carolina State University
EXAMPLE PROMEMS
6-17

Division of Sd Water Conservation 13Other ncy
Division of Wa er Quality
17,
Routine O Complaint '0 Follow -up -Of DAVO Inspection 0 Follow -un of USWC review O Other
Facility Number Date of lnsixction , .2–tr
Time of Inspeulion ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Registered 12 Certified 13 Applied for Permit 13 Permitted 113 Not Opera Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: County:...' L .........................................
.............................. ...............l........,.......,..................................... /..
Owner Name:........J t. .... .....Pd.�e.'�....................................... ........... Phone; 11No:..(�-�?.,�,�r�p�6
!Z ....
10—
Facility Contact: `t �,. .. Title:...... -2. ............................ Phone No.0 . ........
MailingAddress:....rY.f..l..........k..�t 3.`....................................................................... .... .............................. ,.13 ......
Onsite Represent:etive:........./..Il.................................................. Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator;,.(? e �Y.ly l... ... Operator Certification Number;..�13 5 5
/.... .... ..................... .......................
Location of Farm:
Latitude =10='=11 Longitude U�' ®' ®"
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
Wean to Feeder 1 10 Layer 1 10 Dairy 12 S
❑ Feeder to Finish JEI Non -Layer ❑ Nan -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean {.'
Farrow to Feeder I0 Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
Gilts
*l; ❑ Boars Total SSLW
x,F.
Number n� Lagtians l Holding ponds, ❑ SubsurfaceUrtins Present Lagoon Area Spray Field Area
��, ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System R
'e a
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Y.es'IVo
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes INU
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon' ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes - ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in galhnin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes XNo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes o
maintenance/improvement?
& Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time ofdesign?
❑ Yes la
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes ;�40
7125/97
Continued on back

8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed'! C❑3 Yeti Z /N,
Structures (Lagoons.1-igiding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? 0 Yes [I No
St t I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 SLrucaire 5 Structure 6
�7
Identifier'.
................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ...................................
freeboard (ft): .........I...................
Is seepage observed from any of the structures'! dl 0
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any o1 the structures observed? ❑ Yes0
12. Do any of the structures need Yes /IN 0
(If any of questions 9.12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an iminediate public health or environmental threat, notify MVQ)
13, Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level inarkers'! ❑ Yes XNO
Waste ApI)livation
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes /No
(If in excess of WMP. or runoff entering waters of the State. notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ,dam...................... ....... ............. .................................. -- .............. .............................................. ........................................................
16. Do the receiving crops difter with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (A\VMP)'! 0 Yes XN 0
17, Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application" ❑ Yes AINO
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes XN o
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? 0 Yes 0<0
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? 0 Yes
X No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative? 0 Yes C3 No
22, Does record keeping need improvement? �es El NO
LL)r L,ertilliletl ol- Permitted Facilities Qnly
23.- Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available'! ❑ Yes XINO
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? /Yes El No
25, Were any additional problems rioted which cause noncompliance of the Permit? El Yes lNo
No,violations or delideincie's. were' no'ted-du ring this -'visit. Vo'U.W'ill receive no further,
coerespimideke about this.visit: -
0046ni6fits (refer to quotl6nO): !, Explain eery YES answers aind/or any'rccotrunefidatiuns or any oth& Oniftiidti6;
.Use: diiwings of facility to better explainsh6ations. (use additional pages as. neces--ary)-
c.
,� v6fit A4,
(D okr-�� av-�t
k) 6r(
Y4
7/25/97
qF
Reviewer/Inspector Name
ReviewerA nspector Signature:
Date:

State of North Caa
Department of En lronment,
Health and Natural Resources 1
Division of Water Quality
James B, Hunt, Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A, Preston Howard, Jr., P.B., Director E3F_HNF:Z
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
October 09, 1997
Mr. Tony Nesbitt
T & C Dairy
P.O. Box 936
Fletcher, North Carolina 28732
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
T & C Dairy - #11-6
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
On September 25, 1997, I conducted a routine on-site
inspection of animal waste handling system for the T & C Dairy
Farm. The inspection showed that the farm was in compliance with
regulations being administered by this Agency; 15A North Carolina
Administrative Code 2H .0200. A copy of the report is attached
for your review. The report is consistent with the draft
inspection form completed in your presence and left with you
following the inspection.
If you have any questions concerning the Report or any other
related matters, please do not hesitate to contact me at 251-
6208. Don't forget that your facility must have a certified
Animal waste Management Plan by December 31, 1997
Sincerely,
M L. Haner
Environmental Chemist
xc: Gary Higgins
Davis Ferguson
Joe Zimmerman
Wanda Frazier
Max Haner
P.O. Box 29535, AK FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Vf An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative irmative Action Employer
Telephone [phone] STRWADMIeW 5W. recycles/ 10% post -consumer paper

I� '.. .�!.,*.;S ��F?.'st� �.•h �£-a�z!''t•'` a._tY;� ..9:'�i�.P.th.�;�.�.C��' +.:crf?�'-?:.Ss?RKkll ....,�?t-'�c - - '=;-' --. ..i)..,. a. ,�..,�:'i" .--5:,-.�z„ _.. ,.,e=�:s :c. ...._-...r.-_- a.�+-wax`-:
p Division of Soil -A WVater Conservation p
Division of Water Quality
�.
t� .oc:tir.��, C:�,:=np girt � atFv.'-arc nt. {1;nst:�:tiE•tc fd ��t utii�-,�:z+zf .0 i.. a'e�rc':ics4• z i..t. er--
..�----�` 'Jate c,t'.lnspertioc: �j-��- �
Facility Number �� b
Tirtac oFTnapeitiun 0945 24 hr. (hh:mm)
ora tine Iut traction of hours,
Farm Status: liU Registered p Applied for Permit (ex: [.23 for I hr IS min)) Spent on Revie-
Certified p Permitted or Ltspection i;includes travel and processing_)
q Not Uperauona Date Last Operated:
FarmMame:1.&.Cl?.aity..................................................................................................... County: Rujawnmhe ............... ........................ AHC?............
Owner Name: John K
Nesbitt
Phone No: 704-628-2852
Facility Contact: Sr R. ."�9iIY''.lYg�.�l ........._...........Title: �iKa�ee- .............. Phone No: 74a $-�.9 .....................
Moiling Address: 1'4L. 411.9 4..._ ......................... ............................ .. ZEN .... ........
Onsite Representative: X4nv..lYgjbftt...........................................WIntegrator.
..............................
Certified Operator: Sri.fie." 9t1�.'.'.................. NeP.b.ltt.............................................. Operator Certification dumber: . J55..................
Location of Farm:
( titude ©. �28�c3 Longitude ®. ®�
)e of Operation Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to ee er
EEE
❑ ee er to
P nus
❑ 1, arrow to
Wean
p Parrow to
ee er
❑k arrow to
k mis
❑ Other
Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ N011 -Layer
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
airy
❑ on-
any
Number of Lagoons /Holding Ponds � JE3 Subsurface Drains resen[ 6ii Lagoon Area jjj.*�PrUy1,1ejdVea
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes M No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes M No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
n. If disehurgt is observed. %v -,Ls the conveyance xnan-ntade? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. ifdischarge is observed. did it reach Surface Water? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If diwharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gahnin?
d. Docs dischamw bypass a lagoon system? (If yes. notify DWQ) p Yes ❑ No
�. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes M No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require []Yes tj No
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
Conhnwed on back

b. tiry not incompliance with t�upplicable setback criteria in effect at the time esign? p Yes 11 No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes H No
Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons .incl/or I-Ioldm,_, Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Frccboard (ft): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
.................... -2.A .-.....-. ... ...................... ................ ...............................
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?
I2. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
(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 WMT, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
C3 Yes
W No
❑ Yes
N No
Structure 5
............................................................................
Structure 6
p Yes
X No
p Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
® Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
15. Crop type ..Q1Ci1.!_�l�tt��.s.L'7[Rl)_. _ _ __]a31.i t�li]l (.75 Ali..._......-.................................................................._. -.
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?
r ~' Does the receiving crop need improvement?
l 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/'mspection with on-site representative?
For Certi#led 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 meed improvement?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes p No
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes p No
❑ Yes D No
t,ommentts..(rerer}too quesnon p) ipiam anYjtb answers anaror any recommenaanons or any other comments...
Use'drawbtgs of facilitrto betterettplaln situatiana (use additional pages as:nece��ary) .l
... ,» die+••: �..,::•.:/-'fr��'..-RyA+s�3•�rs,+e�R•.?:�- l..•^:L!-.. i ar .,..:..-• '. -- ,... .- ;� .
S. The AWM plan reportedly can be certified upon correction of potential discharge from the holding lot. There needs to be a
permanent oaeaeedea, CaW1f,=Tt-wA-1.
13. Need liquid level markers in the holding ponds.
17. The spray application area is approximately 29 acres.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Msi=
Review erfli spector Signature:
a .ri
,I12! Date: zs l f7
•
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

Site Requires Immediate Attention: N0
.Facility No.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SI'Z'E VISI'T'ATION RECORD
DATE:--l—If —01995
Time: 4TAk
Farin Name/Owirer: d �a G D .4-1
Malling Address: _ '� PO &x. 93(P RA t t L ,U�—°� Z e 7 3 --
County: �
Iaitegrator: plwne:
Ott Site Representative: /V- ai+.--� ' I'Itivuc: (7a¢J1��3- I�'SG
Physical Address/Location: �dt t1�[ �4.iid-i�rzd
Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle k
Design Capacity: _ 1Sa _ Number of Animals ou Site: -200
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certificatiou Number: ACNEW
Latitude: 35 ' 23 ' _�5 Longitude: -�_�' 2-& 'ys " Elevation: Feet
CirclQit
r No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficienturd of I loot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(tipproximately I Foot .t. 7 inches) Yes r No Actual Freeboard: —'Ft. �� Inches Was ariy seepage observed frons the Itt ' Yes or No Wits ally erosion observed? Yesetz;�.
Is adequate laud available for spray? Yes r No is the cover crop adequate? es r No
Crop(s) being utilized, SiLdg�
Does die facility ineet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200'Feet frons Dwellings Yes r No
100 Feet from Wells? es No'
Is the animal waste Stockpiled within I00 Feet of USOS Blue Line Sirean17 Ye No
Is aiiinial waste laud applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue uie7 Yes o No
Is animal waste discharged into waters o the state by titan -urate ditch, fiu�shiug system, or ether
sitndar mast -made devices? Yes No If Yes, Please Explain,.
Does the facility maintain adequate was a management records tries of manure, lrurd applied,
spray irrigated Olt specific acreage with Cover crop)7 Yes o No
Additional Cotiments: Ztqax )'Naaeaeld Db 'x tLe x
La raax .� a,•, „w.i ,� ao .a �ti. ,.� l o� ,c�.y..�.,r1i � .�1� or:.�.
Old, F
r
V/
Inspector mulb X_ 1*- (/17029- Sigunwe
cc: Facility Assessmem Unit Use Atlaclimems if Needed.