110010_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Type of Visit: 0 Compliance Inspection C5 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Puq _�trrival Time: Departure Time: I I/.arc ounty: egion: Ate
Farm Name: 2A,4 N _ eM aw Owner Email: gZr- e4l[ 42N 14 /aNe- - A,'-'-f-
Owner Name:ULAW(' ll )1/VJ Phone: $ w83 -5V
Mailing Address: agQ I`�rLz�,_- k- ke I anSf e-ir 1116 9 -SEWS
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: bVj?xl GJaS Title: QuWAif(%-
Onsite Representative: �
fiI eAJ Integrator:
Phone: '3z9_"9
_D9
Certified Operator: �Q{% Certification Number: AWB ell 32 -2 -
Back -up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DW R)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
❑Yes ®No DNA ❑NE
❑Yes No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes
❑ No
DNA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes
C4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes
� No
[:]NA
[:]NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - • Date of Inspection: q 240/
❑ Yes
5k No
Waste Collection & Treatment
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
CKNo
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
54 No `r] NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ 1V �-" U^ivn `- -
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Spillway?: t
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
Designed Freeboard (in):
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
M7'1 No
Observed Freeboard (in):
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
KNo
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
K No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
,
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
5Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
KNo
❑ 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
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Aaalication
_Waste
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
C&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
9%�T
007 JiiCY� 601 �L&&gb " 1 64f1W
12. Crop Type(s): Cd"
Cnd
Mt 0 `
onw/ _ .
a'r�i/►
13. Soil Type(s): &gl/i .A _ i_�79�i1�t! 0 ilG loi' M ��� if I� �a�°sIG. I� �law
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? C� arxs E] Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
fg- �_
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? _ ❑Yes
No
❑ NA
[:]NE
-j77�'\
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
5& No
❑ NA
D NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
t4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reauired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
5k No
❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
CKNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists D. Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
M7'1 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
2/4/2015 Continued

Facili Number: 11 10 IDate of Ins ection: Of 1421M �L
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applicion equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes fKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? if yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes
5Q No
❑ NA
[] NE
❑ Yes
14No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes [&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes vNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes MNo
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative? ❑ Yes [gNo
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes C&No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
[:].NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
C,ah&a.Po#%J du -,e- 1A d-06cf
kl agrr, Qe-poyfi
E LSD A//a-o /�- -a-✓g �
-7
l �
-7lIG1'--
Reviewer/Inspector Name: ll i11�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: igz _ a-jj f F &&V
Date: 4112&12007
21412015

Type of Visit: ID Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation` 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: I. -3o I Departure Time: F-47-ZE77 County: BgLA(b"2 Region: &Rb ^
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: LIUhrtV U1 �� Phone: 9a2'6 93- 36Sy
Mailing Address: _19Q JAI; 11ow Creck RA. Ufic, Sky� tsC 99749
Physical Address: l t t t
Facility Contact: Title: OW y%Qr Phone: S;13-693-366-4/
Onsite Representative: f - Integrator: MA
Certified Operator: 1 krJ A Certification Number: Aw fj '113-72
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Nwy. 43 — k4% vu
rJ, T Ge -.4
Ad— SR i392)�
rtej��1�4
wu lU;llav
Crk. Rd. CSR 1995).
CO4inu." K i,S►.
` �iten� �.
Design
Current
Discharizes and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 1h No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
Design Current
❑ NE
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
WetMCapacity
Pop.
Cattle
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
7 S
Wean to er
Feeder
Non -La er
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Design
C+urrent
R-
Farrow to Feeder
D . Pbouit.,
Caaci
P,o ,
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Gilts
Non -La ers
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turke s
Qther
Turkey Poults
-E
F_Ti'__Th_er Other
Discharizes and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 1h No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[P NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
NA
❑ NE
❑NA
❑NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 2/4/2015 Continued

d
Facility Number: - 18 Date of inspection:
• Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes t4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?; $
Designed Freeboard (in): A10, —
Observed Freeboard (in): w�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes Wj No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes E I 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 [Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes U] No ❑ NA
❑ 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 )
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
❑ NE
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NE taat1
❑ NE
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
14 Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps E� Lease Agreements
❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
p Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
R NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
2/4/2015 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste apOD ation equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes C$ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [3No M NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes j No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes EM No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA [] NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refee:to question #): Explain any YES, answers and/or any additional recommendations or, any other comments.;
Use drawings of.facility to better, explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Solis
U1,4e $/a/& LSD N=O, -S';- 1b/►oofl
V/I� 14 LSb N= V,9 o k q 55L)N-'0. d 7 l�
is W 55D N-, 5
1#314 L50
715I115- LSD
.AO. N'WA c *W [east a ,� �•�► � S
0
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date: a 3a
V4Yzors

M Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 110010 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC110010
[] Denied Access
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Buncombe Region:
Asheville
Date of Visit: 09130/2016 EntryTime: 01:30 pm Exit Time: 4:00 pm Incident f
Farm Name: Aubrey N. Wells Farm Owner Email:
Owner. Aubrey N Wells Phone:
828-683-3654
Mailing Address: 290 Willow Creek Rd Leicester NC 287485665
Physical Address: 290 Willow Creek Rd Leicester NC 28748
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator.
Location of Farts: Latitude: 35° 38'50" Longitude:
82" 49'20"
NC Hwy. 63 (Leicester) from Asheville, left on North Turkey Creek Road (NCSR 1392), right on Early Mountain Road (NCSR
1401), then left on Willow Creek Road (NCSR 1395), continue about 1 112 miles. The farm is on the left.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
Phone :
Primary Inspector. Beverly Price
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
The inspection was conducted by Beverly Price of the Asheville Regional Office.
Soils Analysis: 815115
Waste Analyses: 7131115 LSD N=0.80 Ib11000 gal. SSD N=5.54 lb/ton
1115116 LSD N=0.98 Ib/1000 gal. SSD N=2.57 lb/ton
4114116 LSD N=0.90 lb/1000 gal. SSD N=2.67 lb/ton
812116 LSD N=0.55 Ib/1000 gat. SSD N=2.90 lb/ton
20. Need updated lease agreements.
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

I
0 d R
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number. 110010
Inspection Date: 09/30/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Cattle
Cattle -Milk Cow V5 153
Total Design Capacity: 175
Total SSLW: 245,000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Stan Date Freeboard Freeboard
Dry Stack DRY STACK
Waste Pond LIQUID POND 40.80 70.00
page: 2

�. 0 0
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N W4ells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 09/30/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Dischar-wes & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na No
,
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
❑
Excessive Ponding?
Structure
❑
M ❑
❑
Application Field
❑
❑
PAN?
Other
❑
0 ❑
❑
a. Was conveyance manmade?
❑
❑ M
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ M
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
M 1:1.
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na He
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
M ❑
❑
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
❑
M ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
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 > 100/./10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

• • 4 1.
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility : Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 09/30/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type 1 Com (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 Braddock
Soil Type 2 Codorus
Soil Type 3 Hayesville
Soil Type 4 French loam, 4 to 3%
slopes, occasional!
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
0 ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
❑
E ❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
E ❑
❑
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?
❑
E ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
E ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
■
❑ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
E ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

4r,. _ Lr •
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility : Aubrey N Wells Facility Number. 110010
Inspection Date: 09/30/18 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No No No
28_ Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
Stocking?
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exoeed normal rates?
Crop yields?
❑
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
120 Minute inspections?
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
Sludge Survey
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
M ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑ 0
❑
(NPDES only)?
Application Field
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
If Other, please specify
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
❑.
CAWM P?
Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on-site representative?
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
M ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
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 (PIAT) certification?
❑
❑ 0
❑
Other Issues
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 exoeed 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?
❑
ME -113
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
❑
❑.
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on-site representative?
❑
M ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
M ❑
❑
page: 5

F0
L :J
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Pat McCrory
Governor
Mr. Aubrey N. Wells
Aubrey N. Wells Farm
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester; North Carolina 28748
Dear Mr. Wells:
Donald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
October 2, 2015
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
Aubrey N. Wells Farm
Facility# 11-10
Buncombe County
On September 25, 2015, I conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of the animal
waste handling system for the Aubrey N. Wells Farm. The operation and
maintenance of the farm appeared to be very good.
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me. Please see the Inspection Report
(Inspection Summary Page 1) -for additional comments/observations. If you -have
any questions regarding this inspection, please do not hesitate to contact me at'(828)
296-4500.
Sincerely,
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 Office
2090 U.S. Highway 70, Swannanoa, N.C. 28778
Phone [phone]
FAX [phone]
Internet: htfpllpv Lnodenr.orgMehW
An Equal Opportunity/Aff3rrnaWe Action Employer

! 1 •
Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
110010 Facility Status: Active
permit: AWC110010
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine County:
Buncombe Region:
Asheville
Date of Visit:
09/25/2015 Entry Time: 10:00 am Exit Time: 11:30 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Aubrey N. Wells Farm
Owner Email:
Owner.
Aubrey N Wells
Phone:
828-683-3654
Mailing Address:
290 Willow Creek Rd
Leicester NC 287485665
Physical Address:
290 Willow.Creek Rd
Leicester NC 28748
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator.
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
35° 38'50" Longitude:
82° 49' 20"
NC Hwy. 63 (Leicester) from Asheville, left on North Turkey Creek Road (NCSR 1392), right on Early Mountain Road (NCSR
1401), then left on Willow Creek Road (NCSR 1395), continue about 1 112 miles. The farm is on the left.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream
Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
21372
Certified Operator:
Aubrey N Wells
Operator Certification Number.
Secondary OIC(s):
Ori -Site Representative(s): Name - - - - - Title _ _ Phone
24 hour contact name Aubrey Wells Phone:
Primary Inspector. ti
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspectors}:
Edward M Williams
Inspection Summary:
The facility appeared to be well maintained and the record keeping was in good order.
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Dry Stack DRY STACK
Waste Pond LIQUID POND 40.80 28.00
page: 2
Permit: AWC110010
Owner - Facility :
Aubrey N Wells Facility Number:.
110010.
Inspection Date: 09/25/15
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Cattle
-
Cattle -Milk Cow
175
148
Total Design Capacity:
175
Total SSLW:
245,000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Dry Stack DRY STACK
Waste Pond LIQUID POND 40.80 28.00
page: 2

• Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility : Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 09/25/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na N8
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)
❑
■ 110
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify_ DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
[]
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State otherthan from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes No Ya 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 (!. e./ large ❑ M ❑ ❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are. there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures'lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable ❑ 2 ❑
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 A1111211cation Yeas No N,
No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑. ■ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
PAN? ❑
Is PAN ,> 10%/10 lbs.? ❑
Total Phosphorus? ❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil? u ,
Outside of acceptable crop window? ❑
-Evidence-of-,. ' d drift? n
Application outside of application area'?"",,❑
` page: 3

Fa*umber: 110010
AWC110010 Owner - Facility : Aubrey N Wells
Permit: Routine
lnpsection Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit:
spection Date: 09/25/15 Yes No
-11-1 06
Waste A iication com (silage)
Crop Type 1 Fescue (Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 2 sn ti Grain (Wheal, Badey,
Oats)
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
the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
14. Do
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
crop and/or land applicakion site need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
15. Does the receiving
operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
i 6. Did the facility fail to secure andfor
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
18, is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Yes N. o
Records and Documents❑
fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available.?
❑ ❑
❑ . ❑ ❑
i9. Did the facility
Components of the CAWMP readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all
if yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑
WUP?
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
if Other, please specify
❑ ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
if yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
- U
zjott analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weat►'o' -mac c %
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
page, 4
1

I
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number. 110010
Inspection Date: 09/25/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason forVsit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yee
No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or 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 V Rainfall Inspections
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality eepresentative immediately.
Sludge Survey
❑
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
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)?
❑ —
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
'24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
[]
[]
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
m ❑
❑
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-compliance:
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewtinspection with onsite 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?
❑
M ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na Na
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,
❑
E ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality eepresentative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
1101111
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
-31. Do subsurface file 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 reviewtinspection with onsite representative?
❑
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 110010 Facility Status: Active Permtt AWC110010
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
❑ Denied Access
Reason for Visit R0n County: Buncombe Region: Asheville
Data of Visit 09!2212014 EntryTime: 10:00 am Exit Time: 11:30 am incident a
Farm Name: Aubrey N. Wells Farm Owner Email:
Owner. Aubrey N Wells - - y Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 290 Willow Creek Rd Leicester NC 287485665
Physical Address: 290 Willow Creek Rd Leicester NC 28748
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator.
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35° 38'50" Longitude: 82" 49'20-
NC
9'20"NC Hwy. 63 (Leicester) from Asheville, left on North Turkey Creek Road (NCSR 1392), right on Early Mountain Road (NCSR
1401), then left on Willow Creels Road (NCSR 1395), continue about 1 112 miles. The farm is on the left.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Cal, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other issues
Certified Operator: Aubrey N Wells Operator Certification Number: 21372
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Aubrey Wells Phone:
Primary Inspector: Edward M Williams Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility : Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 09/22/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
)ry Stack DRY STACK
Haste Pond LIQUID POND 40.80 �0 •�
112"o wn4� m\V.'v
page: 2

E
•
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility : Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 09/22/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No No No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
4� ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
Structure
a,
❑
❑
Frozen Ground?
Application Field
❑
❑
PAN?
Other
❑
❑
Total Phosphorus?
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
E] ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
19 1:1
❑
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?
❑
9 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
[i$ ❑
❑
State other than. from a discharge?
Waste Collection. Storage & Treatment
Yes No No No
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.eJ large
❑
❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on-site that are not property addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
15] ❑
❑
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
❑
[9 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No No No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ .� ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ E5L❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑ f
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 Ibs.?
❑
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: AWC110010 Owner - Facility : Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 09/22/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
Crop Type 1 Co
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ® ❑ ❑
Crop Type 2 ?a4U1_A_
❑
WUP?
Crop Type 3 1�
Checklists?
❑
Crop Type 4
❑
Maps?
Crop Type 5
Lease Agreements?
❑
Crop Type 6
❑
Stocking?
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?
❑ 1E ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure andlor operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ a ❑
❑
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?
❑ V ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ® ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ❑ ❑
if yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

•
0
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility : Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 09/22/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
res
No Na Ne
Crop yields?
❑
® ❑
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
©❑
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
m ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
❑
® ❑
❑
24_ Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with pennit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
1B ❑
❑
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?
❑
® ❑
11
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
11
91 11
[❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na No
2$_ Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
® ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
©❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
® ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface 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 reviewfinspection with on-site representative? ❑ IMY
M ❑ ❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ In ❑ ❑
page: 5

n . 1' • `'
4115 Ll NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly craves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
November 2, 2011
Mr. Aubrey N. Wells
Aubrey N. Wells Farm
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, North Carolina 28748
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
Aubrey N. Wells Farm — Facility # 11-10
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Wells:
On September 21, 2011, 1 conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of the animal waste
handling system for the Aubrey N. Wells Farm. The operation and maintenance of the farm appeared to
be very good.
The calibration of your waste application equipment is due again before the end of the year.
Also, please submit a copy of your updated (as of April 7, 2011) WUP to the Asheville Regional Office.
And lastly, you should obtain Landowner Agreements for all fields which you apply animal waste but do
not own.
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me. I have enclosed the most recent SLD -1 Forms as
well as the revised Irrigation Calibration Form. Please see the Inspection Report (Inspection Summary
Page 1) for additional comments/observations..If you have a_ny questions regarding this inspection,
please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
i
Sincerely,'
Beverly Pric
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure
Cc: Gary Higgins, Buncombe County Soil & Water Conservation District 155 Hilliard Ave., Ste.204
Asheville, NC 28801 w/Enclosure
Cqg fer Protection -Section -Files ARO
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION—Asheville Regional Office (ARO)
2090 U.S. 70 Highway, Swannanoa, NC 28778$211
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] One
Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748 NorthCarolina
Internet: www.newaterguality.om -A I _ f _ _ . _ — II_ -
An Equal opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer

•
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 110910 Facility Status: ActiyQ Permit: AWC110010 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Buncombe Region: Ashgville
Date of Vislt: 0Q/2112Q11 Entry Time: 10:00AM Exit Time: 11:00 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Aubrey N. Wells Farm - _ Owner Email:
Owner: Aubrey N Wells ti Phone: $28-583-3654
Mailing Address: 290 YTillLeicester Nti 287485665 ^_
Physical Address: 290 Willow Creek Rd Leicester NC 28748
Facility Status: E Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35"38'50" _ Longitude: 82°49'20"
NC Hwy. 63 (Leicester) from Asheville, left on North Turkey Creek Road (NCSR 1392), right on Early Mountain Road (NCSR 1401),
then left on Willow Creek Road (NCSR 1395), continue about 1 112 miles. The farm is on the left.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
© Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Other Issues
Certified Operator: Aubrey N Wells Operator Certification Number. 21372
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Aubrey Wells Phone:
On-site representative Aubrey Wells Phone:
Primary Inspector: Beverly Price Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
P g
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Soils Analysis: 711111
Waste Analyses:612211 I Pond N=0.82 Ib11000 gal., Dry Stack N=2.7, 414111 Pond N=0.10 lb11000 gal., Dry Stack N=2.5 Ib11000 gal.;
115111 Pond N=0.88 Ib11000 gal., Dry stack N=9.4 Ib/1000 gal.
Question #20 - There are no landowner agreements for Tract T10554, Tract 2791 and Tract 2789.Please obtain landowner
agreements and keep with your records.
The WUP was updated 417/11...Please submit a copy of the updated WUP to the Asheville Regional Office.
The nitrogen requirements listed in the WUP should be used to calculate Nitrogen balances, not the nitrogen recommendations listed
on the soils analysis.
Reminder: Calibration for the manure spreader and the irrigation gun are due this year.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number : 110010
Inspection Date: 0912112011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle - Milk Caw 175 115
Total Design Capacity: 175
Total SSLW: 245,000
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard freeboard
Dry Stack DRY STACK
aste Pond LIQUID POND 40.80 53.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWC110010 , Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 09/21/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges S Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field Q
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 ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No
NA NE
d. 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 (Led 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?
❑ 000
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑ 000
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: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells
Facility Number : 114010
Inspection slate: 09/21/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Cam (Silage)
Crop Type 2 Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 3 Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1 Braddock
Soil Type 2 Codorus
Soil Type 3 Tate Variant
Soil Type 4 French loam, 0 to 3%
slopes, occasionall
Soil Type 5 Hayesville
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 perthe irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
17. Does the, facility lack adequate acreage for land application? 000 ❑
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.
Page: 4

.i
•
Permit. AWC110010 , Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number. 110010
Inspection Date: 09121!2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
WUP? ❑
Checklists? 11
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Lease Agreements? ❑
Other?
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
■1111❑
Waste Application?
E
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
11
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
11
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
11
Stocking?
11
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
0
Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
11
Sludge Survey
Q
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
Q N 11 Q
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?.
❑ 000
24. Dict the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
11 ■ 11 ❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance -with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate
❑ ❑ ■ 11
box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels 11
Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon Q
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
Page; 5

•
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells FacilityNumber : 110010
Inspection Date: 09121/2011 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 fall to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fall to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge, ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
Other
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
in
Page: 6
10

•
HCDW
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Soil & Water Conservation
Beverly Eaves Perdue Patricia K. Harris
Governor Director
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 28, 2009
To: Animal Waste Technical Specialists and Permitted Animal Operations
From: Vernon N. Cox, Chair
1217 Interagency Animal Waste Committee
Subject: Change to Irrigation System Calibration Requirements
Dee Freeman
Secretary
On September 25`" 2009, the 1217 Interagency Animal Waste Committee modified its calibration requirements
for animal waste irrigation systems by deleting the requirement that application uniformity must be field
verified at least once every three years using the "catch can" method for determining application uniformity.
This change in guidance is based on study results provided by Dr. Garry Grabow of the NC State University
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering. The study results indicate that field verification of
operating pressure, wetted diameter and flow rate provides sufficient evidence of application uniformity when
these measured variables are within acceptable ranges.
For your reference, I am including a copy of the revised guidance for calibration requirements of animal waste
irrigation systems. Producers should contact their technical specialist if they have additional questions
regarding this subject.
Enclosure
1614 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1614
Phone: [phone]D21 FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affrmative Acdon Employer
Carolina
All1mrallij
r r-

F 0 0
6.6 Calibration Requirements
All waste application equipment, including irrigation systems, hose drag systems, honey wagons, and
solid spreaders must be field tested and calibrated to verify operating performance and application
amount. Field calibration to verify application amount is required once a year for NPDES permitted
and once every other year for state permitted operations.
Irrigation Systems - calibration involves field verification of 1) operating pressure, 2) wetted diameter,
3) flow rate, and 4) application uniformity.
The minimum calibration performance requirements for irrigation systems are:
1. Operating pressure at the sprinkler/gun must be verified using a properly functioning pressure
gauge and observed to be operating within the range recommended by the manufacturer or
specified in the irrigation design documentation for the equipment being calibrated.
2. Wetted diameter of the system being field calibrated must be measured as described in NCCES
Irrigated Acreage Determination publications AG -553-6 or AG- 553-7 and observed to be
within 15% of the wetted diameter reported in the manufacturer's chart for the operating
pressure observed in (1), AND
3. Flow rate must be determined to be within 10% of the value specified in the irrigation design
documentation or as was.determined during the wettable/effective irrigated acre determination.
Flow rate shall be determined using EITHER -
a. Flow rate from manufacturer's chart for the measured pressure at the sprinkler/gun
(item 1) and measured sprinkler/gun orifice diameter, OR
b. Flow rate measured with an approved, calibrated flow meter.
4. Application unifoERlily is deemed to be acceptable when items I — 3 above are within the
ranges specified.
Note:
Note: Flow rate to be reported in column 6 of IRR -2 (item 3 above) should not be calculated from
"catch can" measurements as described in NCCES field calibration publications AG -553-1, Ag -553-2
or AG- 553-3. The catch can method cannot be used to compute flow rate for IRR -2 because this
results in a "double counting" of the evaporative PAN losses during the irrigation process.
Hose Drag Systems - should be field calibrated by measuring ground speed and effective applicator
width as outlined in NCCES publication AG -634, and flow rate using a flow meter as described in 3b
above. The application rate can be determined from tables presented in AG -634 and should be verified
against application rates specified in the WUP.
Solid Spreaders — should be field calibrated using the Weight -Area Method as described in NCCES
publication AG -5534.
Honey Wagons — Liquid and semi-solid application equipment should be field calibrated using the
Load Area Method as described in NCCES publication AG -553-5.

Farm Name
Irrigation Equipmment Field Calibration Form
Farm #
Equipment Identification:
Flow Meter Serial Number (if applicable):
Type of System (circle one): Stationary Traveling Center Pivot
Designgd(Exeected Observed/Measured
Gun/Sprinkler Model:
Nozzle Type:
Ring/Nozzle Diameter (in.):
Nozzle Pressure (psi):
* Is observed pressure operating within the range recommended by the manufacturer or specified in the
irrigation design documentation ? YES NO
Wetted Diameter (ft.): **
** Is the observed wetted diameter within 15% of the wetted diameter reported in manufacturer's chart for the
observed nozzle pressure? YES NO
Flow Rate (gpm): ***
*** Is the observed flow rate within 10% of the value specified in the irrigation design or as. was determined
during the wettable%ffective irrigated acre determination? YES NO
Observed Flow Rate Determined by: Chart Calibrated Flow Meter
NOTE -- The observed flow rate must be determined using EITHER.
!) the manufacturer's chart for the measured (observed). pressure at the gun/sprinkler AND the measured
gun/sprinkler orifice diameter, OR
2) measured with an approved, calibrated flow meter.
Person Performing Calibration
(Signature)
Date
DWQ-Cal-Form1212009

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 110010 Facility Status: Active _ Permit: AWC110010 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance InMction Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Region: Asheville
Date of Visit 09Ql/2011 Entry Time: 10:00 AM Exit Time: 11:00 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Aubrey N. Wells Farm Owner Email:
Owner. Aubrey N Wells Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 290 Willow Creek Ro Leicestgr NC 287485665
Physical Address: 290 Willow Creek Rd leiggster NC 28748
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator.
Location of Farm: latitude: 35°38'50" Longitude: 82°49'20"
NC Hwy. 63 (Leicester) from Asheville, left on North Turkey Creek Road (NCSR 1392), right on Early Mountain Road (NCSR 1401),
then left on Willow Creek Road (NCSR 1395), continue about 1 112 miles. The farm is on the left.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator. Aubrey N Wells Operator Certification Number. 21372
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Aubrey Wells Phone:
On-site representative Aubrey Wells Phone:
Primary Inspector. Beverly Price Phone:
Inspector Signature: _
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary: /
p rGdiSet1 COLlII r6raj%ON
N rid C� pj 0�OL
.So'v) r_ ikrr G'4 Ski- i Fv- ---l"
Date:
Page: 1
a

r
•
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number : 110010
inspection Date: 09/21/2019 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures uS
Type identifier Closed Data Start Date Designed Free and Observed Freeboard
Dry Stack
DRY STACK
/Vaste Pond
LIQUID POND
y� d
'dl1 / 60.0
iofd bc1aw
k.,,� Its p j R-.,eA r
36 1(
Page: 2

Permit: AWC 110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 119010
Inspection Date: 09/21/2011 Inspection Tyre: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA HE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? 00011
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)
❑ ❑ 10 ❑
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ 1P ❑ ❑
3_ Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than
❑ 4 ❑ ❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes No NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑ 09 ❑ ❑
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.)?
B. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑ [0 ❑ ❑
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
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)?
❑000
Yes No NA NE
❑0❑❑
❑000
Page: 3

Permit: AWC i 10010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells
Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 09/21/2011 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 manuretsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
l._
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1 ujkx (-
CropType2 :
Crop Type 3 a
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 110 ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ JP ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑ (Y ❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ lb ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ a ❑ ❑
Records and Documents Yes Nrr##oNA 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? U "j.1'a ❑ q ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP? ❑
Page: 4

Permit AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 09/21/2011 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Lease Agreements? ❑
Other? ❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below. sag_ 2 O 1 e
SQ _ t pie-
�Uitr1 sLrO"
Waste Application?S LD-- l Ole-
Weekly
toWeekly Freeboard? Q Kd N r�u,Ir�M4 ❑
Waste Analysis?III= del 5410'
Soilnalysis? ib� 41
T1It 04 LQW S,..�;
Waste Transfers?,vpi y 14 l ( O , a i hr.voo L-0 ❑
Weather code? OK tJ a.5 Ib A-o N SSA ❑
Rainfall? rg4 a�. LSD ❑
��S11i O 1b,lao�'b
Stocking? O v- 1j= Iblj-oa ssp ❑
Crop yields? & (G❑
to(at Ito a � p.g7 1rSD
120 Minute inspections? a �- N 3.'� gS D ❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections 0 K ❑
Sludge Survey ❑
22 Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ lk ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)? Cl ❑ 1 ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? LftsA (,I-Aibr�°t" ❑ (0 ❑ C'i`{ Yt "^
101!-7101 'u' G S re-
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate ❑ IJ i@ ❑
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-oompliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ '�( ❑ ❑
Page: 5

0
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection pate: 09/21/2011 Inspection type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ ❑ 96 ❑
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 0000
mortality rates that exceed normal rates? L4rf PO
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ ❑ ❑
Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge, ❑ ❑
freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
Lagoon / Storage Pond
Other
if Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewrnspection with on-site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
0000
❑GD00
❑d❑❑
Page: 6

f Lao %ko r==1u n_
O Division of WatjandWatir
ety. _
Facility Number O Division of Soil Conservatr
G1.66r Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection ('�peratiorReview � Structure Evaluation �0i e•chnelarl K nnrcn.3l Ufl10 .
Raison for Visit CWoutine. .O Com .^laint% 0 Follow up-' O Referral O EMe g ena � � e[:flclrl `
p rg y• °• Q t�fetr—"fl'f3enied•Acees
Dale of Visit: - ''f*v .Arritial Timc ..q, ) [)epartore 7'irne t'Q ? County . Regitln•
Farm lame: _ftt 1l ey �.�lA�£'�CS--- Y'Yl� Y Owner fmail: Y
Owner Name: e_-1 �/ - Phone:
Mailing Address: .24WI�lU1�i7 _ /KJy`Cl _ _ _ �2t �' f��' Nt!i vW-��_
Physical Address: D iivav�'r` ecce
FaciliiyContact: L / Title: - �/� LPhone No:
Onsite Representativ, rok, W Integrator: 1411A _
Certified Operator: �"�' S Operator Certification Number: _2;022
Back-up Uper:ttor: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Darn. Latitude: F_10 F-7 F_]u 1_onaitmie: I I° F--]' F ---I u
Design 'Current _ Design `....Ciu'rent Design Current
Swine - - - - _ Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity..Population. " Cattle ' �" Capacity Population'
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder .
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars `
Other
❑ Other
PEILayer
Non -La er f I '.. El
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers - -
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance plan -made?
95airyCow
0 Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
U -Pry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Coyd
Number of Structures: EKI
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (Ifves, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 2 -No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
El Yes
21� o
El NA
0 N
❑ Yes
21�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28/04
Continued

EL
• 2".f7c7•
Facility Number: fi — Date of Inspection I�.J
❑ Yes
�No
Waste Collection & Treatment
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Struct •e I Structu e 2 Structure 3 Stnicturc 4
Identifier:
Structure i Structure 6
Spillway?:
❑ Yes
E,....k.,</o
Designed Freeboard 6nl: IVIA-
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly, operating waste application equipment?
6611Observed Freeboard (in): I{/,6611
OkNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
LJ 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
2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmenta�l.thhreat; notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
El Yes
{G! No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
LRNo ❑ 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
PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Aunlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
P<'
No ❑ NA -❑ NE
maintenance/improvemertt?
11. Is then: evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
El Yes
�
2 No ❑ NA r0 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. Croptyl*s) C._�di"GL , U..� ,9t
13. Soil type(s) l �Cc-i f �"✓ lO�i o eG �'i,5�� s
S 1I "t f v L azA_ P�
14. Do the receiving crops differ m those st in the CAiV4P.
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
RrNNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16, Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination%❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
E,....k.,</o
El NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly, operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
OkNo
❑ 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):
Reviewerlinspector Name C -5e Phone: a-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: J Date: f D-
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes EWo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 6-'"0 C1 NA [3 NE
the appropirate box. [IWUp [I Checklists I--]Design [:1 Maps El Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑Yes
I2No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ NE
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1"
ruin inspections ❑
Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[ZNo
❑ NA-
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
J_Z"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[:�fio
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
U�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
EDA0
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
Ludo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
UNo
❑ 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
[;P<o
❑ 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
ElYes
9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
U40
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or
12/28104

Facility Plumber: IL- bate 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. 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 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
❑
❑
70. Other
❑
❑
List Im rovements Made by O eration:
4
2. 5,
6.
rZ,28/04

T
BUNCOMBE
CUNTY
N&-RTCAROLINA
Bun -c• be County Sail &
November 17, 2009
Aubrey Wells (Facility Number: 11-10)
Aubrey N. Wells Farm
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, NC 28748
Dear Mr. Wells:
Water Conservation District
Ri ECEOVE® Gary Higgins
Director
Nov 18 2Cug
Asheville Regional Ofte,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on November 13th, 2009 to conduct your
operation review. Your waste storage structures are in good condition and functioning as
designed. Your recordkeeping was in good order and well kept. As we discussed, I will be
update your Waste Utilization Plan to show the PAN to be applied to corn silage and small grain
separately. I should have this completed by the end of November, 2009.
Again, thanks for help with the review and for your efforts to improve water quality in Willow
and Sandy Mush Creeks.
Sin rely,
Gary i
Buncombe SWCD
Vic: Beverly Price
NC DENR, Division of Water Quality
Joe Hudyncia
NC DENR, Division of Soil and Water Conservation
155 Hilliard Ave.. Suite 204 - Asheville, NG 28801
p. 828. 250. 4785
f. 828. 251. 4908
buncombecounty.org

FacMq NumberE! ! / Q::]
IType of Visit Q Compliance Inspection
Q Division of Water Quality � t'
Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency y
Rion Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0jRouHne O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival lime%: `fir' Departure nm- County: d '�� Region:
Farm Name: V Owner Emafi:
Owner Name: j4f ei/ S Phone: �'�d''h �✓�-Y
A�Iailing Address: r Il
low cxd ei ��f7-�- iV r, a �S
Physical Address: D - C4 Lebo f! AIG
Facility Contact: `U4 Tit%: Dujha�:, Phone No: �.?�'633f36S�f
Onsite Representative: j)�� � Integrator: 1VJ4 --
Certified Operator. l4tAiAb5:4 Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: _ �ON� Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [�:] 0 E]' E] " Longitude: [::] ° ❑
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
I I HLayer
Non-Uyei- -
Dry Poultry
Pullets
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)
Cattle
.Capaaty�Popula#ion=
Cow
11 P�ia Calf
Heifej
1-1 Dry Cow
Beef Stocker
El Beef Feeder .
❑ Beef Brood Co
Numtrer dt Sw=tttll
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
I=
❑ Yes ONo [:INA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
j"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
((No
❑ NA
❑ NE

Facility Number: J — • Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 2No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structuure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier. S
=,;- yo— 0—�
Spillway?: 49
Designed Freeboard (in): dl-4
Observed Freeboard (in):A
A110-
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes UNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there strictures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes dNo ❑ 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
fl�Cl�s Gar
•�
13. Soil types)
❑ NE
�7
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
L!9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
4. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require❑
Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Aaulication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
2f No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenancelimprovement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
Pf/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 101bs [:]Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifi [:]Application Outside of Area
12. Croptype(s)
�oa/�l
fl�Cl�s Gar
•�
13. Soil types)
❑ NE
�7
❑ NA
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
4JNo
.❑ NA
❑ NE
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Q(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
10 [:1 NA 0 N
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. .
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/In or Name s 3 : ' Phone: fY f�
apeet '�r�"_.,. "
}.s�,�e`�*
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: ��3

Facility Number. — /D Date of Inspection /H%4
Respired Records & Documents ,.,
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes E No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design [I Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1"
Rain inspections 0
Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
2Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
VN.
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
C�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
9 No
0 NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus toss 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 ❑ NA [3 NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
—Ulo
❑ Yes L'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes #,,� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
O'
If yes, contact a regional Air (duality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as by
.
❑ Yes 'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
9
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
�^��
32. Did Reviewer/lnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
[3 Yes L�No I❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes U(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
f] �r q n ` 1'D? SC
Cnil�b S� f-
S►MA41

' � a
1~8Cility Number: Date of Impeetion
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)
❑
❑
38. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
39.211.0200 ro-cestification
❑
❑
40. Five & Thirty clay Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
41. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
42.Organize/ omputerization 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 desiplinstaliation
❑
❑
53. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
54, Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
55. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
56. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
57. Crop evaivationlrecommendations
❑
❑
58. Drainage work/evatuation
❑
❑
59. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
❑
❑
60. Runoff control, storrawater diversion, etc.
❑
❑.
61. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
62. Field messurements(OPS, 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
❑
❑
,1st Imarovelnenta MadLbl aeration:
F1
4.
5.
3. 6. IZ/2&

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
September 22, 2009
Mr. Aubrey N. Wells
Aubrey N. Wells Farm
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, North Carolina 28748
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
Aubrey N. Wells Farm — Facility # 11-10
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Wells:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
On September 15, 2009, 1 conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of the animal waste
handling system for the Aubrey N. Wells Farm. The operation and maintenance of the farm appeared to
be very good.
The calibration of your waste application equipment is due again before the end of the year.
Also, please review your WUP with Buncombe County Soil & Water. The nitrogen requirement for winter
wheat is not included in the plan. The Wettable Acres (5.145 ac) for Tract T3407 Field 6 does not match
the Useable Acres(10,0) shown in the plan.
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me. Please see the Inspection Report (inspection
Summary Page 2) for additional comments/observations. If you have any questions regarding this
inspection, please_do not hesitate to contact meat [phone]. _
Sincerely,
Beverly
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure
Cc: Gary Higgins, Buncombe County Soil & Water Conservation District 155 Hilliard Ave., Ste.204
Asheville, NC 28801 w/Enclosure
Aquifer Protection Section Files ARO
AQUIFER PROTECTION SECTION —Asheville Regional Of Ice (ARO)
2094 U.S. 70 Highway, Swannanoa, NC 28778-821 i
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] One
Customer Servim 1-7723-6748 NorthCarolina
Internet: www rigwaterguality.on Al //_
An Equal Opporfumry 1 Athrrnalive Acton Employer

Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Faci€€ty Number : 110010 Facility Status: Perm€t: AWC110010 ❑ Denied Acoess
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Bunwmbe Region: Asheville
Date of Visit: 09/1512009 Entry Time: 10.00 AM Exit Time: ,1.1:00610- - Incident*:
Farm Name: Aubrea-Wells- arm _ Owner Email:
Owner. Aubrey N Wells Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 290 Willow Creek Rd Leicester NC 287485665
Physical Address: 290 Willow Creek Rd Lister NC 28748
Facility Status: N Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°38'50" Longitude: 82°49'20"
NC Hwy. 63 (Leicester) from Asheville, left on North Turkey Creek Road (NCSR 1392), right on Early Mountain Road (NCSR 1401),
then left on Willow Creek Road (NCSR 1395), continue about 1 112 miles. The farm is on the left.
Question Areas:
© Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Aubrey N Wells Operator Certification Number. 21372
Secondary OIC(s):
Onsite Repmsentative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Aubrey Wells Phone:
On-site representative Aubrey Wells Phone:
Primary Inspector. Beverly Price
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone: 9-'s_ V tib
Date: 2&.2 /0-9 -
Page: 1

0
•
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number : 110010
Inspection Data: 09/15/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
7. The dam on the waste pond should be mowed to allow for inspection. The weeds around the marker should be out to allow for
easier observation.
Soil Sample: 913109
Waste Analyses: 118/09 LSD N=0.82 lb/ 1000 gal.; SSD N=3.0 Ib/ton
412109 LSD N=1.O lb/1000 gal.; SSD N=1.7 lb/ton
6129109 LSD N=0.89 W1000 gal.; SSD N=3.8 lb/ton
Calibration: 8020 Knight Spreader 10128/2007; Nelson Sprinkler 9/19/2007 - required again before the end of 2009
WUP should be revised to show N requirements for winter wheat.
WUP should be reviewed for correct acreage for Tract T3407 Field 6: WUP shows 10.0 Acres Useable, Wettable Acres Determination
shows 5.145 Acres.
Page: 2

Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 09/15/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle -Milk Cow 175 131
Total Design Capacity: 175
Total SSLW: 245,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Data Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Xy Stack
DRY STACK
Afaste Pond
LIQUID POND 60.00
72.00
Page: 3

0
❑
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells
Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 09/15/2009 Inspection Type. Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit Routine
Discha!ges & 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)
❑ 000
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ ❑ ■ Q
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe Q ■ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc)?
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? 00110
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 Q ■ ❑ ❑
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? 0000
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 4

Permit AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wefts
Inspection Date: 09/15/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 110010
Reason for visit Routine
Waste Application
rtes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 101/1o110 lbs.?
❑
Total P2057
❑
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
Codorus
Soil Type 2
Hayesville
Soil Type 3
Braddock
Soil Type 4
Hayesville
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 5

• 0
Permit AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 09/1512009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Vlsit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
Q
Weekly f=reeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after> 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑ ■ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
E ❑ ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑ ■ ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑ ■ ❑
Other issues
Yes
No NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑
■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 6

0
•
Permit AWC110010 Owner -Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number : 110010
Inspection Date: 0911512009 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? 0 ■ 0 0
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on-site representative? 0 ■ 11 0
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑0011
Page: 7

0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 110010 — Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC110010 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Buncombe Region: Asheville
Date of Visit: 09/15/2009 Entry Time:10:00 AM Exit Time: 11:00 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Autrey N. Wells Farm„ Owner Email:
Owner. Aubrey N Wells Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 290 Willow C=k Rd Leicester NC 287485665
Physical Address: 290 Willow Creek Rd Leicester tjC 2BZ48
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35"38'50" _ Longitude:
NC Hwy. 63 (Leicester) from Asheville, left on North Turkey Creek Road (NCSR 1392), right on Early Mountain Road (NCSR 1401),
then left on Willow Creels Road (NCSR 1395), continue about 1 112 miles. The farm is on the left.
Question Areas:
Discharges & stream impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Aubrey N Wells Operator Certification Number. 21372
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Aubrey Wells Phone:
On-site representative Aubrey Wells Phone:
Primary Inspector: Beverly Price Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Page: 1

•
•
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Faciiity: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number : 110010
Inspection Date: 09115/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Dry Stack
DRY STACK
d �'
ste Pond
LIQUID POND
60.00
���1G•na 1..31
4-4 A%,O w o d -� vl •15
Page: 2

•
0
Permit: AWC110010 owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number. 110010
Inspection Date: 0911512009 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? 0000
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ❑ T ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ❑ Yo
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d_ Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ❑ 1P ❑
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 ❑ g ❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? uy\ p y.► 'A &VVI cr ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, ❑ O ❑ ❑
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)? Il / ❑
Page: 3

0 0
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 09115M09 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
PAN? ❑
Is PAN a 10%110 lbs.? eq(- ❑
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 Caw-^ S: I eAy—
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3 Ft'Gc ut lrv'%�Aj ►'4.33
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 ❑ N ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Ig ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? 00 1�,� ❑ ❑
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.
G5 W n W I�-i,o-� r e `- . T 2�

• 9
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number : 110010
Inspection Date: 09/15/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ jq ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application? s t- ¢" S t,p-Z INC- �, (� Q. l CiV - ❑
120 Minute inspections? D i L ❑
Weather code? i[ O'� �r"r' f INS on SLD rend �cl f-
0 g SLb-1 �"^
Weekly f=reeboard? Oil ❑
Transfers? lu A ❑
Rainfall? I716 ❑
Inspections after n 1 inch rainfall & monthly? O �� 17 th/ton ❑
Waste Analysis? 4 1.1 /09 iso M/1060 gaA, LsF> +�� �� l��faa4d
An�I oil analysis?
u�D 9 �' $ lb1 �''' 3ro���Sf ❑
q3D�
Crop yields? (9 / j �1 d 9; 3 C ❑
Stocking? p%A t q ❑
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 N I ? ❑ ❑ io
❑
24_ Did the facility fail to calibra a waste application equipment as required by the pe l it? DtGt 2 ❑ Aj❑Se[:k
L-,Isi- cd- -b Icjam%jo7 1010 1=n; 1 Sp Ad,-- cit i9jo7 ' c onFor-rtiri
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as require by the permit? spak 1�ltr ❑ ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ 000
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ ❑ jP ❑
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

•
•
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facillty: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 09/1512009 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 reviewfinspection with on-site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑0❑❑
❑0❑❑
0000
Page: 6

BUNCOMBE
COUNTY
NORTFI CAROLINA
L:OVLRNML N T
Bunco,be County Soil & Wateoconservation District
November 24, 2008
Aubrey Wells (Facility Number: 11-10)
Aubrey N. Wells Farm
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, NC 28748
Dear Mr. Wells:
AECEIVED
DEC 011068
Asheville Regional Office
--�, &1 lfq 2rotinn ✓
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on November 20th, 2008 to conduct your
operation review. Your waste storage structures are in good condition and functioning as
designed. Your recordkeeping was in good order and,well kept
Gary Higgins
Director
Again, thanks for help with the review and for your efforts to improve water quality in Willow
and Sandy Mush Creeks.
Sincerely,
Gary g s -
Buncombe SWCD
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
buncombecounty.org

y 0 Division of Water Quality"-
FactLty.Number/ O D ion'of. Soil a Water Conservation E r
Other Agency
r
- c'z FX
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection peration Review O Structure Evaluation '0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: -) 0�0 Arrival yTim Departure Time: 9 '00,e, County: Region:
Farm Name: We S� Owner Email:
Owner Name: IL, YA/, Q5- Phone:
Mailing Address: ra i1 d tet? i. uocr.Q �.�TG�P3��'� fir✓ _ oZd'7s
Physical Address: r%1 l iId odN&
Facility Contact: 9"Li +i , "e Title: 0.m Qr Phone No:
Onsite Representative: /-t fes-, �E%[.f Integrator: _i✓
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: _ /�'� _ Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: _ Latitude: =T' ` Longitude: = 0 =I
Design . Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other - -
Design .,-Current,
Wet Poultry 'Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non-Layet
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ 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)
Catty
Design a Current
CapacirPopulation
ai Cow -M
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker i..
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
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 P<O ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
[3 NE
ElLlr Yes
,❑_,
0-6o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
01N.
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28104 Continued l

Facility Number: / — / D • Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment �/
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes L►�J 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: 4kAftj,\''5
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 1�4
Observed Freeboard (in): 44)
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 2 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 ff No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? El Yes LTJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 62 No ❑ 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 El Yes Ia No ❑ NA [:1 NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ElE Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 4o ❑ 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 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
EVo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
2 No
ElNA
ElNE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
i
Reviewer/inspector Name F Phone: Zycp
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
V - " 12128/04 Continued

n
LJ
Facility Number: ([ - p Date of Inspection / ' 0—O
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
0
❑ Yes EP. ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes E"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ VAP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design 11 Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
UlNI01
❑ 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
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
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
El NA NA
❑ N
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
El Yes
,.0/No
[INA
[INE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
;N7o
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. -Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
ON.
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
LNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
QlNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
Qo
❑ 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
Cj�o
❑ 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
011`10
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
[
El NA
[INE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
E]NA
❑ NE
AddWdnai'Comiments"and/or Drawings: `
i
7
12/28/04

• •--71
•
Facility Number: ( - Date of Inspection FIEP-0
-
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)
❑
❑
38. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
39.2H.0200 re -certification
❑
❑
40. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
4l . 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 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:
1.
4.
2. 5.
3. 6. . 12/28/04

s O�0 WArFRp
COPY
Mr. Aubrey N. Wells
Aubrey N. Wells Farm
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, North Carolina 28748
Dear Mr. Wells:
. Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Aquifer Protection Section
September 26, 2008
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
Aubrey N. Wells Farm — Facility # 11-10
Buncombe County
On August 15, 2008, 1 conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of the animal waste handling
system for the Aubrey N. Wells Farm. The operation and maintenance of the farm appeared to be very
good.
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me. Please see the Inspection Report for
additional comments/observations. If you have any questions regarding this inspection, please do not
hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sinserely,
/dW illiams
Environmental Specialist
Enclosure
Cc: Gary Higgins, Buncombe County Soil & Water Conservation District 155 Hilliard Ave., Ste.204
Asheville, NC 28801 w/Enclosure
Aquifer Protection Section Files ARO
N�o.� Carolina
dvatmra!!y
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/Affirmative Action Employer -- 50% Recydedl10% Post Consumer Pager

0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 110010 „ Facility Status: Active _ Permit: AWC110010 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Insoection _ inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Buncombe, Region: Asheville
Date of Visit: 08/15/2008 Entry Time: 10700 AM Exit Time: 11:30 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Aubrey N. Wells Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Aubrey N Wells
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 290 Willow Creek Rd Leicester NC 287485665
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35'38'50" Longitude: B '4 ' 0"
NC Hwy. 63 (Leicester) from Asheville, left on North Turkey Creek Road (NCSR 1392), right on Early Mountain Road (NCSR 1401),
then left on Willow Creek Road (NCSR 1395), continue about 1 12 miles_ The farm is on the left
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Other Issues
Certified Operator: Aubrey N Wells Operator Certification Number: 21372
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Aubrey Wells Phone:
Primary Inspector: Edward M Williams Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
The facility appeared to be well maintained and records were in good order.
Waste analysis:
119108 LSD Broadcast N=0.70 Ibs/1000gal
SSD Broadcast N=4.1 labs/ton
417108 LSD Broadcast N=3.6 Ibs/1000 gal
SSD Broadcast N=5.6 IbsAon
6124108 LSD Broadcast N=.96 Ibs/1000gal
SSD Broadcast N=5.7 lbs/ton
Soils analysis:
6126108
Date:
Page: 1

a
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 1110010
Inspection Date: 0811512008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle - Milk Cow 175 120
Total Design Capacity: 175
Total SSLW: 245,000
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
ry Stack DRY STACK
ste Pond LIQUID POND 60.00 36.00
Page: 2

•
•
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 0811512008 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? ❑ ■ ❑ i1
Discharge originated at
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? n ■ ❑ Q
b- Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ n
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
D
■ n
n
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
❑
■ ❑
n
discharge?
i]
■
❑ ❑
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes
No NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■ fi
n
It 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.)?
1 I. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
B. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑
■ ❑
❑
or closure plan?
Excessive Ponding?
n
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
D ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
n ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
i]
■
❑ ❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance altematives that need maintenance or
❑
■
n ❑
improvement?
1 I. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑ El
It yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
n
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

Page: 4
Permit: AWC 410010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells
Facility Number : 110010
Inspection Date: 0811512008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P2051?
n
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
n
Evidence of wind drift?
n
Application Outside of application area?
n
Crop Type 1
Com (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Winter Annual
Crop Type 3
Fescue (Hay, Pasture)
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?
n ■ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑ ■ ❑ Q
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■ Cl ❑
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?
❑ ■ ❑ n
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

J
R
0
0
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells
Facility Number :
110010
Inspection Date: 0 811 512 0 0 8 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
n
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
n
Annual soil analysis?
n
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?
n ■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ ❑
■
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ ■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ ❑
■
❑
Other Issues Yes No NA N
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 ❑ ■ ❑ D
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 0 ■ D D
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 08/15/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes Nn NA NE
M. Did the•facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ M ❑ ❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative? ❑ m ❑ n
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? Q ■ 0 Q
Page: 6

. , o�oF wA rF9p�
�a Gj 7
Mr. Aubrey N. Wells
Aubrey N. Wells Farm
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, North Carolina 28748
Dear Mr. Wells:
VILE COPY Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr.. Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Aquifer Protection Section
September 25, 2007
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
Aubrey N. Wells Farm — Facility # 11-10
Buncombe County
On September 20, 2007, 1 conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of the animal waste
handling system for the Aubrey N. Wells Farm. The operation and maintenance of the farm appeared to
be very good.
One record keeping issue that should be addressed is your PAN calculations. It appears that you
have used the actual acres rather than the useable acres to calculate PAN balances. PAN balances
should be re -calculated in those instances where actual acres were used.
As a reminder, your waste application equipment requires calibration once every two years after
initial calibration. Your equipment was calibrated in 2005 and therefore should be calibrated again this
year.
Thank you for taking the time to meet"with me. Please see the Inspection Report (Inspection
Summary Page 2) for additional commentslobservations. If you have any questions regarding this
inspection, 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 wlEnclosure
Aquifer Protection Section Files ARO
N��o��nnCarolina
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 1-677-623-6748
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal OpportunitylAffirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycledl10% Post Consumer Paper

01
E Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 110010, Facility Status: Active Permit: 6WQ110010 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inaction Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Buncombe _ _ Region: Asheville
Date of Visit: 09/20/2007 Entry Time: 10:00 AM Exit Time: 11:30 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Aubrey N. Wells Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Aubrgv N Welts Phone: §28-683-3654
Mailing Address: 290 Willow Creek Rd Leicester NC 2874$5665
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
Latitude: 35°38'50" Longitude: 82"49'20"
NC Hwy. 63 (Leicester) from Asheville, left on North Turkey Creek Road (NCSR 1392), right on Early Mountain Road (NCSR 1401),
then left on Willow Creek Road (NCSR 1395), continue about 1 112 miles. The farm is on the left.
Ouestion Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Aubrey N Wells Operator Certification Number. 21372
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s). Name
24 hour contact name Aubrey N Wells
Title
Phone:
Phone
On-site representative Aubrey Wells Phone:
Primary Inspector: Beverly Price Phone: $" A06- Z/500
Inspector Signature: Date: 9 /9110 T
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

•
E
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number : 110010
Inspection Date: 09/20/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Waste analyses:118107 LSD Broadcast N=2.0 lb/1000 gal., SSD N=1.3 lb/ton; 4/11107 LSD Braodcast N=0.48 lb/1000 gal., SSD
N=3.9 lb/ton; 715107 SSD Broadcast N=2.7 lb/ton, LSD N=0.69 lb/1000 gal.
Soil Analysis: 7/10/2007
#20 - Mr. Wells indicated that dead cows are also taken to the county landfill. Landfill should be added as an option on the Mortality
checklist.
#21 - IRR -2 Form - A new form should be used for each year.
SLD -2 Form - Spot checks were done on PAN calculations. It appears that PAN calculations were done using the actual acres
rather than useable acres. In those cases where actual acres were used, PAN calcualtions should be re -calculated.
#24 - Waste application equipment was calibrated in October 2005. Calibration is required every other year, therefore your equipment
should be calibrated in 2007.
Farm appears to be well maintained.
Page: 2

r •
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 08/2012007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle - Milk Cow 175 108
Total Design Capacity: 175
Total SSLW: 245,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Dry Stack DRY STACK
Waste Pond LIQUID POND 00.00 59.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 09/20/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
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?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
Q
■
❑
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?
❑
■
❑
❑
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?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 4

• 0
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells
Inspection Date: 09120/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 110010
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN a 10%110 lbs.?
Q
Total P205?
Q
Failure to incorporate manurelstudge into bare soil?
Q
Outside of acceptable crop window?
0
Evidence of wind drift?
Q
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Com (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Fescue (Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 3
Winter Annual
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Braddock
Soil Type 2
Codorus
Soil Type 3
Hayesville
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
■ ❑ Q ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
Q ■ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure andlor operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
Q ■ Q Q
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Q ■ Q ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ Q
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
Q ■ Q O
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 5

0 •
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility
Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 09!2012007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No NA NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
D 00
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑ ■ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑ ■ ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
Cl
■ Cl ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑ ■ ❑
Other issues
Yes
No NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑
■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
❑
■ ❑ Cl
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 6

• 0
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells
Inspection Date: 09/20/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Otherlssues
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 110010
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
1110130
Page: 7

r • .
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation .
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 110010 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC110010 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection I Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Buncombe Region: Asheville
K
Date of Visit: 09120/2007 Entry Time: 10:00 AM Exit Time: 11:30 AM Incident M.
Farm Name: Aubrey N. Wells Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Aubrey N Wells
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 290 Willow Creek Rd i NQ 2§7485665
Physical Address:
Facility Status: "❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: r Latitude: a5°38'50" Longitude: 04920"
Fm
NC Hwy. 63 North of Asheville, left on North Turkey Creek Road (NCSR 1392) to Early Mountain Road (NCSR 1392), then left on
Willow Creek Road (NCSR 1395) about 1 112 miles. The farm is on the left. #tfp)
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Aubrey N Wells Operator Certification Number: 21372
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name __ Aubrey N Wells Phone:
On-site representative Aubrey Wells Phone:
Primary Inspector: Beverly Price Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
G N;�tn� - 50 - $17 �
Page: 1

Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number : 110010
Inspection Date: 09/20/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Dry Stack DRY STACK
aste Pond LIQUID POND 19.20
10
Page: 2

1 • "
Permit AWC11DO10 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number : 110010
Inspection Date: 09/20/2007 . Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit; Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No
NA
NE -
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ go
❑
❑
,
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑ ❑
ID
❑
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)
❑ .❑
IM
❑
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
1140
❑
Cl
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, is waste levei into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
❑ 4$00
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?
❑ 113
❑
❑
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,
❑ 1P
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑ 0
❑
❑
improvement?
c
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? O� ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 09/20/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application ( Yes No NA NE
PAN? C K 8,*-5po{ cs'ieck- *B a -vi — CQ�f�I°X n
Is PAN > 10°/x/10 lbs.? F1
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 cont -S► eot� �e_
Crop Type 2 %iitS'{ 'r �tS •�
Crop Type 3 W r
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)? (v p --rok>a N O w
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? ❑ 46 ❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ IF ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ 6 ❑ ❑
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available? ❑ F ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP? p�— ❑
Page: 4

J..' • •
Permit: AWC1 i 0010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 09/20/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents ,! Gl Yes No NA NE � u� �
Checklists? p jL AJ J-zd ,+' ,d La"d � � /pwr'I �f [.��5� ❑ Jam _
6
h� ��r�
Design? Q - � GAP 4 � c, r`r�-' ❑ LAI^
Maps?Oi�
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? S A6 n 111400
Mdp
If yes, check the appropriate box below. A- f16 6'1 ;w"�pI
-
L,D--
Waste Application? SaGrtJ SLD2- �'
af ❑�
t= )C. T�Ac r3+12`z �� � f�iow/ �1. S .s 4 ,4c.�v� Ac"
120 Minute inspections? ok N 011 t- b,%5&-< ❑
!+// O^ E iA.$��L A.�LS.
Weather code? 0 V, �QR- l itG ❑
���2.o
Weekly Freeboard? Oil J�v f r h 4� PAN rye ft
Transfers? V u� ❑
Rainfall? p 14
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly? O )(-
Waste
( -
Waste Analysis? '7 16 1,5-7 5S p D`O
.ACAS+9
t -S P
Annual soil analysis?7/1n 10•7
❑ 0.4t- V6I,coo
[r5+ Fit.
fir' 0 0' -3 Ib(
lbl/'� SSD �� ❑ �r�a.o JbII.oa�o�.
tb/l 000 g�. ty? 1-5® jton
SSD ❑
Crop yields? `C. ❑
stocking? j] N T- A P a fS joy ❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)? ❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? 0000
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? BA- ❑ * ❑ ❑
oc-+. 9A 105
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ .6 ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ ❑ 2 ❑
Other issues Yes No NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals ",thin 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ 6 ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?[ �p,�1%G� �++►�.-1. Cti e c �C /%� ��
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concem? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ 19 ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells
Inspection Date: 09/20/2007 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: 110010
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
❑6❑❑
0@00
❑200
Page: 6
- ,k

BUNCOMBE CO UNTO
SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRIC
NOV 212007
Asheville Regional Office
155 Hilliard Avenue, Suite 204 , [phone]
Asheville, NC 28801 FAX: [phone]
November 19, 2006
Aubrey Wells (Facility Number: 11-10)
Aubrey N. Wells Farm
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, NC 28748
Dear Mr. Wells:
This letter is in follow-up of the Operation Review on November 5, 2007. During the
review;, no discharges from your dairy operation were observed.
The dry stack and liquid storage are both well maintained and managed for their intended
function, and your record keeping was in good order. At some point in the next year, we
can update your waste utilization plan to include more recent maps of your application
fields.
Sincerely,
zv-�
Garyggins, Director
Buncombe SWCD
CC. Beverly Price
NC DENR, Division of Water Quality
Cindy Safrit
NC DENR, Division of Soil and Water Conservation

Q Division of Water Quality
Facility NumbiiERD
O Division of Soil :g:Water ConservationQ'6therAgency�.s��dl�t�vG�.
Type of Visit 0 Com ance Inspection peration Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region: K°W�
Farm Name:nt._ .. /-- q. I'w_, e � m� Owner Email:
Owner Name: fT�f�) G{� ij�S Phone: �igd` &F3— 36'7 ,/
Mailing Address:�%��
Physical Address: y. Cf't dz- l2 dj� A/L
Facility Contact: S Title: Lt �/� _ Phone No:��
Onsite Representative: A1.4 LJ IC Integrator:
Certified Operator: 4- S Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: / �% Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: n' [—]' n Longitude: n ° n ` n
r: .
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle' Capacity Populatiqn
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La ei
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers -
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
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? (If yes, notify DWQ)
FrDairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures:
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If.yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes LTNo ❑ NA [:1 NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
EINE
❑Yes
El No
El NA
El NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
EINE
❑ Yes
E]�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
LJ No
❑ NA
❑ NF
12/28/04 Continued

FEtcility Number: '— iV I Date of Inspection I // 5 L;7 0
-
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?
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
❑ Yes E No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7" Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes WNo - ❑ 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 /No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste ADDlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes U<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
El 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) �(� � SrZ1c461A , 1AL•d/' ' CQ/ A.�$��'/74i1-C.�c`c
._
13"
Soil type(s) C���YIs.
14"
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15"
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fait to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑
Yes
PN//o
❑ NA
❑ NE
17"
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
b" No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): i
Reviewer/Inspector Name J r-. ~t Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: /i'Qii 7
12/28/04 Continued

64. Waste operator education
❑
❑
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. 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. Organizelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
43. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
44. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
45. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
46. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
47. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
48.0peration & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
49. Marker checktcalibration
❑
❑
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:
4.
2. 5.
6.
12128104

• •
Facility Number: -- Date of Inspection 11
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes [JIo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
01'1�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
the appropirate box.
❑ WiIP ❑Checklists El Design El Maps El Other
01 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
El,�,
Yes
/
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield [:1120 Minute Inspections [] Monthly and I"
Rain Inspections ❑
Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes"
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
2 o
❑ 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?
❑ Yes
QVO
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ YesE?"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
LI N.
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
01 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ yes
C(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
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
3
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
Uivo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ YesE?"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
12/28/04
12/28/04

155 IMard Avenue, Suite 204
Asheville, NC 28801
October 17, 2006
9 BUNCOMBE COUN7*
SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Aubrey Wells (Facility Number: 11-10)
Aubrey N. Wells Farm
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, NC 28748
Dear Mr. Wells:
RECEIVED M8) 2-%4M
FAX: (M) 251-4908
OCT 1 � 2D�5
Asheville Regional Office
This letter is in follow-up of the Operation Review on October 16, 2006. During the
review, no discharges from your dairy operation were observed.
The dry stack and liquid storage are both well maintained and managed for their intended
function. Your record keeping, with the exception of running PLAT on the application
fields was complete. Our office will be glad to work with you in running PLAT as time
permits.
Gary Higgins, Director
Buncombe SWCD
Beverly Price
NC DENR, Division of Water Quality
Cindy Safrit
NC DENR, Division of Soil and Water Conservation

�-
r
•,
_ � � •
. - t.
t — ... `- e � . . , � -
� � w \. __
� _ ti 1
ti .. � � .

rU
- Q Division of Water Qualit}°
}aeility Number �/ j !� _ Division of Soil and Water Conse . anon
4 Other Agency
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection EfOperation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:Arrival Time: y Departure Time: %: / County: Region:/rE
Farm Name: < 5rwv Owner Email:
Owner Name: leG S Phone: _S r— 693 Sy
Q] e
Mailing Address: �f �- 11-i D _ '�- L �•[ . G�"� l ► i�
Physical Address: bm �(JI_jI rJ k�_ _ �-i� �C• t' QI G I f'�^�d%�i Z�� f��
Facility Contact: Lde k Title: Phone No: 44) Usi
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: jl.L laiY` Operator Certification Number: _19-71111.07 >—
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number: �r
Location of Farm: Latitude: e Longitude: 0=1
=1 =
di
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑Non -Layer
.Other
❑ Other I_.. .
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
04Ya'jr_yCow
F?
LI Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifet
❑ Dry 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: �3
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 P<O ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [ NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Ld No ❑ NA ❑ 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? 11 Yes 2' o ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: /_t
Spillway?: It
Designed Freeboard (in): 64-
Observed Freeboard (in): 6V//
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ZKo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) ,,--,,!!
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed [I Yes Irdtvo ❑ 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) thereat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes LT<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes O 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'_,—,T1vo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application �
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need El2 Yes 3Vo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? //
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. 11 Yes 2 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)nc
13. Soil type(s) /1e �"j-r.�.,.�Q.
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes E No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes ,hdNo El NA El NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination, E] yes 1QNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes 0,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Q -No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comm nb (refer to question #i): Explain any YES answers and/o'any iecommendano s or any 0 er commel
�iise'�drawmgs•of facility to better eaplatn: sitnatians. (use additional pages as)necessary) `.
Reviewer/Inspector Name j f Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: "0Z.
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: e of Inspection 0
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ,'o [:1 NA E:1 NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check El Yes Q<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists
❑ Design El Maps El Other
Other Issues
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
E No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1"
Rain Inspections ❑
Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
Vo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
VNo
ElNA
ElNE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
ElP Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
R 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
2<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ yes
R1Cio
❑ 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
ErNo
❑ 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
B<
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
[--]Yes
DKo
❑ NA
:❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
ld'<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/78/04

2.
4.
5
3. 6. IZO28/04
Facility Number: If -In] 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. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
38. 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 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 evaluationfrecommendations
❑
❑
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:
2.
4.
5
3. 6. IZO28/04

Michael F. Easley, Governor
i
Gj FILE copy't William G. Ross Ir., Secretary
ri� h Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
G 'C Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Aquifer Protection Section
August 3, 2006
Mr. Aubrey N. Wells
Aubrey N. Wells Farm
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, North Carolina 28748
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
Aubrey N. Wells Farm — Facility # 11-10
Buncombe County
Dear Mr.. Wells:
On August 3, 2006, Bev Price and I conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of the animal
waste handling system for the Aubrey N. Wells Farm. The waste application records are well maintained.
Record keeping has improved greatly since the last inspection. All fields currently being used for waste
application need to be included in the waste utilization plan. A copy of the inspection is attached for your
records.
It was a pleasure meeting you. If you have any questions regarding this inspection, please do not
hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ed Williams
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 .
Noc" Caro i a
rttlm�
:berth Crrolina Division of Water Quality — Asheville Regional Office 2090 U.S. Highway 70 Swannanoa, NC 28778 Phone [phone]
Aquifer Protection. Section FAX [phone]
Cusio,n'er 5ervice.-1-877 623-6748
Internet:-h2o.etrs6te.nq.us
An Equal 00pottun4lAtftrmative Action Employer-- 50% Recycledl10% Post consumer Paper

Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 11001Q Facility Status: Active _ Permit: AWC1100.10 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Buncombe Region: Asheville
Date of Visit: 08/03/2006 _ . Entry Time:01:30 PMExit Time: 03.30 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Aubrey N. Wells Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Aubrey N Wells Phone: 828!!683-3654
Mailing Address: 29Q WillowCreek Rd Leicester NC 287485665
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°38'50" Longitude: 82°49'20"
NC Hwy. 63 North of Asheville, left on North Turkey Creek Road (NCSR 1392) to Early Mountain Road (NCSR 1392), then left on
Willow Creek Road (NCSR 1395) about 1 112 miles. The farm is on the left-
Question
eft
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Aubrey N Wells
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number. 21372
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Aubrey N Wells Phone:
Primary Inspector: Beverly Price Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
All fields currently being used for waste application need to be included in the WUP.
Checklists need to be kept with records (see line 20.).
Waste analysis:7124106 LSD N=1,1 Ib/1000 gal. Broad; SSD N=2.5 lb/ton
417106 LSD N-.84 Ib/1000 gal- Broad; SSD N=5.3 Iblton
12/15/05 LSD N=.71 Ib/1000 gal. Broad; SSD N=2.5 Iblton
soil analysis performed on 615106
Record keeping has greatly improved since last inspection.
Page: 1

Permit AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 08/03/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle -Milk Cow 175 120
Total Design Capacity: 175
Total SSLW: 245,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
ry Stack DRY STACK 48.00
�—Itl
Pond LIQUID POND 19.20 29.20
Page: 2

Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number : 110010
Inspection Lata: 08/03/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Imoacts
Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
discharge?
❑
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.eJ large trees, severe
0000
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,
❑ Is ❑ ❑
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 HA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance altematives 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: AWCI 10010 owner - Facility: Aubrey N Welts
Facility Number : 110010
Inspection Date: 08/03/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
Waste Application
n
r
PAN?
n_
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
Total P2O5?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 1
Fescue (Flay)
Crop Type 2
Fescue (Pasture)
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? ❑ ■ 110
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? ❑ ■ 0 ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? El ■ n 1:1
Yes No NA NE
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available? ❑ E ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP? ❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N We% Facility Number : 110010
Inspection Date: 08/03/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ■
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑ ■ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑ ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑ 0 ❑
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 lssues
Yes
No NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
29_ Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑
■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concem? If yes, contact a regional Air
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5.

0
0
Permit: AM110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 08103!2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA Nl=
Other issues
31 _ Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ Q Q
32, Did Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on-site representative? D D ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
0MC30
Page: 6

fIi
f
155 H'iW'ard Avenue, Suite 203
Asheville, NC 28801
November 21, 2005
BUNCOMBE COUNAT,
SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Mr. Aubrey Wells (Facility 11-10)
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, NC 28754
Dear Mr. Wells:
(828) 2504M,
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 runner PLAT on your application fields. 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 Sandy Mush area. Please give us a call if you need
anything.
Sin ly,
Gary H�ggins, Director
Buncombe SWCD
(Cc: Beverly Price
NC DENR, Division of Water Quality
Rocky Durham
NC DENR, Division of Soil and Water Conservation
k
t.3'ti

I H /0
aefir
Type of Visit 0 Compfiance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 1190 Departure Time: County: ����. Region:
Farm Name: Ault/Yr .f�S arm _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: .+ILI&Ar Phone:
Mailing Address: fleaC J �'e� I6_X .est rc�_ Zi
Physical Address: a�fD ld ,Inca ��{, �e'G?, All—
Facility
%GFacility Contact: Title: /y_ Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number: 7,L21—
Back-up Operator:Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: o Longitude: °
Design d Cnrredt `w benign s` Current Deiign Current
Swtne Cap`actty � Population Wet Poaltry . '' Capacity TPopuzlation Cattle Capacity Population :.
-
'
Elan to Finish I I❑ Layer
❑ Wean to Feeder I JE1 Non -La et
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean I} Poul
❑ Farrow to Feeder Dry
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
.Other, ~
❑ Other
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ 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 .eaters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non-Daity
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Humber of Structures: W
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d_ Does discharge bypass the wast anagetnent systeiii7 (lf yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part opthe operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adv ra iriacts`1%hhe2V&ters�of the 'S taie
other than from a discharge?
E
AS'PU;ii r i tr.L,
❑ Yes D No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes El No 0 N El NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E❑ No
El Yes o
[]Yes l
12/28/0.?
El NA ❑NE
El NA EINE
❑ NA EINE
Continued

� - Ob �G11
Faciiity*Number: 'd Date of inspection 6`ds
Waste Collection & Treatment �
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
Stru re Struc e 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: G f r
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
VIA -
Observed Freeboard (in);
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes lidNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes E(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure pian?
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 6?rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
2 ' es
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable io roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste stiuctures require
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Avotication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
9 No
[INA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
RrNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ FaiIure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of
Area
12. Crop type(s) 0, !fit
13. Soil type(s) ovV0.nP
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
VNNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
53 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure.and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination%❑
Yes
P! No
❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
2ON
El NA [INE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
El Yes
;J No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
ASr:EV! I t 12/28/04 Continued

FaciHo Number: —21 ii X03 i
to of Inspection
RcWred Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes QfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 62rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:)Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes Vlo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
QrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ YesOEf
ElNA
ElNE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
11YesVNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
EX4o
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
2'NNo
❑ 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
dNo
❑ 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
❑ NA
❑ NF
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
d Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28/04
XX
11-1 , NOV 2 3 2005
-
12/28/04

f Facility Number: - Date of Inspection
r
- 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 Pians of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
41. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
42.Oiganize/computerization of records
0
❑
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 certificationtrechecks
❑
❑
57. Crop evaluationtrecommendations
❑
❑
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
❑
❑
' - .EL
65. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
66. Record keeping education
❑
❑
f -= _ ff
Q F ;
67. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
T I _
68. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
69. PLAT
❑
C
70. Other
❑
❑
_
o
List Improvements Made bj Operation:
'
;
1. 4.
2. 5.
3. 6.
11!28/04

IS=: /q..V, T�a v�C PAY,,= G7,0 /h" G��� Z--. --/- 4�?.v
' WA%-. 0 E 2 D
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 110010 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC11 010 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
_ Inactive or Closed Date-
Reason for Visit: Routine
County: _Buncombe Region: Asheville
Date of Visit: 0Q12§1,2005 Entry Time: 09:00 AM
Exit Time:WOLD, Incident #:
Farm Name: Aubrey N. Wells f arm
Owner Email:
Owner: Aubrey N Wellg
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 290 Willow Creek Rd _-
Leicester NC 28748566
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 5°38'50" Longitude: 82"4920"_
NC Hwy. 63 North of Asheville, left on North Turkey Creek Road (NCSR 1392) to Early Mountain Road (NCSR 1392), then left on -
Willow Creek Road (NCSR 1395) about 1 112 mites. The farm is on the left.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Q Waste Application
Records and Documents Other issues
Certified Operator: Aubrey N Wells
Operator Certification Number: 21372
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
Title Phone
On-site representative Aubrey N Wells
Phone:
24 hour contact name Aubrey N Wells
Phone:
Primary Inspector: Beverly Price
Phone: [phone]
Ext.4655
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
Page: 1

•
E
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 08/26/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
130
S k-a-Ck —— 10 d 4bS s 'rdi5r (�r/
I
jiQ Sw"t GL$Q/r �2n'LL� ll.ti a'��LQ
Page: 2

Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells
�7
Facility Number. 110010
Inspection Date: 08/26/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Vistt: Routine
Qisc:harcies A Stre;;m lmpc:ts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ du ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑o ❑
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) ❑ ❑ 9q ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
3. Were there an adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters the Stalp other than frgm a discharge? ® ❑ ❑
Y P P ^crZft odaLruK-
Waste Collertinn. Storage & Treatment ,J Yes No NA NE
�o a lc�:.t
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, ❑ w ❑ ❑
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 tack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry slacks ❑ ❑ ❑
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? ❑ N ❑ ❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
g
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? ❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil? ❑
Outside of acceptable crop window? ❑
Evidence of wind drift? ❑
Application outside of application area?
�,/ ❑
Crop Type 1 FGSGGGC. P^�' r " r� �-' Q�$ C I O V1/l
CropType2 Mid �rASS —H �CcS�[/
Crop Type 3 Co r/i S 7 IOL5&
Crop Type 4 Luke' ILA L)
Crop Type 5 ''" �
`v' I 1 9-O° S — Cot Page: 3

0
Permit: AWC110010 Owner - Facility: Aubrey N Wells
Inspection Date: 08/26/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
•
Facility Number: 110010
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Auglicalion
Crop Type 6
Yes
No
NA
NE
Soil Type 1
Checklists?
❑
Design?
Soil Type 2
Maps?
❑
Soil Type 3
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
®
Soil Type 4
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
±nry �•'
Stn
Waste Application? +vl.►� Q�k -�uJ*
~51
❑
❑
Soil Type 5
120 Minute inspections? M', l ,� �oGV�
Weather code? g"J -1. afoc.w.-w r. 5" Jj� (:
Sf_ AOLiG�►�/�►rF�nC SQ �``-n`11
Soil Type 8
Weekly Freeboard? (heed +0
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?
❑
19
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
CW
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
IN
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
A
No
❑
NA
❑
NE
Records and Documents
19. 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?
❑
91
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
®
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
±nry �•'
Stn
Waste Application? +vl.►� Q�k -�uJ*
~51
❑
❑
120 Minute inspections? M', l ,� �oGV�
Weather code? g"J -1. afoc.w.-w r. 5" Jj� (:
Sf_ AOLiG�►�/�►rF�nC SQ �``-n`11
❑
Weekly Freeboard? (heed +0
Transfers? NleC i� clo4 c�� +'r — Au6n G�Q�� ^° a�5 t
J
❑
+f�u-�'
Rainfall?N4.t& 40 clocc�.n c�
❑
L
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly? WA eA aocu r'r'Q n_ 7 — 5eti co o+ f►1 `
`d� N =1.7
Waste Analysis? 6/�7�0$ PJ�f N� �t ;Doo �"
+1h�t��
1
Annual soil analysis? — hAvC Ito}' C'0114144 �Or
❑
Crop yields? Po-aA J -o c(ocW+*•s � $1.,�j ''"
❑
Stocking? 44vt b OTA 5 n �,(� ,
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)? N A
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
IN
❑ ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑ 9 ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
M
❑ ❑ ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑ a ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
19 ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑ ® ❑
.last,- 4rAIg5--s 3/r Ion
Page: 4
Por.A 6ro4AcraS-- IV � .$7 sirhot' 3a1.

Permit: AWC1 f 0010 Owner - Facillty: Aubrey N Wells Facility Number: 110010
Inspection Date: 08/26/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ 95 ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility tail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those mortality ❑ (M ❑ ❑
rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality ❑ ® ❑ ❑
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ 15 ❑ ❑
32. Did Reviewerlinspector fail to discuss reviewCinspection with onsite representative? ❑ goo
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ 9) ❑ ❑
Page: 5

a `l O�0F WA r�9pG Michael F. Easley, Governor
• William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Camtma, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
D -r Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
d /
Aquifer Protection Section
September 30, 2004
Mr. Aubrey N. Wells
Aubrey N. Wells Farm
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, North Carolina 28748
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
Aubrey N. Wells Farm — Facility # 11-10
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Wells:
On September 10, 2004, 1 conducted a routine Compliance Inspection of the animal waste
handling system for the Aubrey N. Wells Farm. The holding pond liquid level was in the storm storage
area due to heavy rains from Hurricane Frances. There was some erosion near the upper end of the dry
stack at the loading ramp, also a result of the storm. In spite of the hurricane, the facility operation and
maintenance appeared to be excellent. The waste application records are well maintained and complete
with the exception of the annual soil analysis. The soil analysis should be performed before the end of the
year. A copy of the inspection is attached for your records.
It was a pleasure meeting you. If you have any questions regarding this inspection, 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 Ow
Aquifer Protection Section Files ARO N Carolina
NatmMily
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.emstate.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recydedl10% Post consumer Paper

IType of Visit Q Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
IReason for Visit O Routine O Complaint Q Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 11 10 Date of Visit: 9/10/2004 Time: 9:Ooam
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:.... .....................
Farm Name: ,°AUi?rkY- ),.53'f2i1S. Kla7....................................... County:Rullcorabg........................................
A►R.. ............
OwnerName: A.uhl:py................................... .W.ells............................................................ Phone No: S28,653,3.65.4............................................................
Mailing Address: 29,fl..W1ltQ.w..Grer1 RQ.4d....-...-• ...................
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Title:................................................................ Phone No:...
Integrator:......... ...........................
Certified Operator: A abxa..N..............•-..-------•... Wella .......................................... I...... Operator Certification Number: 213.22.............................
Location of Farm:
INC Hwy. 63 North of Asheville, left on North Turkey Creek Road (NCSR 1392) to Early Mountain Road (NCSR 1392), then
left on Willow Creek Road (NCSR 1395) about 1 112 miles. The farm is on the left.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ` 38 F-5-0--144 Longitude
z- -.Design.-. •Current = =.Design^, Current Design -Current
Swine
Ca aci Po` ulahon Potiltry' : C 'aci >Po ulation" Cattle Ca aci . Population.
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ GiIts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons -
U Aldinerpnnac PRediA Tranc. 1
❑ Layer ®Dairy 175 130
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other _
-Total Desigli Capacity 175
hR Total SSLW 245,400
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
' I
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ 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 stone storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ® Yes ❑ No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .....Liquid.Fand..... ....................
Freeboard (inches): _ 18
12/12/03 Continued

IF.- ility Number: 11-10 Date of Inspection 9/10/2004
,#-5. Are' there any immediate threats to the i&ity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tre6evere erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes N No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes N No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? N Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes N No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes 'N No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes N No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or zinc
12. Crop type Fescue (Hay) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Com (Silage'& 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 N No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes N 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 attor below ❑ Yes N No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes N No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® 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.
} r: 4''.i v-+�.ri ^i a"a .y�T�s -`.•`.ro. .f -Lb :_:rivet.�-`.f'!='S:Z �i-'4.t fit--. t. - •^.i. _
;Comments (refer tosquestron##) E plarn `any YES answers,andlor any recommendations or -I other conunents:. " -
ut.s, a'.F d` '��-'�� rt.-_
sdrawrngs of facalratyto bette`e pl m�,sratinns(use;addrttonal�age�as necessarQ�ld Copy ❑ Frnal Notes
NO `�'
- The inspection occurred two days following Hurricane Frances. Holding pond levels were in storm storage due to excessive rains.
Plan of Action (POA) indicated waste application would be on 9-15-04.
8 - Erosion occurred at the upper end of the dry stack at the loading ramp as a result of the storm. Representatives from Buncombe
County Soil & Water Conservation and NC DENR Soil & Water were going to assess the damage.
-IS F$ i.S 1 f c�1'� k`'k�
Reviewer/Inspector Name p � 4
1Bev_Pnce r Ys
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: —64V_ Wit_ Date: '213010 �V
12112/03 Continued

I Facility Number: 11-10 ! Date of Inspection 9/10/2004
Required Records & Documents • •
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Stocking Farm ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After V Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Q No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
dd�tional Comments,andlo Drawings _
i
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Yes
®No
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Q No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
dd�tional Comments,andlo Drawings _
The soils analysis has not been performed for 2004. Mr. Wells indicated that the sample will be collected this fall. I will give you a
follow-up call in regards to the erosion at the dry stack and holding pond storage levels.
12112103

155 HII;n Avenue, Saute 204
Asheville, NC 28801
August 19, 2004
0 BUNCOMBE COUN*
SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Aubrey Wells (Facility Number: 11-10)
Aubrey N. Wells Farm
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, NC 28748
Dear Mr. Wells:
MS) 250-4785
FAX: (82$) 2514908
This letter is in follow-up of the Operation Review on August 11, 2004. During the
review, no discharges from your dairy operation were observed.
The dry stack and liquid storage are both well maintained and managed for their intended
function. Your waste application records are complete and well done, with the exception
of an annual soil test. This test is necessary to determine whether the correct amount of
PAN is being applied each year. If you need soil test boxes, or other materials, please let
me know and I will bring some out to you_.
Sincerely,
Gary Hifii&ns
Buncombe SWCD
`cc: Larry Frost
NC DENR, Division of Water Quality
Rocky Durham
NC NENR, Division of Soil and Water Conservation

0
u
�7
Wi
S Q7
t'I
k•7
LU
�
b
tai
0

hnical Assistance Site Visit Reporl
r` Q Divlslon of Soil and Water Conservation
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
Qo<oil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number
Farm Name
Mailing Address
Onsite
Representative
Tvne Of Visit
®'Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry EKattle ❑ Horse
j(,0_100 Time On Farm: ! UlJ 141 Uiw'
intyy Phone:
Integrator ./1%
Purpose Of Visit
O Routine
O Response to DWQIDENR referral
O Response to DSWCISWCD referral
O Response to complaintllocal referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Ca aci fro ulation-
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
93-Cairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL_ QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes M�6o
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes D -Ko'
surface waters or wetlands?
3• Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ro
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes DiTo
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes Elmo
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes [-r�-
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier - d ! dye
Level (Inches) r ov-
MOP TYPES Yn 5/ S( Iw ,ry,r1 j rlti
.SPRAYFIELD _f
SOIL TYPES 47y -P. VO -Y- Gf
7.. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
93-Cairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL_ QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes M�6o
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes D -Ko'
surface waters or wetlands?
3• Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ro
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes DiTo
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes Elmo
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes [-r�-
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier - d ! dye
Level (Inches) r ov-
MOP TYPES Yn 5/ S( Iw ,ry,r1 j rlti
.SPRAYFIELD _f
SOIL TYPES 47y -P. VO -Y- Gf
7.. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number �1L- - �, Date:
PARAMETER
0 No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
[112. Waste structure integrity compromised
[113. Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
El
1:1
29. Missing Components (fist in comments)
❑
❑
[114. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
30.2H.0200
❑
❑
[115. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
re -certification
[116. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
31. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
32. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
K0. Late/missing soils analysis
33. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
34. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan,
35. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
36. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
[124. Deficient sprayiield conditions
37. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
38. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
39. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
40. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
41. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
C-1 Other...
42. Irrigation system design/installation
El
El
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 work/evaluation
❑
❑
49. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
50. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
1:1
❑
El3
51. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
52. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4'
53. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
54. Waste operator education (NPDES)
1:1
1:15"
55. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
56. Record keeping education
❑
❑
B
57. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
58. Soil and/or waste sampling education
9--
03/10/03

Facility Number LlI I - Date:
'COMMENTS:
,L7isvc�sf-� g� /1 emiv
Gt. � c.-c-�r�� ��- �r �iw.� /''�N /`�4u.r'/'-e��s � � C✓'v/� 6 �`
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST 1
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: Entered By:
3 03/10/03

�ArFR
fl �
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
Asheville Regional Office
WATER QUALITY SECTION
Mr. Aubrey N_ Wells
Aubrey N. Wells Farm
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, North Carolina 28748
Dear Mr. Wells:
December 18, 2003
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
Aubrey N. Wells Farm 11-10
Buncombe County
Today, I conducted a Routine Compliance Inspection of the animal waste handling
system for the Aubrey N. Wells Farm. 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, and your records were in good order. A copy of
the inspection report is attached for your records.
Thank you for your assistance during the inspection. If you have questions, please
contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
4
LaFrost
Environmental Chemist
Enclosure
xc: Gary Higgins
Davis Ferguson
59 Wooden Place . Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone] Customer Service 1-877-623-6748

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other 0 Denied Access
Facility Number 11 10 Date of Visit: 12/18/2003 Time: 0900
0 Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:.............
Farm Name: Ambircy.N..)'.4.'ells.F.ar a ........... ..................................................................
_ .. County: Rmckubg ...................................... moi?........----
Owner Name: Aubt eY...........................:.:..... 3Yte�ts........................................................ Phone No: 82.L681,3654......................_....._.. ....
MailingAddress: ........................................... .................:....... LdmimAC ........................................................ 287.48 .............
FacilityContact:_............................................................_............... Title:..........................---..................----.......::... Phone No: ...................................................
OnsiteRepresentative:........................................................................................................... Integrator: .....................................................................................
Certified Operator; ,A mtrey-N............................. 1'. e &................................................. Operator Certification Nurnber:ZJ3.72 ............................
Location of Farm:
C Hwy. 53 North of Asheville, left on North Turkey Creek Road (NCSR 1392) to Early. Mountain Road (NCSR 1392), then
eft on Willow Creek Road (NCSR 1395) about 11/2 miles. The farm is on the left.
❑ Swine El Poultry . ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 38 ' S0 G Longitude SZ • 49 20
Design Current
$dine Ca "aci Po txlation sLo
r-1Weanto Feeder -
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current De5egn F --Curr
_I® Dairy I - 175 1 . 120 1
175
245,000
Dischar2es & 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 DW Q) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ®No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ®No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ®No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Stricture 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ......... pond.111..........
Freeboard (inches): 36
05/03/01 Continued

Facility Number: 11—ltl 4 Date of Inspection 12/18/2003 1
46'
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 stuctwes lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload [
12. Crop type Fescue (Graze) Fescue (Hay) Com (Silage & 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?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records _& Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management PIan readily available?
(ie/ WLiP, 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
IS No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
This facility is well mainted and operated. All records are well maintained.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
Date: /
05/03/0.1 Continued
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
to No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
®No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records _& Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management PIan readily available?
(ie/ WLiP, 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
IS No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
This facility is well mainted and operated. All records are well maintained.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
Date: /
05/03/0.1 Continued

�f
BUNCOMBE COUN'IO
SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
155 Hilliard Avenue, Suite 204 (828) 250-47$5
Asheville, NC 28801 FAX: [phone]
August 11, 2003
Mr_ Aubrey Wells
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, NC 28748
Dear Mr. Wells:
u
AUG ! 3 20
SVIA�111 -r" SE11AJ
Elnrn-
It was a pleasure meeting with you this morning and doing your annual operation review.
You are doing a good job with the record keeping and maintenanceloperation of your
waste management system_ Waste analysis should be done within 60 days of application.
Since the last operation review in November of 2002, it looks like you did a good job
with this, missing only one analysis.
Thanks for your help with the operation review, and for your interest in protecting.water
quality. If you need any type of technical assistance in the future, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Gary ins
Buncombe County Soil and Water Conservation District
r Cc_ Lang Frost
DENR, Asheville Regional Office
Rocky Durham
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Mooresville Regional Office

' -x
chnical Assistance Site Visit Repcid
4
ODivision of Soil and Water ConservatiorI
Q Natural Resources Conservation Service
VSoil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number - l7 Date: Time: I q: 0- Time On Farm:
Farm Name n� r � P r County Y.2? — 4'
1`t �-t�!'�-U Ww��r - �C.t"tC:�1�..t1�•c. Phone:
Mailing Address 2 U C i I / � t"' �6� e�� �i�z,� l -,C'! C: V 51�� ��C. 7
—r--
Onsite ,
Representative "I (ti' / I Integrator N
Type Of Visit
Operation Review
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
j ❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated: i
El Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry EYCattle ❑ Horse
Purpose Of Visit
wt-,ouune
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O f=ollow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity ' Population Capacity Population
El Layer
ElNon-Layer
El Wean to Feeder
(A
Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
!'7J
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands?
❑ yes Q no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
❑ yes 2 no
surface waters or wetlands?
Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
!'7J
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands?
❑ yes Q no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands?
❑ yes Q no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
❑ yes 2 no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
❑ yes ['no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
❑ yes [3 no
requiring DWQ notification?
S. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment
,
El yes kJ no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure?
❑ yes ❑ no
Structure) Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Identifier 25-V5�'tv f
Level (Inches)
CROP TYPES ' -S L't' �• -L -[. L ~ li CL.0 L L S(.L'L' LL�� 'T�
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES ; (re_v'c.
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

r�
Facility Number" /1. - 10 Date: 19.:1&- 03
PARAMETER
&foo assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill tenting site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
C1 9. Waste spill contained on site
El 10. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
El
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Pian wlproducer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
[113. Waste -structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
El
El
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
[114. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
[115. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30. 2H.0200 re -certification
❑
❑
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
31. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
32. Organ izelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
33. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Latelmissing soils analysis
[121. Crop needs improvement
34. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
[122. 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
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
40. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
41. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
42. Irrigation design/installation
El
El
El Other...
system
Date:
43. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
44. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
45. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
46. Evaluate WAD certificationlrechecks
❑
❑
47. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
2.
48. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
49. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc_
50. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
El❑
❑
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 andlor waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

4-4
Facility Number- Date: ��� - ✓3
L..J
COMMENTS:
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST V `d f
91
SIGNATURE
Date Entered:t vv
Entered By:
03/10/03
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST V `d f
91
SIGNATURE
Date Entered:t vv
Entered By:
03/10/03

i
BUNCOMBE COUN91Y
SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION .DISTRICT
155 HilliardAvenue, Suite 204_ ;�r �h s•
Asheville, NC 28801 -
- • A
uuNOV-B20
November 7, 2002
Aubrey Wells
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, NC 28748
Dear Aubrey:
[phone]
[phone]
It was a pleasure meeting with you during our operation review November 5, 2002. You
are doing a great job with the record keeping and maintenance/operation of your. waste
management system. The only item necessary to bring you into complete` compliance is
'
the installation of a gauge marker in the waste storage pond. We will be glad to assist
you with establishing elevations when you install the marker. The marker should be
installed within 30 days of receipt of this letter
Again, thanks for meeting with me, and we greatly appreciate your efforts to maintain
good water quality in the Sandy Mush area. Please give us a call if you need anything.
Sincerely,
jiffi ins, �ctor
Buncombe S WCD
cc: Larry Frost
NC DENR, Division of Water Quality

is
_0 Division of Watcr:Quaht3 - r -
- _•
Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation ;
Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit eRoutine 0 Complaint O Follow up 0 Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number �V elate of visit: 11' S -O Time: Ial
-- Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
LroPermitted ❑ Certified ❑�a••Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date bast Operated or Above Threshold: /
Farm Name: 4W�� /1Ul)s- FaIrwL County 064-1.a CC, Y�_ !A/ C
Owner Name: 1C(.4-�( 1�r2-U`S _ Phone No.• U_r- l.Y3
rw
Mailing Address: P240 01 1 el6e- 5411, NG Z !Sof
Facility Contact:�-)_ Title: ' c04 .r - Phone No: $�,34'Y3" k -W
Onsite Representative: _ �� 6pe� (J f-14 - Integrator: -}
Certified Operator: ��[ 5 Operator Certification Number: C2/_) 7�2-
Location of Farm: LJ 1, D c v ere,).
❑ Swine ❑ Pouttry Eecattte ❑ Horse Latitude �' �" Longitude
Design Current
bw me Ca acity , Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
El Boars _
-Design Current Design Current
Poultry ._ : -Capacity Population -Cattle. Capacity Population
❑ Laver
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total :Design Capaciti _ ' /7
-
----Total SSLW _ -1 '_N '!)00
Number of Lagoons _ I I IL Subsurface Drains Present 11LJ Lagoon Area ILJ Spra_v Field Area ,
-Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges &: Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ElLa¢oon El Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system' (If yes, notif-r• DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
- 3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
/' r 11
l�
Freeboard (inches):
05/03/01
Structure 5
❑ Yes
[j2 -No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ �'es
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
2 o
❑ Yes
F N+o
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Dumber: !� — �� Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes P1<o
❑ Yes 93 No
❑ Yes ErNo
ErYes ❑ No
❑ Yes 1' No
❑ Yes �No
12. Crop type do -nn s%�e�.� 1, Glial f fa x-, 4lk!:ife_S -
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes �To
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes [�;K0
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? [_1 Yes E No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes 0"No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ElYes O No
16. is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes VNo
Required Records & Documents
Comments (refer to question #}: Explain any YES ani ers atid/ar an} recomritendatious or-anv'other comments.
Use drawings of facattvto better explain ittuatroii �(ase additional pages as oecessarY): .Final
[]Field Cane Notes
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
C] Yes
�,/
LLCt No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
--//
Reviewer/Inspector Name
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
L2No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
FVKes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
Zo
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
El Yes
l!Q
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
��/
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
El yes
No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
El Yes
,[2
L4fhto
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
[:5'�es
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
G2No
E3 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #}: Explain any YES ani ers atid/ar an} recomritendatious or-anv'other comments.
Use drawings of facattvto better explain ittuatroii �(ase additional pages as oecessarY): .Final
[]Field Cane Notes
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 / V F Continued

+ •
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge actor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there anv evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e_ residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30_ Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
2Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 2;

•
1_ •
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
s
�f
NCI)ENR
ENVIRONMENT ANO NATURAL RESOURCES
WATER QUALITY SECTION
November 1, 2002
Mr. Aubrey N. Wells
Aubrey N. Wells Farm
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, North Carolina 28748
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
Aubrey N. Wells Farm 11-10
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Wells:
On October 31, 2002, 1 conducted a Routine Compliance Inspection of the animal waste
handling system for the Aubrey N. Wells Farm. 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, and your
records were in good order. A copy of the -inspection report is attached for your records.
Thank you for your assistance during the inspection. If you have questions, please contact
me at [phone].
Sincerely,
La Frost
E vironmental 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% Recycled1110% Post Consumer Paper

Type of Visit © Compliance lnspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
for Visit OO Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 11 10 Date of Visit: 14/31/2DD2 Time- 09D4
Q Not Operational O Below Threshold
© Permitted ® Certified © Conditionallv Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:......... ................
Farm Name: AMbr.9y..N....Wd15.FArm .......................................................... ------ County: HMRr.QjMjbC................................ ...... AR.Q............
OwnerName: , jutrey................................... Wells ........... ........................................ ....._.. Phone No: SZS,_fi8.36;M----•---------------------...--- ..................
Mailing Address: 22Q.Wi1151YY. eels.Ru�il.............................................................. Le]lm>Xer..A........................................................ IVA& .............
Facility Contact: Axibicy.Wds..........--------------------------...----.... Title:.Q..Futir..... _..................... -----• Phone No: U8 ,663,3554- - - - -
Onsite Representative: A,txbxei'..Wlls ... - - - - -- W ... .._ ............. lntegratar:NLA.1.--............................................. ............
Certified Operator:t#uhr-it?AN................... -........ WellS�-------------- ..-- •-•----•------....._...... Operator Certification Number:ZJ3.72-
... -.......... -...........
Location of Farm:
vC Hwy. 63 North of Asheville, left on North Turkey Creek Road (NCSR 1392) to Early Mountain Road (NCSR 1392), then &
eft on Willow Creek Road (NCSR 1395) about 1 112 miles. The farm is on the left.IV
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ' 38 50 a Longitude 82 • 49 20.
Design Current
Swine:. .Capacity PODulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars -
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
e. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin? NIA
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ® No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier -L" uid P—I #I
u} .............. I ................ ....... ................................ ... ....................... ........... .... - .... ..... I ................. ...... - .......... ...................
Freeboard (inches): >60
05103101 Continued
Design Current..'
Design - Current -- '
Poultry
Ca ° ad Po uladdh Cattle
Capacity _P6u1Ati6n'.
❑ Layer
® Dairy
175 114
❑ Non -Layer I
❑ Non -Dairy
[] Other
_
- Total Design Capacity
175
Tutai.SSLW
245,000
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
e. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin? NIA
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ® No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier -L" uid P—I #I
u} .............. I ................ ....... ................................ ... ....................... ........... .... - .... ..... I ................. ...... - .......... ...................
Freeboard (inches): >60
05103101 Continued

10 t
Facility Number: 11- 10 0 Date of Inspection 10/31/2002
5_ Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6_ Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes N No
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
9_ Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes N No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ONO
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Graze) Fescue (Hay)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes N No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes N No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes N No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ONO
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes N No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
Required Records & Documents
The facility appears to be well maintained and operated.
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
N No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal. Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WIJP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
N No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
N No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
N No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
Cl Yes
N No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
N No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
❑ Yes
N No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
N No
® No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comrnen�sefer�ti< Explain agy answers and/or anyjrecommendahons o�any othercna�nentss �t
se drawn s ofFi'arik �better�eaplatn sjttfa ons-{usesaddttzQnal as�necessaryj �- -
pages �
�. ,,,� � � z,� �-1 _ ❑Field Copy Final Notes --
y � 1
The facility appears to be well maintained and operated.
Reviewer/Inspector NameHar MOAN
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: /'/
05103101 Continued

Facility Number
Date of Visit: ��] Time:,
O of perationa p e owUhreshold
Permitted p Certified p Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: A70 r3 )24ry /v /f Jr .t14 S 7 M County:... !r.✓ . F ..................................
Owner Name: ;z2.v a;7ex �� A 4 S Phone No: g 2 dr, 16 S3, j 4C SSQ
Mailing Address:...,�O..1.rid'c!C>✓.nr....�7.......... /(/....r..7rr�...
Facility Contact:fes ��.Y._.......A,!�X7 e.......�..S.............Title: ....................... Phone No:
......... ...... ..........
Onsite Representative: .. ::.............W....... �.5..... Integrator:......��,�...................................................
...... .................
Certified Operator :............. Operator Certification Number ....1...
Location of Farm:
A! e- NAW y 6 .� To A14 st r.v 7 a
rAl / .dc g a T� Al. 4A. 0 .✓ C>>z fez 4eeog.e
p Swine p Poultry jq Cattle p Horse Latitude 3` S • ®' S '° Longitude •
w Desigp Current -Design ' -Curren _
Swine - - Capacity Populattoa Poultry Capacity Population" Cattle
E3 can to Feeder
-
13 Feeder to Finish
E3 Farrow to Wean
E3 Farrow to Feeder
E3 Farrow to Finish
E3 Gilts
p Boars
p ayer p airy
3 on- ayer 113 Non -Dairy
p Other
Total Design Capacity
='T66 SSLW=;
;Design Curia
Capacttk. Topula
jp
7- Ce
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? (] Yes PF NO
Discharge originated at: 0 Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) [3 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) p Yes No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes WNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? © Yes oNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway p Yes gNo
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:i.�1 1�.1
Freeboard (inches):.............................................................................
...................................................................................................

Facility Number: _ 0
Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? (If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an -
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? p Excessive Ponding p PAN p Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type C -0/7A
13. Do the receiving crops
�'A.Sr�rft i
with those designated In the
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?
13 Yes M No
E3 Yes qNo
El Yes )Q No
13 Yes IWNo
p Yes 01.No
p Yes V No
p Yes W No
' !iw zi�.we 71"e0,�w
Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? p Yes ffNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required_ Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. 1s 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?
p Yes PNo
p Yes prNo
p Yes p No -
13 Yes jallo
E3 Yes SrNo
❑ Yes jpNo
13 Yes Ig No
Yes jyNo
E3 Yes gNo
E3 Yes j&No
p Yes IgNo
E3 Yes jgrNo
13 Yes )2 No
p Yes OrNo
o violations or deficiencies were noted uring this visit. You will receive no lurther correspondence about is visit.
Comments (r_efer toffiquestion#Epla�n=any�YES ansrers andloranyrecoiinendations o%any other co'mmenfs.
itf-
Ilse drawings;of facilR 0 better ex lain;s�tuati6fi§ use acldlttonal a es as;necessa : m
- p ( Final Notes
;PW ..✓,gam 4�
AL
Reviewer/Inspector Named= -
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

05103101
Facility Number: _ �O
Date of Inspection
Continued
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below 17 Yes'N(No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? p Yes 'jallo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, p Yes p.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? p 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.) p Yes EloNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? p Yes Q►No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? p Yes ENo
- rte_ _ — .

t in. gg
S M-, i
ivision of Water Quality
O>Ivision of Soil and Water Conservation DEC 1 9 2UU1 I
ther AgencyU
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection Q'Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation aarttvtLLE REGl0NAC f)FFICE
Reason for Visit outine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other : . ❑ Denied Access
�� wt,: ur v`itiit: } �j! 't ire.. S ✓ Prinled an: 10/26/2040
Facility Number
Q Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted Certified [3 Conditionally Certified Registered Dale Last Operated or Above Threshold
Farm Name:.A.U-,0j , ... A,... ............................................. Countv...... .. .L..... .c?AJ:4 3--a....................-..l-( .r........
Owner Name: •,,, ,L(��.%z�4 - ...... Phone No: 3
Facility Contact: ..t4: � `y.. 1r�>?ELL-5 Title:.r�1�:��=.2,�-•r��� 1t Phone No: .-s�.`.�?��5..:3�:.:5�
................. ...... ............................
Sailing address: ... .Cf.G.... V[-�-Cil!S%....4. G,fK....Zc1t .CJ ................ ..1. 1.y:�ST�` !...F.�1%C.......---.................-.. i ..................
Onsile Representative:.-AwsIA4......wGL.(r5.............. .......---.......... Integrator:.......... -4111(a.
Certified Operator: ... A:{k:af-E---�-{...J.-i,'LLL-....................................................... Operator Certification Ntjmber...-,�0.2�- ............
,oc atlVlt Vl 1a11 Ill. 44
1t: & 3 's x4T,4.1: D(/6 -7/L
Vil.t-,/ L , s ,cam " SZZ,u �
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry 12Cattle [3 Horse Latitude a 0 S(; Longitude FIT]*
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Fcedcr
❑ 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 airy I I—I.S+2p
❑ Non -Layer I❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Othcr
Total Design Capacity
Total SSL W
Number of Lagoons O et/G ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Laguton Area ❑ Spray Fietd Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps I I0 No Liquid «`aste ,ianagcment System
Discharyes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'? ❑ yC5 ❑.Net
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. II'discharge is observed, was the conveyance matt -made'' ❑ Yes ❑-No
h. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (ti yes, notily DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑'lGo
c. If dischar«c is ohsc;r'ed. what is the C111mated flow in �,al/ruin!
d. Does disc•harte bypass a lagoon system:' (It -yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes O 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 tither than from a dischargc'? ❑ Yes 2.110
Waste Collection & 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm stora-0 less than adequate? ❑ Spilhvay ❑ Yes LJ✓ No
Structure I S11-ucturc 2 Structure Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 0
Idcttlitirr: �44d. s
' -- ------------------
beer

,r Facility Number: 11 y • i�:iLc ��f hispection i5
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 structuress need maintenance/improvement'?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvemenf?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate. gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings'?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement'?
I. Is there evidence of over application'? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
t
12. Crop typeC� i � � d">✓r G(; �1 1BGt 1 S 5 _
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those desisnated'in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)'?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination'?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination'?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available'?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement'? (ic/ 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 .vh1ch cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP'?
❑ Yes U -No
❑ Yes U+to
❑ Yes j'lo
❑ Yes 9,1�o
❑ Yes B iVo
[]Yes ENo
❑ Yes ❑'Ilio
❑ Yes M14-0
❑ Yes �o
❑ Yes �Io
❑ Yes 01 o
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes E No
❑ Yes [3'1�0
❑ Yes [fNo
❑ Yes D -Ko
❑ Yes Q No
❑ Yes ElrNo
❑ Yes [1'i' o
❑ Yes BIN,
❑ Yes [ NNo
❑ Yes No
o violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): [I Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewerllnspector Signature- _� / _ Date:
z
05/03/01 Coll fillued

FaeiiSty Number: — of Inspection • Printed on: 10/26/2000
Odor Issues
26, Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below ❑ Yes Leo
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes
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 D4<0
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 Lt#'►�o
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 permanerit/temporary cover? `J/A ❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional omments and/orDrawings:
5/00
5/00

BUNCOMBE COUNTY
SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
155 Hilliard Avenue, Suite 204 (828) 2504785
Asheville, NC 28801 FAX: [phone]
December 11, 2001
Aubrey Wells (Facility Number: 11-10)
Aubrey N. Wells Farm
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, NC 28748
Dear Mr. Wells:
This letter is in follow-up of the Operation Review on December 5, 2001. During the
review, no discharges from your dairy operation were observed.
The dry stack and liquid storage are both well maintained and managed for their intended
function. Your waste application records are complete and well done.
Sincerely,
Gary Higgins
Buncombe SWCD
cc: Max Haner, NC DENR, Division of Water Quality

tsion_
°of Water Quality
- rvision_ ofSoil
'and Water Conservation
777 ZIOilier,_ _ gency ,.
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other p Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: I 0 Ime: ® Printed on: 10/24/2000
pof perationa p Below Threshold
p Permitted 0 Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:.........................
Farm Name: .Atibrjey.N.W. ..ellsF.arm►..........................................••••••••••...............•••........ County: BAncomhe........................................ ARO ...........
OwnerName: Aubray................................... �?e1,1s........................................................... Phone No: 201W-3654 ..........................................................
FacilityContact: ....... ........................................................................ Title: ............................................................... Phone No................................................ ....
Mailing Address: 29fk.. .iillatw Cre& Rctatl................................................................... WreaW.NC.._.._.._._._....._...................................... 28249 ..............
Onsite Representative: ............................................................ Integrator: ...................................
Certified Operator:Auhrey................................... 13?aIs.................................................. Operator Certification Number:2n.72 ............................
Location of Farm:
rom Asheville, take Hwy. 63 approximately 10 miles tote frading Post Grocery. Turn left & follow the signs to Big
Tandy Mush. Look for Willow Creek Road on the left & follow that road about 1 112 miles. The farm is on the left.
p Swine p Poultry ® Cattle p Horse Latitude ©e ®� ®" Longitude ®•
- = Desrgn y Current "�Design Current = Desr Current
- _ _ .. � _
EV_Swine _ _Ca act -Po ula#ion -Poultry`_ Ca_ nci Pa- ulaCA _ _ Ea acr Pa Matron_
- �P�ty- _P� _ _ P �h �P__ , Cattle _p ty P
rio Feantoee er p ayer = ®auy Z, -j -
mrs N p on- ayer µ ❑ on- auy- can _ - = - - - - _ - _ - - =_ - - — _
13 Farrow to Fee er ❑ er - • =. y
13 Farrow to Finis _ Total Design Capacity= 175
- Gilts - - _-- --
Boars - �- — Total:SSLW 245,000
m_
Nuiinber_of LagoonsSubsurface rams resen goon Area p pray ie rea _
_.
'Holdrng�Ponds'a SoltdfTraps- o Liquid ase Management System �
llischar es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Yes KNo
0
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? 13 Yes p No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) [3 Yes p 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) p Yes p No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p Yes o
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? p Yes 1No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway p Yes p No
Stru r 1 ff r Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
identifier: ............... ....................................
Freeboard(inches): ....... ................................................................................................................................. .........

Facility'Number: 1110 • Date of Inspection I
Printed on. 10/24/2040
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,' 0 Yes
seepage,
seepage, etc.) I<
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through_ a waste management or
closure plan? p Yes ri 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? p Yes r
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? p Yeseo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level Y
elevation markings? p Yes 4No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? p Yes o
11. Is there evidence of over application? p Excessive Ponding p PAN p Hydraulic Overload p Yes1_10
12. Crop type r
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? L
Required Records & Documents ko 17
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? "' CV/
t.J'r
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readavailable?
(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?
No Molutions-or. �defiden ies:were •noted •during. this visit. - Voir will veeem' no further.
�c4&6e Wdehc6 0 -OW this :visit; .. ::....:..:::::.. .
p Yes Xo
p Yes Q)&o
p Yes 0lo
p Yes �No
p Yes 00
p Yes 00
Yes p No
p Yeso
p Yes o
p& Yes )
p Yes i�Io
p Yes k<No
p YesNo
p Yes o
0 Yes No
Reviewer/Inspector Name

M
umber: I1_lo DW of Inspection Printed on: 10/24/2000
aci
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below p Yes p No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? p Yes p No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, p Yes p No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the Iand application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? p Yes p 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.) p Yes p No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? p Yes p No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? p Yes p No

r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
WATER QUALITY- SECTION
November 13, 2000
Mr. Aubrey N. Wells
Aubrey N. Wells Dairy
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, North Carolina 28748
Dear Mr. Wells:
NCDENR
NoF7rH CAROLINA bF�AFrrMENT OF
ENvmcmmEw Amo NAruRAL RF_ 4 ROES
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
Aubrey N. Wells Dairy - #11-10
Buncombe County
On October 26, 2000, 1 conducted a routine on-site inspection of
animal waste handling system for the Aubrey N. Wells Dairy. The
inspection showed that the farm was in compl-iance with regulations
being administered by this Agency; 15A North Carolina Administrative
Code 2H .0200 and the approved -animal waste management plan. J
understand that your General Permit Application for operation of a
Cattle Waste Management Facility is still being processed.
A copy of'the report is attached for your review. If you have any
questions concerning the Report or any other related matters, please do
not hesitate to contact me at 251-6208_
Sinc `ely,
a L. Haner
Environmental Chemist
xc: Gary Higgins
Davis Ferguson
59 Woodfin Place, Asheville North Carolina 28801 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/101% post -consumer paper

Drivron of Water Qaahty ;
Q Di -Consery Soil and.Water Conservation `; r
O Other Agency
.ype of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
teason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number ,n 11 10f Date of Visit: Time: 1020 Printed on: 11/9/2000
Q Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
7 Permitted M Certified © Conditionally Certified (,3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ...............
arm Name: Auh rgy &.WxM.FAnm.........._......-------------------- - County: Bunumbe-... -.............................. .RQ-----.......
1wnerName: Alubrgy................................... WAUS............................................................ Phone No:- ............................................................
.........
acuity Contact: QA.[ br y...�' d! .......... _-. Phone No:
._......._............_.. .Title: VRYA>r�............................----...._.............-...................... ....................
Tailing Address: 22Q. WjUQ.W..C.mkKrtt d.................................................................. ................................................. ... M-48 .............
►nsite Representative: Auhnx. c1ls....._...... .. Integrator:
-ertified Operator:,A,ohny,. ........................ H+ ---............. ........... . Operator Certification Number: 2,1372.
,ovation of Farm:
row Asheville, take Hwy. 63 approximately Ili miles to the Trading Post Grocery. Turn left & follow the signs to Big A6
andy Mush. Look for Willow Creek Road on the left &follow that road about 11/2 miles. The farm is on the left,qr
7 Swine ❑ Poultry M Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • ®' Sfl " Longitude $2 • 49 ' 20 144
Design. Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
® Dairy
175 127
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
175
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
245,000
Number of Lagoons 1 i Subsurface Drains Present JILI Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
,isches 8& Stream Impacts
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
Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes M No
Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes M No
/ante Collection & Treatment
Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S Structure 6.
Identifier1 ............... . ................ ........ ...... ......... ................... ... ........ .................. -...... .............. ...................
-eeboard (inches): 60

j 5100 ,. . Continued on back
)Facility Number: 11—i0 Date of Inspection 10-26-2000 Printed on. 11/9/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental flu -eat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? _ ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the.Certified Animal Waste Management Purl (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?
wired Recurds & Dttcuments
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
_22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
®. � violati[3tuiss:oir deficaeacies were'nofed duHM-fhis visit., :You:wi11 receive kd-fdriek.: ;
corresaondeace: abaiut this :visit. . :: ; :.:::: : . ...::::: :
17 - General Permit being processed
9 - Good Records
IReviewer/Inspector Name Max Haner: ,1yr rl�..'/ .__ .F' Vis:'
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
AL
•r

Keviewer/inspector Signature: ' Date: 5/00
�Y�YYYYY^ISI it �1�Y� Ir grlll�
Facility Number: 11-10 Date of Inspection 10.25-2000 Printed on: 11/9/2000 `
Mor Issues
6. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atior below ® Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
.7. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
S. 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)
.9. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
',0. 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
I. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No
'2. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
/M
i

,
.Facility Number 11 -- 1 D oon Number Lagoon I fier iRegati4tZ.pQi�._........................
*Active 0 Inactive
Latitude PTI ®50
Waste Last Added .._. _-..-- W. Longitude
Determined by: ❑ Owner ❑ Estimated By GPS or Map? ❑ GPS ® Map
GPS file number:
Surface Area (acres):
Embankment Height (feet): 1 ..- .......�
Distance to Stream: O fess than 250 ft O 250 feet - 1000 feet O greater than 1000 ft
By measurement or Map? ® Field Measurement ❑ Map
Down gradient well within 250 feet? O Yes 0 No
Intervening Stream? O Yes 0 No
Distance to WS or HOW (miles): 0 < 5 O 5 - 10 0 > 10
Overtopping from Outside Waters? 0 Yes 0 No O Unknown
Spillway O Yes Op No Adequate Marker O Yes O No
Freeboard & Storm Storage Requirement (inches): 50
inspection date 10-26-2000
appearance of 0 Sludge Near Surface
lagoon liquid 0 Lagoon Liquid Dark, Discolored
0 Lagoon Liquid Clear
O Lagoon Empty Freeboard (inches): 60
embankment condition 0 poorly Built, Large Trees, Erosion, Burrows, Slumping, Seepage, Tile Drains, Etc.
OO Construction Specification Unknown But Dam Appears in Good Condition
O Constructed and Maintained to Current NRCS Standards
outside drainage O Poorly Maintained Diversions or Large Drainage Area not Addressed in Design
O Has Drainage Area Which is Addressed in Lagoon Design
0 No Drainage Area or Diversions Well Maintained
liner status 0 High Potential for Leaking, No Liner, Sandy Soil, Rock Outcrops Present, Etc.
0 No Liner, Soil Appears to Have Low Permeability
O Meets NRCS Liner Requirements
cation equipment fail to make contact
andfor Sprayfield 0 Yes 0 No 0 Unknown 1eim representative O Yes 0 No
unavailable
comments
AL
'WI

�.` L,• �Facility Number 11 10} Date of Visit: 1 Z Tune: ®Printed on: 11 IM000
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
3 Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
arm Name: A.trkry-&.Y. AsMarn. _ __ - _ _ �- -• Chanty: Bu m _ _�_ _ - - W ASQ.._...-
twner Name: Aa#It _ . _. Yslls. _ Phone No:
aciHty Contact: Aubmy.N__ .. .._ __ Title: Phone No:
sailing Address:2"..%UQ.W C.mk]lQad__..._
bsite Representative: AILILX_W4_------
Operator Certification Number.?x
ovation of Farm:
rom Asheville, take Hwy. 63 approximately 10 miles to the Trading Post Grocery. Turn leis & follow the sigh to Big
andy Mush. Look for Willow Creek Road on the left & follow that road about 11/2 miles. The farm is on the leis.
Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude I" Longitude F $2 • 49 ®6f,
Design.
Current Design
Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity
Population Poultry Capacity
Population Cattle
Capacity Po " n
❑ Wean to Feeder
Layer I
I
IN Dairy
175 7
Feeder to Finish
❑ Non-Layert
JE1 Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Other
El Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
175
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
245,000
Boars
Number of Lagoons 1 _ = Subsurface Drains Present � Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Feld Area I
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps DTo Liquid WasteMaoWment System = '
lischa= & Stream meets
Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
laste Collection & Treatment
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:
-=board (inches): } 0

5100
8
Continued on back
Iliiy Nnmher: 11- i0 Date of Inspection Ili -Z5 -2f100 Printed.on: 11/9/2000
15.—Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees; severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc,)
6. Are there structures on-site which ars not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes 18 No
(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 maintenancelimprovement? Yes N No
8- Does any Part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancerimprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste A VUffg2gqU
10. Are there any buffets that need maintenancerimprovement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? g ❑ Excessive Poonndin"g ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Cots (Silagerain)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
C) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? -
16. Is -there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iet 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?
2I. 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 ReviewedInspector 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?
: No *ialatiotis;or defic�eacies were aofed'diYivn�g tWs: i .:You:witi r�ee%ve•izo-hirtlier
C0ndence about this :visit.:
17 - General Permit being processed r/?
19 - Good Records ujl. j
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes N No
N Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
[:]Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No

Reviewer/[nspector Signature:. ' trate:
F161ity Number: I1-10 Date of Inspection 10-2fw2000 Printed on: 11 /9/21x
)dor issue
5. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ® Yes ❑ No
Iiquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
.7. Are there any -dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
.8. Is there any evidence of wind drift during Iand application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
.9. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
Vii. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? CLe. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
;1. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? [] Yes ® No
;2_ Do the flush tanks Iack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? [❑ Yes ❑ No

Facility Number !goon Number 1........... Lagoon I�tifer clasestau.bldg
*Active 0Inactive Latitude
Waste Last Added 12.1 ..... Longitude
Determined by*mbankment
;" ® Owner ❑ � Estimated By GPS or Ma ❑ ap
PS file number:
Surface Area (acres):
by Y
Height (feet):
Distance to Stream: ess than 250 ft p 250 feet -1000 feet p greater than 1000 ft
By measurement or Map? 0' k1lield Measurement A&ap
Down gradient well within 250 feet? OYes *No
Intervening Stream? OYes * No
Distance to WS or HQW (miles): 0<5 O5-10 0>10
Overtopping from Outside Waters? OYes * No O Unknown
Spillway OYes * No Adequate Marker OYes * No
Freeboard & Storm Storage Requirement (inches): ........-
inspection date 2/2/2000
appearance of O Sludge Near Surface
lagoon liquid @ Lagoon Liquid Dark, Discolored
O.Lagoon Liquid Clear
O Lagoon Empty f=reeboard (inches): 0
condition O Poorly Built, Large Trees, Erosion, Burrows, Slumping, Seepage, Tile Drains, Etc.
O Construction Specification Unknown But Dam Appears in Good Condition
*Constructed and Maintained to Current NRCS Standards
outside drainage O Poorly Maintained Diversions or Large Drainage Area not Addressed in Design
O Has Drainage Area Which is Addressed in Lagoon Design
* No Drainage Area or Diversions Well Maintained
liner status O High Potential for Leaking, No Liner, Sandy Soil, Rock Outcrops Present, Etc.
O No Liner, Soil Appears to Have Low Permeability
* Meets NRCS Liner Requirements
cation equipment
and/or Sprayfield
unavailable
fail to make contact Yes • No
* Yes O No O Unknown with representative O O
comments pond # 1 and 2 combine for 1.28 acres,
0

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Q DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
DIVISION OF WATER QUALI'1''�HEVILL.E REGIONAL OFFICE
June 9, 1999
Mr. Aubrey N. Wells
Aubrey N. Wells Dairy Farm
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, North Carolina 28748
Subject: Compliance Inspection .
Animal Waste Handling System
Aubrey N. Wells Dairy - #k11-10
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Wells:
The inspection of the Aubrey N. Wells Dairy Farm that
I conducted on June 7, 1999, 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.
Zx
cLrely,
L. aner
Environmental Chemist
xc: Gary Higgins
Davis Ferguson
INTERCHANGE BUILDING, 59 WOOOFIN PLACE, ASHEYILLE, NC 28801-2414
PHONE 828-2S7-6208 FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER . 50% RECYCLE13/10% POSTCONSUMER PAPER

Facility Number Date of inspection L
Time of Inspection ®24 hr. (hh:mm)
t;# Permitted a Certified p Conditionally- Certified $ Registered In Noi OPerattona Date Last Operated: ........ ....
Farm Name: Auhjm.-N- Wddh Fa>mu_ ------ County: Buncombe ARO
Owner Names �ubgJ' . Wells .. .... ... Phone No: 811~683364 _.......... ....__ __ ..................
Facility Contact: Anth=y-N WsJh - .. --- ___- Title: QED= _ Phone No:
Mailing Address: Address: V0
Onsite Representative: Anhmy-X-8?elhL- .-------- ......_---- ------
Certified Operator. ,>ll�rev N• _ �Vg�s Operator Certification Number.
Location of Farm:
aDR�---- -_Q . e _ra. fg-os.- - n w -
-- -- •-
Latitude r Longituder�
t tg3o► utrrent wn orient _ tgn torrent
Swine; -
Capacity_Population _;Pouriry_ Capacity Population Cattle CaQactty_.Populattinn '
p
Wean to Feeder
❑ Yes
p
Feeder to FEMME
N No
❑
P arrow to
Weall..
❑
arrow to
Feeder
p
Farrow to
rmlsh
O
GM
❑
Mars
& Stream Impacts
❑ aY n �Y 175 140
JO on- aver p Non -Dairy
❑ Other f- ~
T&A Design Capacity: ' 175
Total: SSLW . 245,000
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon p Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharQc is obsen-ed, was the conve--ance nian-made?
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Watrr-of the Stale? (If yes. notify DWQ)
c. II discharge is observed, what is the e-.timated. flow in gal/inin"
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon sy.tem' (If yeti. notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) Iess than adequate? p Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: ........ —.-A .......
Freeboard(inches): .............?35........................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99
p Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
E3 Yes ONO
p Yes
p No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Yes
® No
Structure 6
❑ Yes
N No
Continued on back

Facility Number. 11 _ 10 . of Inspection
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancerunprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application ,
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? p Excessive Ponding p PAN
12. Crop type Fescue (Hay) Corn (Silage & Grain)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
-. 15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documentm
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie! WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/lnspector 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?
■ : No'violations or_deficiencies were noted during this.visiti NO'U.'will receive no'further .:.
-correspondence about this;visit.
E3 Yes ® No
C1 Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
C3 Yes ® No
t7 Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
C) Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes M No
p Yes Alf No
p Yes ® No
® Yes p No
13 Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ®No
E3 Yes U No
p Yes M No
ommenta er to question any answers an or any recomm►ea ns or any
0 -her
-
IISe d'rawmgs of facility to better explain sttua#eons. (useads�onal pages as-necessary� mss,. ,�, 4. y �,, _�,� _
19. Additional forms SLD -2 provided during mspeciton. Form.will allow nitrogen balance calculation per field
of application per crop cycle.
c
�
Reviewer/Inspector Name Ma= _ I'
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: - - ,, Date:

a Number. 11-10 At Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge Wor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
29. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shatters, etc.)
31_ Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanenthemporary cover?
3/23/99
® Yes p No
C3 Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
O Yes M No
O Yes M No
p Yes N No
O Yes ®No
•,`:�,..�s�-;�.:a��",.c,►aa�r�s:_���cti�'�a.��,>>� ., �: x":",a��".�'��^-,- ms's-.,�r1��- . ' , �9-`�x ,rr�r�rcr';,,T.,x r ...�� --:j,�*'- � , j. �-�.;,..�,�."�,,«.;.
6. Design modification not practical - odor problems not expected.
0&32 are N/A
T
11+I inn

� 'D Division o and Water Conservation Operation R `x
F -
.D DivisionandWater Conservation :Compliance ection a s x
ivision of Water Quality .Connpliance Iinspechon =z =
r
tier Agency Operatzon.Reviewy
Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
D Permitted Certified D Conditionally Certified D Registered 0 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name. .1-'�....'..4L.1-�/ si.. � t l ................. County:
Owner Name:...... Phone No: ... .4..6&3.-- r .................
C L Gf .. Phone No: .
FacilityContact: .............................................................................Title:........-.......... ........ ................-----•..
Mailing Address: ..........,z................&41A_jee_/
/ ...
4.............�(.�.�,�:.N�....�?.....
Onsite Representative:. ......... ...... lel:#.P�1................................................... Integrator:............................................................ .............
Certified Operator: ............... 4............................ It............................................................. Operator Certification Number:................. ..............
Location of Farm:
............................................................ I-: ........... ............. I ...............
Latitude
Design Current
Swine -Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Holding Poiids / Solid Traps
Longitude 0
Design °Current Design
Poiilfrp -.Ca acity .Po elation Cattle =. Capacity P
Layer❑ Dairy 7,S
—1 Nnn-I aver '' rl Nnn-Dniry
❑ Other
Total ❑C 1jn Capacity
Totz1 Aw
❑ Subsurface Drains Present
I-7 No Liauid Waste Manazen
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any pa a operation?
Discharge originated at: [ILagoon ❑ Spray Field ElOther
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
Area Spray Field Area
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 gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: �j
Freeboard(inches): ........ I ........ ........................................................................... ... ...........................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3123199
❑ Yes )(No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑
Yes
._❑ No
❑ Yes %No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
lk
Structure 6
El Yes XNo
Continued on back

Facility Number: — (if Inspection
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
L] Yes ANO
(Ifany of.questions 46 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
Reviewer/Inspector Name
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7_ Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yeso
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste str tures require maintenance/improvement?
El Yes NO
""" ��`��`
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with require aximum a d minimum liquid level
❑ YeSANo
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes *No
11. Is there evidence of over application? Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
f
❑ Yes ANO
12. Croptype Q
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certifie Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes MNo
14. a} Does the facility lack adequate acreage for Iand application?
❑ Yes o
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes E^O
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes o
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes $<No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes )<No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes P(No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yeso
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑Yes OXNo
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ YesNo
21- Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes o
22_ Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes o
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative? ❑ Yes �ko
24_ Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes o
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes '7F�T�� o
i'�o-' iWh OrWor• deeciendes •were noted• during-(hls,vislt: - Yoiir will -receive yid fuii-th& /�
comes OTtdenceahWt.thS VIAL
C©iumems: {i efer to questton #)=Exglatn any YES answers and/or any recornmendahons or an other comments:
Useadrawtn ` of factlt to betker ex laiirsituaitions.. use additional -4 a es as necessary} -
-- —
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur . Date:
v4wr ( ' L " 3123/99

Facility Number: — I*f Inspection •
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below Ayes ❑ 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 40
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes 9�wo
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 ANO
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.) l ❑ Yes ❑ No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes KNo
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged till pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? 44--- ❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional.ComnienWand/or-Drawn7gs:
a
u•
11
3123199

"Y NORTH CROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
ASHEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
December 2, 1998
Mr. Aubrey N. Wells
Aubrey N. Wells Dairy Farm
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, North Carolina 28748
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
Aubrey N. Wells Dairy - #11-10
Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Wells:
On December 1, 1998, I conducted a routine on-site
inspection of animal -,waste handling system for the Aubrey
N. Wells 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.
Ixre
L. Han
er
.Environmental -Chemist
xc: Gary Higgins
Davis Ferguson
INTERCHANGE BUILDING. 59 WOODFIN PLACE. ASHEVILLE, INC 28601-2.414
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/1 O% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

M irivision 01 131U11 anu Ser I,onserraiion vt►er
Division U-Soit and Water Conservation Coml
_ .. ri l}ivigiori.�f Water"nuaht�-'Cniiii►liance insriect
t
,n Keview... -.
ncexInspection _-
Jo Koutme o [ omptaint p rot€ow-up of VWV inspection o rouow-up of uawt. review o cutter
Facility Number Bare tbt lnsylesti rrt
Time +t inspection I- -A- 1—m.,_ ��.J
24 hr. (hh•mm)
0 Registered Ij Certified t3 Applied for Permit a Permitted o ; vt perationa Date Lust Operated:
Farm Name. Aubxey.N...W,ells.Eairm...................................... ......................................... County: Buncombe ARO
Owner Name: Aubrey Wells ..................................... - -... Phone No: $28-683;365.............................................
Facility Contact: Aubzxy..l'fulls..................................................Title: naw.ner........ ......................................... Phone No: same .........................................
Mailing Address: 2 fl -Wellow. .1.ltoad................................................................... TRdSe�tm.y.c......._.._........_............................._......_ 2$7;1$..............
Onsite Representative: Auhrey.W_ ..ells,.......
.. Integrator:
Certified Operator: A,ubrev..i:............ ............................ Weill......................... . Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
rom x Vit.. aPpra�nra ea. u e. g .ass.. rncery ...u�riti .. ori:. .s,[gtts. a tg. y.
mush: ,-lj,Qok for,�►?illow,rgclk-lioad on the Eeft &,#Qllow,tl;at,ad-abouttles,,,, , e, arm -is on t-- e e T
Tl� l __. Kft ........................
-----------------------------._:_•:_. ...__.-_ .---------------- -------------..............................___.. _....._.----••_ ____-_-__-_:•--•----•-------------------.... - .
LatitudeT�
•i �� ►ngitude- '797'Z
---------
resign ♦ urrent >,eniga •.urreni resign %-urrenz
Swine Capacity- Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑
W can to Veeder
❑
k ceder to P iim
p
arrow to can
❑
arrow t4 k ceder
❑
arrow to T rots
❑
Boars
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Other
Total Design Capacity 175
Total SSM' 245,000
Number of Lagoons 1 Holding Ponds 0 ❑ u su ace Drains Present -11M Lagoon ea igpray ie res, l
p No UquRl Waste Management System
:-fr.7i•.r�it
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes M No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ila No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. It discharge is obsen-c(L did it reach Surface Water? (If ves. notih DWQ) - ❑lies ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in eal/niin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system! (if yes. notifi DWQ) ❑Yes ❑ No
3. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
a. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes 11 No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes ® No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any appiicabte setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes 11 No
7, Did the facility Fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes M No
7/25/97 Continued on back

tact ity • t7n1 f: 11_ 111 9"1 f :,+�,=s .,:ti�.�n � •
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes R No
Sivu 5urt.- F111sh Pit„,{, et .
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes R No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure h
Identifier: 1 ................. -.._......._.. .
Freeboard(ft): _.............1.5..................................................................................... ............ ......... ...... ........ ....................................... ....... ........................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? p Yes X No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes N No
12. Do anv of the structures need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public hesith or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? ❑ Yes ® No
WwasApplication j
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 typeSudex (Uay)
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes X No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes N No.
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes H No
19: Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? p Yes W No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? p Yes M No
21. Did Reviewer/lnspector fail to discuss reviewPmspection with on-site representative? ❑ Yes N No
22. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes Ic No
F,yr C"ertirwd or rPgmitteil Fac;iliws Onh
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? _ ❑ Yes X No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit? ❑ Yes N No
t - o. violations or a iciencies were noted during this visit:. Youmill receive no further. -
;correspondence -about this visit ; : _ . .
Comments (refer to question ft , Explain.any.Y. : S answers and/or any recommendations or any other.comments.
Use ilrawrng9 of facility to better explaiai situations. (use additional pages as necessary)
Well Managed
Reviewer/inspector Name Max L Ha ' ' r
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: f �/ y

❑ DSWC Ani i Feedlot Operation Review
:WWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site inspection d x �
lO Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DIVQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other l
Date of inspection
Facility Number Time of inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Registered XCertified © Applied for Permit [] Permitted JE3 Not Operational I Date Last Operated: ... .......................
Farm
erated:.-
Farm Name: ...teL4./V!...I.• li'L County:.......''"...................:..........................
OwnerName :......a ....................................................................... Phone No:. ....- .............................
lc41
Facility Contact. Title:dU/VA4Phone No:
......................... .....%lx.
Mailing Address: .... .�........YA!.l.!�JW..�.t�e��" �� /,,.& '��G,2,f 4 ........... .................................................................... ...----..........
Onsite Representative:... ... Integrator :.:.....................
.................................................. ..
Certified Operator je5.... ... Operator Certification N`umber:.•Z��•z
...........................I.........----_.
Location of Farm:
11 arc).................................................o...................._.......................................-............................................................................................
Latitude • ° ®44 Longitude ' ®4 .20 t<
Design CurrentDesign Current Design _ 'Current
Swine Capacity,.Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity, Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer KPairy 7 6
❑ Feeder to Finish 1E] Non -Layer JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity,
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons / Holding'Ponds 10 Subsurface Drains Present Lagoon Area 10SPravField Area W
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. if dischar*e is observed. did it reach Surface Water'? (II yes. notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7125/97
❑ Yes y No
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 19,No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes 9,No
❑ Yes �Io
❑ Yes ANO
Continued on back

Facility Number: /— JQ .
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons,Iloldinj! Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structte 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: {/ .............................. ...............................
Freeboard(ft):........1.5...............................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
Structure 4
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes Wo
❑ Yes Wo
Structure 5 Structure (i
❑ Yes qNo
❑ Yes VNo
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
MNo
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
ZNo
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
ENo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
KNo
17. Does the facility have a tack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
ANO
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
('o
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
O,No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
OQNo
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
Yes
❑1Xy
)(No
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
es
I`T0
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
XNo
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
o
I�Iko
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes
No violations ar. deficiencies were noted during this.visit.• Nou:will receive no further
correspondence about this:visit: " : .. .... •

St9te of North Cala
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Wafter Quality
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
October 09, 1997
Mr. Aubrey N. Wells
Aubrey N. Wells Dairy Farm
290 Willow Creek Road
Leicester, North Carolina 28748
Dear Mr. Wells:
1
•fti hl'
Subject: Compliance Inspection
Animal Waste Handling System
Aubrey N. Wells Dairy - #11-10
Buncombe County
On September 24, 1997, I conducted a routine on-site
inspection of animal waste handling system for the Aubrey N.
Wells 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
9Lax
rel ,
.. Haner
Environmental Chemist
xc: Gary Higgins
Davis Ferguson
Joe Zimmerman
Wanda Frazier
Max Haner
P.O. Box 29535, N%;owl FAX [phone]
Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmotive Action Employer
Telephone [phone]% recycles/ 10% post -consumer paper

p Division_ 0 1 and Water Conservation 13 Othger
0 Division o ater Quality
outlne _,07 t6 p a_in4 tj fo ow -up Of ��.�l�'LxJ �i AfwElfi t� ..-�� n�*- of .y S ;. re"n
Facility Number
Farm Status: is Registered p Applied for Permit
p Certified p Permitted
Date of Inspection . -74:91
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total nnr tin frACdOtl of hSlwrS
(ex. -1.25 for 1 lar 15 rain)) Spent on Review
or Inspection (includes travel and pmcesaing)
in Not 7�peratioa Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: AnI=.N WrAq Rarxn ._ County: Buncombe AIRi?.___
Owner Name: Aubrey
Wells
Phone No: 704-683-3654
Facility Contact: &qib WeirTitle: Qwner _ � Phone No: 704 83 3634 M_
Mailing Address: 2�0 W ow C�Qad—_— ,&eieesttr.N_C ,, 7-r—q-
Onsite Representative: Auhm Wells ____ Integrator.
Certified Operator. Aubrev — Wells _ Operator Certification Number. 21372__
Location of Farm:
room e e wv. _ apgraa�i_naI v m es ate ase eerv, urn eQIkow t , e ss to Ifig Sandv
htude ©. ®'" Longitude
C-`
)e of Operation - Design Current Design Current Design .: `;_ , Current
Swine ' ` Capacity Population Ponitry -~y ... ' Capacity ' Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
E3 Pecder to kinish
C1 arrow to Wean
❑ arrow IO k eeder
0 k arrow to kimsh
❑ Other
Number of Lagoons / iioiding PotEd9 pSubsurface rales resent Lagoon AreaIn Spr2y kie
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenanceflmprovement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If dischame is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
``.3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30197 maintenancerunprovement?
0 Yes ® No
❑ Yes pA No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes lV No
Con hued on back

lFacility Number: 11-14
6. Is facility not in compliance with any apOle setback criteria in effect at the time of desO •. ❑ Yes No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes N No
CAre there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes M No
Strscturzs fl.:r�Zoons azidior Foldin,T Pi�nd.;l
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? G Yes R No
Freeboard (ft): Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
...................... .... ........... ....... ......_........................ ...................... ............... ........................................ ........... -......... ......
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ,No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/fmprovement? ❑ Yes H No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses as
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate miniutirm or maximum liquid level markers? ® Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
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 ... -C=15Aa&v A.QrAW) -
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
17. Does the facility have a Iack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes R No
— Does the receiving crop treed improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ❑ Yes X No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes X No
21- Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative? ❑ Yes X No
For Certitied Facilities On1v
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes Q No
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes p No
24. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
t:omments (refer to question #):. Explain anyvYl S answers and/or any recommendattotts or any other comments
:... _ . _ _
IIse "drawings of facflrty fo better ezplaia�sitaahons. use -..a. . onal pages as necessary) s
13. The holding pond needs a liquid level marker.
Note: 'the plan will be certified within the next few months. The construction is complete and in operation. No problems noted.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
ee: Division of Water Quay, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit
gate1797
4/30/97

s
Site Requires Immediate Attention: UO
Fac iii ty No.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: 12- , 1995
Time: /600 4-41
Farm Name/Owner: AfAtar 4j. VUza-s-
Mailing Address: ,�� z- _r3oxf43-3 - Lr-[ C9sjdZ A)C 2-cP7¢j6 -
County:.
Integrator: Phone:
On Site Representative: gr �jUf,LLs _ Ptlonc: &o 4 3454
Physical Address/Location: zSa Ill14ZAJ &-tc C �C/ - rte NC
Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle X
Design Capacity: _ �7S- Number of Animals oil Site: rla
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM_ Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: 3:5 ' _8Jo - Longitude: 2 41-'7' 2-0 Elevation: 3 Z-oo Feet
(kA 6*MA) Circl Yes r No
Does die Aatimal Waste Lagoon hav ufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately I Foot + 7 inches) es r No ' I1A tial Freeboard: �Ft. Inch
Was any seepage observed from the a on(s)7 Yes No as any erasion obse ed? Yes r No
Is adequate land available for spray? Yes r No is t n cover crop adequate? Yes r No
Crop(s) being utilized: �7irdf Q_
Does die facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellin Ye or No
100 Feet from Wells? Yesr No
Is the animal waste Stockpiled widnin 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes 5"ie7
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Yes SNo
Is animal waste discharged into ers of the state by man-made ditch, flpslning system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes r No If Yes, Please Explain.
Does die facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of nianure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? Yes o No
Additional Corurrents:
Za (c-dx_ i0 r!7 62 Z? a1411- 74ri 7i/�:c
Inspector Name
Sigi
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.

°'"�� � �'`�_ ' _ ���� �'` Q -iii �`�1 � �1 �� `J �• `��I •r��, °$�
w: �l�Q`i;it4-•1+�..-'.:;��1� l,'i1 �' 'n'� ['' a I• r''��`Y�.t '. ���. �. � � �: "n�I ► .� l�O+ �( � Ig
i f� 1 J. �a • / ��� ` .. I t l � 111 a JJJ � �
1 I I �• i a l 4
RM)f: )11 j i t s _�I • �a,� .I Y : I j J Ove LI]- j '..r-. 14 ` ' ;� •j 1 ,,•I I
�ymo._ . � ^`�/f��sr'c;�I -':•.riJ/.. r -- � �--'� � -" � i :�� O > j �'� j.
g X 131 a
Q'�/%rr7-7.u,�- a , .:kr. ..3`: r `l: 2 22
C I: -i : rr ' , \err i.,- ♦ r �r - , II! --
'r /��'�--`1 1 t � - _ J" `l�" ` ' It�` � �'J `fig ('fl ,J 1 ' i///�' ..� i �♦ � ' i . \ a, � r '-
•;-
\ -t—._ _' �i-•1}��'-`��� �= f I �a � 14 � ` r ' / t`� i r 1 1 r i t - \ ♦ _ *ssr � , ' i ` '
,i tI \��•,`�F'' �V ♦ �. a_y_, f 1\^
YIWOBC"{yd {`l1 `f 3�`• - __ %.IJ,: 'f. - jar ��,//,,, ]I ( ,� s,l-,7 �I i - wi�� I f �7�.•`' \ I ��',
1
� —�'� 1�ij //J0 � �� ji `Jj4�� ,�...• .f "/l`{ ,j'.j t�II4I�f , I I,• j, ♦ \-'-I ?ar>rr i r \s
: 7 1 0 � �I _ /. ,,i .'�• i � 4 r.� � I I :'Ir 41 .' , r i �! • r.l(� l -y :I ��J�'.^� • � -- j � �
�j1� ��.r'���1 ,� `JJ � I +1r r,,��f 1 7 j� � � �,`t .{ I f� f: ./1 !r �'1 � t.` •- r �.rl/.%"1�, � r� � � - -� r_ -
I
r/" r� ./ _f �J I,., 's r � .• a "'\i{U .� ;./' ` fi' r J,l;. Y.' I ��-•: �
BM w111L2 �• J���s
.J-
r;r, ) �� • � '+• ,r Si t ;_ •. I' r ( _ff' r` = fj! , "'} 3 `�� 1, ,
I �, rf � .I —��� ` ,'� 3 r• r .� Aja,°��� r :• � _'l '� '•� tii ;>�,1r
-rJft r'p—J _ `� � � 'l�•_l +r� , /r : .� t ll, �!f. � - _ - - - r l 1 �\ . � 1 r} i , � � � ��
.� fi'i-----�i;i �,�� ) J�i1 5i71, � � �,;:.'.-;��':' 'rlf � 1 %'ti-✓ -- -- i .ti \ -� `f
-7-V 3 _ ♦v {
rf� Oi ,� �11 1�__-L�\�\�•''`,''1 t~ !'`�' ���• �'I -lr,- �fJf L� ,1�. 1• Ir y!�I`'.!'�'� ,, !'r, �. f' ::r
J `.�•�� iL� � f�� ;) ":}= �;1� r 1;. 'rr� '�� �� '-'1€;,i�• �•,• ,; k�1� L
,�a�:�- ?:�',r`.\�/�/ �`-��I�. i�� '. �J ��1//,J ! 'J' ,•!. ! \��J/� l ��J11'll_f-�`��� \1\ ,/�I iI 1 f `�_',�I fJ/ _Il�•r
, •;�Pv`_•`,it }�`O'� \•,'1 I , t� �,,1.''j/ 5 ,s .� 1 ��1(( - _,.� i '•• •rh r 1, .�r' .�
- `-1 \` `- `L� � �, � I s r-rte.--'�;� ,��-�1 1�, , I t . � � } , i; �, ��I,E �' i' 1 ��� s—
CH ij14 � + 'rlfr. � r'l : .•?;} I 1' / , ti` )')j 777 �� r 4it `' '" �,,:;
�4 1 �' ' 1 r f:�. l! 'Sr ����1/ • .i-`J�{f,�� 1 ��_� ti, ' ��:' r �.^il (�I j =�� r)��I J 1��, t ��� i �� ' �� `r-'��•r-.
7 { r 1 rl �.rfr �! ! 1' r "�, ;A'.\. �'" -.: -• "� _�- ', 1-• .i-' � { +`� _�`� 1\\ _moi
� � 'If //l����� � 1+11 J, `r 1 'jI''JJ� !- �1 ili(%lrli/.%• `•`-_-- !� _, r�, � 1� `I.�V �t`� - tj �` � 11}s�` � ::
? IJ {` •�• � �fY}� �`f ]I I1�.J(IS"'{irr/' fr I?r.� bJ - �' �- .%p �� '\�',\�.IY }', • I i. S i lfr } �� ";
>r i ; 'iti �� f r)�1 ,f"'•�':: tI' �{ ~ 1 ly r f M(� 132
� � S ��// J I f ., I 1 ,•. •` 1![ lf` \'O \ Ji}} 1; 1,1:; i!, S _ 1 .Ilt r: 4
/ — i r 1 1�_�C�_.! Vii: j �l`Y!!7 4 i /., l '1;i J _ ,Y :\_: - -.:\•- �.1 'y' 50 -,x
- i °i %! i !' �' /'• ''1'l 1. - J' j; �.__r - .; } ' J. i � `�- � • i •-� � ',•1f =
SHG �1 �j }�
•f� r� - i i (�! � :', - J.. ,'! r' {I''/ ,. - ,/ J rJI-, �-\'--:'' �j: ' - ► ' 4 �rr r �(
�'��•/ iFj'�`•;E O ,� t'-_ `.�,:� � /1 �lJ,'' �'� ' I' f��0 �(��lJrlt''/�f 'J(�r -:r- ''s " - Sfr~��' �� ''I�( t� 'i�` f� 1 _
•/ t'i\ .�Y'., l� :: .=. ,; 1`� ,i ir:r :\, or •, � � S \ ... ,r}t� .• f'} ��i • { 'r , S I } �.
S� { ���/ �•r�`
�.��r,���� J ��`:-yr/ f�+�.4 r1 111 �1`! J 1 r_r_ r �, JFK•'��'� �(ir J,. r -+i ����'i `_"/ �,
1'-!; ���-r ` t :;1�L1 :1 •�5'•i 'firil.
Gip 4 Wade Gep 1 2 �� '>\ -,!: t' t'I i J.� ' 'rl � 't?M
u �,
,. 1 +( �
IM
t� -?�I a�','irf J+ •r,,,\ ,� J)':irtr f"".� t; J; tJ: ; ',Z _ rin s'"'• •�r1.' 'i',i � _.}Y 'J� f s �1 �.
��\�.\� J� �`�J.• ., �I �/1 J. ,... � 'l l� rr. JI,. f . O-= �� i' •-:,•'� t ,- � r \
A. �J
�} tL ` i JA J'B T' '•� Er I. ! i �' il{ } ! r_` JI.: ;' % r
��S i r t t I f ri 11?} 1 Is �S1! r - +� � =_✓/ ``.i1 '}'�` i t i.1 \ � Ij4 ;._��N�,-fy,,1;
l` n.l'� `!\\�r 'j�I ��� f f �i:ll�r i'� �(/I•� ��� } X•`}\,1 4'1i I� •,ti; t .i- I {�. `��% �K. moi`•,, �•.\ `\a� r /t J �1; ��r-O V,{�
')%/ , %'-1 / l/� `\ �i�_J� ;I l ;hirr II , IIiJI } ii' r� ,'! '' ,moi 1..♦1�^�� r� j 14i F -�.;
! {' ♦ „1 ` � J ,! { ! � � I S' r -�>" r� - 8 ' U ' ] 32
f r �i1�� } �1�� f� ~;� (/ rs /;;((../ j� `\ ``�����li • fl ''t 'i};' t I t �`:'� ' , 1l.==�rj- \\�`1 �s frl
�� � CC !3 P.
♦ ✓/.� f � _ � V,�� I � r �' frr�1 � I i *i. / Jjl�/rp-; -x'11 \ 1 %� � �� / ��f'r" f `����� ���
` �i �� �- i •-��'�'� `�,1 _ —� .//,`:/' % � } I r - `1-: iaJ 3 J �Q 1� is•�i If� wJ� rtCS rC ;9�i ,�t
�' i 1 / ll f i/ 1 1 i r ► !- 1
! � �� , i � �i.i�, (� 1• - .t? /� J • '. ! '�, I -- � I rl r'f 111,` ` '11� . %//_� '�,? �`'trJ ,-r, sfe r ! •,
33i 332 333 5
,0„ eso.EoOo
335
itrol by USC&GS. USGS, and TVA
)ography by Geological Survey from aerial * 1
MN
Ihotographs by stereophotogrammetric methods GH 10110 0 1000
1d examination by Tennessee Valley Authority -1941
1 .5
o•
1.03' O MILS COl
19 MILS
NATIONAL
ov II C