460015_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qud

4 ri; �"�k.v,. +�" 5: -nzcr� � � e- ,cx,. a�.�r i� a;:vvv �M�^•'ilk
e

R
ti
0 Division of Water Resources
El Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
460015 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS460015
❑ Denied Access
Inppection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Hertford Region:
Washington
Date of Visit:
06/01/2017 Entry Time: 10:00 am
Exit Time: 10A0 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Brian Mitchell Farm
Owner Email:
Owner:
Brian Mitchell
Phone:
252-356-2909
Mailing Address:
251 Quebec St
Harrellsville NC 27942
Physical Address:
Harrellsville NC 27942
Facility Status: Compliant Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm. Latitude: 36' 17' 30"
located on a gravel road, SR 1440, east of harrellsvill approx. 1.7 miles
Longitude: 76' 45' 00"
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Brian C Mitchell Operator Certification Number: 16219
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Re prosentative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Larry Mitchell Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Susan Mitchell Phone :
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Waste analysis: soil tested: 2016
5-12-17 = 1.07
1-2-17 = .71
IRR records are complete & balanced.
Reviewed: rainfalllfreeboard; calibration 2016; sludge survey - T=2'4", LTZ=5'11"
Need a sludge survey for 2017.
page: 1

Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility : Brian Mitchell Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 06/01/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Fff Swine -Feeder to Finish 1,776 1,500
Total Design Capacity: 1.776
Total SSLW: 239.760
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon PRIMARY 25.00
page: 2

or
Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility : Brian Mitchell Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 06/01/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream „Impacts
Yes No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
01111
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
NEIIJ
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)
❑
E ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
N ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
E ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection Storacie & Treatment
Yes
No Na-Na
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yel No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ E ❑ ❑
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 a 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

r
Permit: AWS460015 Owner -Facility: Brian Mitchell Facility Number:
460015
Inspection Date: 06/01/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste „Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Corn, wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ 0 ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ ■ ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yea
No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
M ❑
❑
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

r
Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility : Brian Mitchell Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 06/01/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop yields? -
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the,
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
00
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
[]
M ❑
❑
page: 5

0
Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number:
460015
Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS460015
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County:
Hertford Region:
Washington
Date of Visit:
04/13/2016 Entry Time: 09:40 am Exit Time: 10:20 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Brian Mitchell Farm
Owner Email:
Owner:
Brian Mitchell
Phone:
252-356-2909
Mailing Address:
251 Quebec St
Harrellsville NC 27942
Physical Address:
Harrellsville NC 27942
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑
Not Compliant Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
36" 17' 30" Longitude:
76' 46' 00"
located on a gravel road, SR 1440. east of harrellsvill approx. 1.7 miles
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Brian C Mitchell Operator Certification Number: 18219
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Larry Mitchell Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Susan Mitchell Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis: soil tested: 2015
1-12-16 = 1,17
IRR records are complete & balanced out on wheat.
Reviewed: freeboard levels 25" on 2127/16; sludge survey June 2015; mortality/stocking; calibration.
page: 1

Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility : Brian Mitchell Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 04/13/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
LE Swine - Feeder to Finish 1,776 1,500
Total Design Capacity: 1,776
Total SSLW: 239,760
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon PRIMARY 33.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility : Brian Mitchell Facility Number 460015
Inspection Date: 04/13/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Cl
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
M ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, 5toraae & Treatment
Yes
No Na 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 (Led large
❑
M ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
❑
•❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility : Brian Mitchell Facility Number:
460015
Inspection Date: 04/13/16 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
'Yes
No Na No
Crop Type 1
Corn, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
■ ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
0
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

.10,
Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility : 'Brian Mitchell Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 04/13/16 Inssection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
1gs 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
❑
E ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
E ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑0
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31, Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
E ❑
❑
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 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ E ❑ ❑
page: 5

r
Y
Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
460015 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS460015
❑ Denied Access
Inssection Type;
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Hertford Region:
Washington
Date of Visit:
03/26/2015 Entry Time: 10:00 am
Exit Time: 10:40 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Brian Mitchell Farm
Owner Email:
Owner:
Brian Mitchell
Phone:
252-356-2909
Mailing Address:
251 Quebec St
Harrellsville NC 27942
Physical Address:
Harrellsville NC 27942
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude
iocated on a gravel road, SR 1440, east of harrellsvill approx. 1.7 miles
Question Areas:
0 Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
El Records and Documents Other Issues
Murphy -Brown LLC
36° 17' 30" Longitude: 76' 45' 00"
■ Waste Application
Certified Operator: Larry Collins Mitchell Operator Certification Number: 992806
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Re pros entativo(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Larry Mitchell Phone : [phone]
On -site representative Larry Mitchell Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Marlene Salyer
Inspection Summary:
Waste analysis: Soil tested: 12/2014
12-17-14 = 1.63
IRRs were balanced for cover crop, waiting on current analysis to complete.
Reviewed: rainfall/freeboard (20" on Y7/15), sludge survey 8/2014 w/LTZ at 5'10"
stocking, New COC,
#28 - New incinerator installed & working great.
New NMP dated 11/26/14
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWS460015 Owner -Facility: Brian Mitchell Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 03/26/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotlons
Swine
® Swine - Feeder to Finish 1.776 1,750
Total Design Capacity: 1,776
Total SSLW: 239,760
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Dale Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon PRIMARY 25.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS460015 Owner -Facility: Brian Mitchell
Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 03/26/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
yes
No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
[]
0 ❑
❑
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
❑
01313
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No No Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
M
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le) large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑M
❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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
❑
■ ❑
❑
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?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
[]
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell Facility Number:
Inspection Date: 03/26/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
460015
Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Corn, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
1 S. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
EEI
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
EEI
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
El
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page; 4

` Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility : Brian Mitchell Facility Number:
460015
Inspection Date: 03/26/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
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 permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
E ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
N ❑
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
N ❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 460015 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS460015 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comoliance Inspection Inactive or Closed pate:
Reason for Vislt: Routine _ County: Hertford Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 05/01/2014 Entry Time: 09:40 AM Exit Time: 10:16 AM
Farm Name: Brian Mitchell Earm-_
Owner: Brian Mitchell
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Mailing Address: 251 Qubec St dgE[gJisyjile NC 27942
Physical Address:
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36° 17'30" longitude: 76045'09"
located on a gravel road, SR 1440, east of harrellsvill approx. 1.7 miles
Question Areas:
© Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Cal, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents
Certified Operator: Larry Collins Mitchell Operator Certification !Number: 992806
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Larry Mitchell Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Larry Mitchell Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis:
2-19-14 = 1.33
soil tested: 10/2013
Date:
IRR records are complete & balanced out. Rainfall, freeboard & stocking were reviewed. Calib. 412014
SSurvey 7-16-13
POA for freeboard dated Feb. 24,2014 for 18" freeboard.
Page: 1

Permit: AWS460016 Owner -Facility: Brian Mitchell Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 05101/2014 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Q Swine - Feeder to Finish 1,776 1,725
Total Design Capacity: 1,776
Total SSLW: 239,760
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
agoon PRIMARY 27.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWS460015 owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell Facility Number: 460015
Inspection pate: 05/01/2014 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, What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d, Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than
❑
■
❑
❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes
No
NA
NE
4, Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.ed 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,
1101113
dry stacks and/or wet slacks)
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: AWS460015 Owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 05/01/2014 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 manure/sludge into bare soil? ❑
Outside of acceptable crop window? ❑
Evidence of wind drift? ❑
Application outside of application area? ❑
Crop Type 1 Corn, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
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?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑■❑❑
D■DD
Yes No NA NE
0 E D U
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
F,
Page: 4

Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 05/01/2014 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.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fall 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. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate
❑
■ ❑ ❑
box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell
Inspection Date: 05/01/2014 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Records and Documents
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Facility Number: 460015
Reason far Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
❑ E ❑ ❑
Page; 6

t
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 720015 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS720015 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comoliance Insoeglion Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine , _ County: Perouimans Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 06/04/2013 Entry Time: 01:30 PM Exit Time: 02:20 PM Incident #:
Farm Name. Williard Copeland Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 163 Nixon St , , Hertford NC 27944
Physical Address: 1111aodwin Mill Rd
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36'15'09" Longitude: 76°32'59"
Belvidere Rd. 1111 Located 2 mi. southwest of Belvidere on SR, 1111
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat @ Waste Application
Certified Operator: Michael D Nixon Operator Certification Number: 17741
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Nixon Phone:
On -site representative Mike Nixon Phone:
Primary inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis: soil tested: 9-2012
B-22-12 = .12
7-01-11 = 1.1
Date:
Irrigation events in Sept. - Nov. records are not completed; will be seen later at Mike Nixon's inspection. Caliberation & sludge survey
are due in 2013,
There have been no animals on site since June 2012.
Page: 1

P
qk
Permit: AWS720015 Owner - Facility: Willard M Copeland Facility Number: 720015
Inspection Date: 06/04/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Q Swine - Feeder to Finish 3,000 0
Total Design Capacity: 3,000
Total SSLW: 405,000
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
k goon #1 1 1 1 1 72:9].00
Page: 2

i
0
Permit: AWS720015 Owner - Facility: Willard M Copeland
Inspection Date: 06/04/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1, Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at:
Structure
Application Field
Other
a. Was conveyance man-made?
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Facility Number: 720015
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
2, Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than
❑
■
❑
❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, 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 (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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
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)?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ 01113
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
11
Page: 3

.0
Permit: AWS720015 Owner - Facility: Willard M Copeland Facility Number: 720015
Inspection Date: 06/04/2013 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 manure/sludge into bare soil?
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Evidence of wind drift?
Application outside of application area?
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Fescue (Hay)
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ Q ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑■❑❑
n
Page: 4

J
Permit: AWS720015 Owner - Facility: Willard M Copeland
Inspection Date: 06/04/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 720015
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.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and V 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 (NPOES only)?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
25. is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate
❑
MOO
box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26, Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWS720015 Owner - Facility: Willard M Copeland
Facility Number: 720015
Inspection Date: 06/04/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Yes No NA NE
Page: 6

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 460015 _ Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS460015 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Lje=rd Region: Washinaton_
Date of Visit: 0 1OQ12012 Entry Time: 09150 AM Exit Time: 10:30 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: BL�nMitchgll Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Brian Mitchell Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 251Qubec St Harrellsville NC 27942
Physical Address:
Facility Status: N Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Integrator: Mu[phy-Brown LLC
Latitude: 36°17'30" Longitude: 76°45'00"
located on a gravel road, SR 1440, east of harrellsvill approx. 1.7 miles
Question Areas:
M Dlschrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
W Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Larry Collins Mitchell
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 992806
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Larry Mitchell Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Larry Mitchell Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Waste analysis:
1-9-2012 = .98 soil tested 1-23-12
IRR records are complete & balanced out.
SSurvey on 8-16-2011 T= 2feet 5in. LTZ = 5 ft. 10 in.
Everything looks good!
Have been sitting out wailing on pigs for several weeks, should be placing some this week.
Page: 1

e
Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell
Inspection Date: 03/06/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 460015
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 1,776 0
Total Design Capacity: 1,776
Total SSLW: 239,760
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
lagoon PRIMARY 24.00
Page: 2

Permit: AW5460015 Owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 03/06/2012 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. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ ■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ ■
❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than
❑ ■
❑
❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑ ■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard? U
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 properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management 011111100
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
Cl
■
❑ ❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑ ❑
dry stacks andlor 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: AWS460015 Owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell
Inspection Date: 03106/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number. 460015
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
Corn, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑
■ ❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
1100
❑
16. 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?
❑
■ Cl ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell
Inspection Date: 03/06/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Records and Documents
Facility Number: 460015
Reason for Visit: Routine
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below,
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate
❑
■ ❑ ❑
box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26, Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ 110
Page: 5

Permit: AWS460015 Owner • Facility: Brian Mitchell
Inspection Date: 03/06/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 460015
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes
No
NA NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑ ❑
Otherissues Yes
No
NA NE
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report
❑
■
❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional
❑
■
❑ ❑
Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge,
❑
■
❑ ❑
freeboard problems, aver -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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

To Division of Water Quality
Facility Number O Division of Soil and Water Conservation 4
O Other Agency
Type of Visit 0 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 ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:— I Arrival Time: j! �7;3 1 Departure Time: County: Region: /G D
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: �C.l�i / `/�,��l1.Lf' Phone: ✓i �� ' r�`��9
v� s
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
��:Certified Operator: r �� Operator Certification Number:,
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Swine
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
jK Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Latitude: [= e [= A = A Longitude: = ° = =
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
11 ❑ La er I TEA
❑ Non -La er
s�s� rn
Other
❑ Other - — -- —
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharses & 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)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Da Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: 01
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 0NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ o ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
o ❑ NA
[-INE
❑ Yes
YNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection r
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): _
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes LId No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes
�No ❑ NA ElNE
ElYes 5 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental) eat, notify DWQ
7. Do" any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes QfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes 2/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes iNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) _ p
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes YANo ❑ NA ElNE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ElYes FZ1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility.lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
19. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
IComments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. I
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
4 �-
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: �Sd - y
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 2 of J
Date:
—�-
17/7A/Ild / nnlis�iivil

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Ra"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
U 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
ENo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
93 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
' Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? Yes
El NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? D
El2 Yes
,�dNo
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
N
El NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
El Yes
VN
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
MINMINU
ElNA
[INE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
ElYes
Lld 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?
ElYes
No
[I 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
�'N
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
N
ElNA
ElNE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
ElYes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3
12128104
Page 3 of 3
12128104

Facility Number — —�
0 Division of Water Quality
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit i® 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 ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: �. Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: 4W Owner Email:
Owner Name: ! ---Phone: 1r
Mailing Address: AW
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator2l&6L l
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feede
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Title:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: �9
Back-up Certification Number: f 9gXffe
Latitude: = o = I = Longitude: = ° = 6 = ,l
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer —
❑N--on-La er
--- - -- ---- --- --
Other
❑ Other_ —
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Pouits
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes a/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ o ❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes
o El NA
❑ NE
El Yes
rNo❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

f
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection- D
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
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
V No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
E3 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
( No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require [3 Yes
,/
I( No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste ApOication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
It. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 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
a` / 0
n
12. Crop type(s) /� , 1 1 �� % � �L�._ZZ
_.
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
dNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
dNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
[7j No ❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
Fv(tslo ❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
�(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):
1
Reviewer/Inspector Name 1.14
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
. �P_rlo/d
Phone:
Date: /Y--
Page 2 of 3
12128104 Continued

v
Facility Dumber: — /5 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
❑ Yes [a/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes E3"'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking
El NA [I NE
❑ Yes L( No
❑ Yes [�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes P�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? 9100'7 . ❑ Yes 2fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? 9 007 ❑ Yes 53"'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes 264o ❑ 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
dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
dNo
❑ 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?
El Yes
�f
Li0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
U�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
C�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
U No
❑ NA
❑ NE
I Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3
12128104

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 460015 Facility Status: 8gtivr, Permit: AWS460015____ ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Qoa)pligno lgggggtion Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Hertford Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 03/23/2009 Entry Time:09755 AM Exit Time:
Farm Name: Brian Mitchell Farm
Owner: Brian Mitchell
Incident M,
Owner Email:
Phone:
Mailing Address: 251 Qubec St Harrellsville NC 27942
Physical Address:
Facility Status: E Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Integrator: Murphy -Brown. LLC
located on a gravel road, SR 1440, east of harrellsvill approx. 1.7 miles
Latitude: 36°17'30 _ Longitude: 76°45'00"
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents © Other Issues
Certified Operator: Brian C Mitchell Operator Certification Number: 18219
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Larry Mitchell Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Larry Mitchell Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspectors):
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis: 12-19-08 = 1.2
soil test 2-12-09
looks good
Date:
Page: 1

Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 03/23/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 1,776 1,700
Total Design Capacity: 1,776
Total SSLW: 239,760
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Data Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
kgoon PRIMARY 26.00
Page: 2

41
Permit: AWS460015 Owner -Facility: Brian Mitchell Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 03123/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No
NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
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 (LeJ large trees, severe
❑ ■
❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■
❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ MOO
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Hot applicable to roofed pits,
❑ ■
❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑ ■
❑ ❑
improvement?
Waste Ap Ilp cation
Yes No
NA NE
10, Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑ ■
❑ ❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 03/23/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
PAN? ❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.? ❑
Total P2O5? ❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil? ❑
Outside of acceptable crop window? ❑
Evidence of wind drift? ❑
Application outside of application area? ❑
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Winter Annual
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 4

K
Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell
Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 03/23/2009 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?
❑
■
❑ ❑
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?
❑
■
❑ ❑
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: 5

a
Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell
Inspection Date: 03/2312009 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 review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 460015
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑■❑❑
Page: 6

a
0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 460015 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS460015 _ ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: FUg ford Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 03/12/2008 Entry Time:09:50 AM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: Brian Mitchell Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Brian Mitchell Phone:
Mailing Address: 251 Qubec St Harrellsville NC 27942 _
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Carroll's Foods of Virginia LLC
Location of Farm: latitude: 36°17'30" Longitude: 76°45'00"
located on a grave! road, SR 1440, east of harrellsvill approx. 1.7 miles
Question Areas:
W Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment jj Waste Application
jj Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Brian C Mitchell Operator Certification Number: 18219
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Larry Mitchell Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Larry Mitchell Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis:
2-29-08 = 1.7
11-08-07 = 1.3
soil sample 1-24-08
5-15-07 sludge survey
Page: 1

Permit: AWS460015 Owner -Facility; 9rian Mitchell Facility Number : 460015
Inspection Date: 03/12/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
W swine - Feeder to Finish 1,776 1,776
Total Design Capacity: 1,776
Total SSI.W: 239,760
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Qbserved Freeboard
agoon PRIMARY 23.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWS460015 Owner • Facility: Brian Mitchell Facility Number : 460015
Inspection Date: 03/12/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ❑ 0
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ Gn ❑ ❑
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 (LeJ large trees, severe
❑
I2
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. 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?
Cl
®❑
❑
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
❑
u
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
a
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
W
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Pending? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWS460015 Owner • Facility: Brian Mitchell
Facility Number : 460015
Inspection Date: 03/12/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
Q
Is PAN > 10%110 Ibs.?
❑
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
Corn (Grain)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, 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
Sail Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
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? ❑ Q ❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
Cl La ❑ ❑
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?
❑ o ❑ ❑
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: AWS460015 Owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell
Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 03/12/2008 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)? ❑
Ell
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
o
❑
❑
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?
❑
0
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
V-
p
u-
❑
AI6
❑
AI F
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 ❑ p ❑ Cl
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ® ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
1
Page: 5

Permit: AWS460015 Owner -Facility: Brian Mitchell
Inspection ❑ate: 03/12/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Otherlssues
31. Did the facility fait to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewhnspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 460015
Reason for Visit: Routine
Page: 6

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency II ---II
Facility Number : 460015 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS460015 LJ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Hertford Reglon: Washington
Date of Visit: 06/07/2007 Entry Time:11:00 AM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: Brian Mitchell Farm Owner Emall:
Owner: Brian Mitchell Phone:
Mailing Address: 251 Qubec St Usluellsville NC 27942
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
located on a gravel road, SR 1440, east of harrellsvill approx. 1.7 miles
Latitude: 36°1T30" Longitude: 76°45'00" _ ____
Question Areas:
Discharges a stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Brian C Mitchell Operator Certification Number: 18219
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Larry Mitchell Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Larry Mitchell Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Waste analyses:
3-05-07 = 1.5
soil test 1-31-07
Looks good!
Date:
Page: 1

Permit: AWS460015 Owner -Facility: Brian Mitchell
Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 06/07/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current Population
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 1,776 1,750
Total Design Capacity: 1,776
Total SSLW: 239,760
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Lgoon PRIMARY 34.00
Page: 2

Permit: AW5460015 Owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell Facility Number : 460015
Inspection Date: 06/07/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
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? 00011
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage S 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 ❑
■
❑ Cl
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0110
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑ ❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑ ❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell
Inspection Date: 06/0712007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 460015
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN n 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P2O5?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Corn
(Grain)
Crop Type 2
Winter
Annual
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
110011
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: 4

Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell
Inspection Date: 06/07/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Records and Documents
Checklists?
Design?
Maps?,
Other?
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Facility Number : 460015
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
El
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
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?
❑
■
❑ ❑
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: 5

Permit: AWS460015 Owner- Facility: Brian Mitchell Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 06/07/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWo of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ E ❑
El
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fall to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 6

t
i
E Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 460015 Facility Status: Permit: AWS46QQ16 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County. tartford, Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 10/20/2006 Entry Time:09:45 AM ._ Exit Time:
Farm Name: Brian Mitchell Farm
Owner: Brian Mitchell
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Mailing Address: 251 Oubec St Harrellsville NC 27942
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
located on a gravel road, SR 1440, east of harrellsvill approx. 1.7 miles
Latitude:36°17'30" Longitude:76°45'00"
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Brian C. Mitchell Operator Certification Number: 18219
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Larry Mitchell Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
As noted by Mrs. Pat Harris in June - I did not find the following:
1) Certificate of Coverage
Date:
2) Sludge Survey - if you have a copy please fax to my office - if you haven't secured a sludge survey, please do so ASAP.
Thanks, everything else looks good, Marlene
Page: i

Permit: AWS460015 Owner -Facility: Brian Mitchell Facility Number : 460015
Inspection Date: 10/20/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
O Swine - Feeder to Finish 1,776 840
Total Design Capacity: 1,776
Total SSLW: 239,760
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon PRIMARY 25.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell Facility Number : 460015
Inspection Date: 10/2012006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑ ❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑ ❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑ ❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (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?
❑
■
❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑ ❑
improvement?
Waste Ap lip 'cation
Yes
No
NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑ ❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell
Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 10/20/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit. Routine
Waste Application
Yes No
NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Corn, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ ■
❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15, Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? Cl ■
❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No
NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
■ ❑
❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS460015 Owner - Facility: Brian Mitchell Facility Number : 460015
Inspection Data: 10/20/2006 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 fait to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑ ■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ ■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
■ ❑
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ ■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ ■
❑
❑
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 ❑ ■ Cl ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ Cl ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AWS460015 Owner -Facility: Brian Mitchell Facility Number: 460015
Inspection Date: 10/20/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
nihar Icellac Yes No NA NE
31, Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? 0 E ❑ O
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ N Q
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
0 m 0 D
Page: 6

[Type of Visit pi Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Referral O Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 46 15 Bate of Visit: 14/20/2004 Time: 12:00
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified U Conditionally Certified Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........•....
Farm Name: BrhtxtMtcJha.F,aI:m.................................................................................. County:`UfrifOxd........................................... WAR .......
OwnerName: Brian ....................................... MSl d...................................................... Phone No: (1, ��. �rz7.QR....................................... ..................
Mailing Address: 5.1..Qultrr�.Stx��t....................:............................................................ lb ri illsAllt:...N.C................................. ........... Z7.9.Q ..............
FacilityContact: ..............................................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: Lax..leitehetl........................................................................... Integrator: C�rI ArII'.s.kAstirls.S� .'.Ime...............................
Certified Operator:Bnjl:11..0.................................. hfitrlldl ........................................... Operator Certification Number:18119 .............................
Location of Farm:
ocated on a gravel road, SR 1440, east of harrellsvill approx. 1.7 miles LW
®Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 17 30 �� Longitude 76 ` 45 00 64
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
I ❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
® Feeder to Finish
1776
1720
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
1,776
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
239,750
❑ Soars
Number of Lagoons 1 Subsurface Drains
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?
Field Area
❑ 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 storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 31
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 46-15 Date of Inspection 10/20/2004
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ® No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ) .
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? I ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes
® No
elevation markings?
Waste Aynlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
® Yes
❑ No
❑ Excessive Ponding ® PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc >' 3000
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat
13, Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15'. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ®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.
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): :❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
11) Note Pat Hooper's Op.Review on 8/30/04 regarding incorrect acreages on the old waste plans. Since, a newer plan was written that
had the old incorrect acreage sizes for field 4B & 5 transferred into the newer plan. On the 2003-2004 wheat crop, once the correct
acreages were applied to the IM forms there was overapplication of PAN as a result. The most recent Waste Plan with the correct
acreages is dated 9/7/04 by Greg Huges. Make sure to use this waste plan from now on when determing acreage and PAN allowances on
Irrigation forms so that overapplication of PAN does not occur in the future.
Soils dated I2/5/03 with up to 0.7 T/ac lime suggested and Cu & Zn levels within guidelines.
Waste 9/15/04 = 0.78, 6/24/04 with 2.9 1bsN11000gal, 4/19/04 = 2.2, 12/2/03 = 1.7.
Reviewer5nspector Name Scott
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
12112103
Date: lb
Continued

Facility Number: 46-15 Date of Inspection 10/20/2004
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
®No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
®No
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
®No
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
®No
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30, Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
®No
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form []Rainfall ❑ Inspection After V Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
[a No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
dditional Comments.and/or Drawings;
12112103

Technical Assistance Site Visit Report
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 46 - 15 Date: 8130104 Time: 1 12:40 Time On Farm:
Farm Name Brian Mitchell Farm County Hertford
Mailing Address 251 Qubec Street
Harreflsville INC
Phone:
120 WARO
Onsite
Representative see comment section integrator Murphy Brown of Virginia
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
OQ Routine — - -.
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Capacity Population
❑ Layer
El Non -Layer
El
Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
t��s
t�5o
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
(252)- 5f-2-9Q e
27942
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3• Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large ❑ yes ® no
trees, seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ❑ yes ❑ no
ponding requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment []yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? []yes ® no
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure a Structure 5
Identifier primary
Level (inches) 1 29
CROP TYPES jCom Soybeans Wheat
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES NoB BoB
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03 `10103

'N
Facility Number 46 - 15 Date:
8130104
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
®
El
10. Level in structural freeboard
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11, Level in storm storage
27. Review -or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
®
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
30.2H.0200
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
017. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33.Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
[121. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
[124. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWO Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
❑ Other...
43. Irrigation system design/installation
❑
❑
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certification/re checks'
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.3.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5'
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6 -
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

te
Facility Number 46 - 15 Date: 1 8130104
MENTS:
Larry Mitchell granted permission to access site and records. He was unable to be present because he was picking com in +
'ont of forecasted rain.
Weekly lagoon level records complete back to 1-6-04. Lagoon level drops the weeks of 4-20-04 and 7-6-04 consistent with
pplication events.
2004 soils report #11047 available but front page with testing date was not in records. BF001, BF003 & BF004 fields have
H, copper and zinc levels within acceptable range. Need to write date on report. NOTE: Contacted NCDA lab for date
if soils report. Samples were tested 11.18-03 and report dated 12-5-03 on web page. Copy of front page will be
sailed to Mr. Mitchell.
Last waste analysis dated 6-24-04 at 2.9 Ibs11000 gal. Previous samples dated 4-1904 at 2.2; and 12-2-03 at 1.7 lbs11000
Waste plan revised 1-2204 and signed 2-16-04 to include wheat for grain and soybean options. Greg Hughes, Hertford
oil & Water Conservation, is technical specialist.
Reminder - permit requires records to be maintained for three year period.
Marker will remain as is based on technical specialist evaluation.
5 & 27. For Field 4B used 6.59 acres and 1-22-04 waste plan states 2.59 acres. On 2003-04 wheat, adjusting applications
2.59 acres resulted in an over application of plant available nitrogen. Upon further investigation of records, older waste
Ian states Field 4B is 6.59 acres. Unable to determine if any changes were made to wettable acres for Field 4B.
7. Due to confusion between waste plans suspect acreage is incorrect on IRR-2. Will need to correct for 2004 soybean
rop once correct acreage is determined.
)TE: Following review, DSWC staff met with Mr. Mitchell to discuss discrepancies between waste plans. DSWC will
ntact technical special to request follow-up meeting with producer. Scott Vinson with DWO was notified of discrepancies.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST JPat Hooper
1W
SIGNATURE �C?nl 6: 4
3 03/10/03

1
Technical Assistance Site Visit Report
• Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 46 - 1 Date: 917104 Time: 1 8:30 Time On Farm: 75 WARO
Farm Name Brian Mitchell Farm County Hertford
Mailing Address 251 Qubec Street
Phone: [phone]
Harrellsville NC 27942
Onsite
Representative l=arry_Mitchell Integrator Murphy Brown of Virginia
Type Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
Purpose Of Visit
O Routine
Q Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
p Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Capacity Population
El Layer
❑ Non -Layer
El
Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
ins
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ❑ no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ❑ no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does'any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large ❑ yes ❑ no
trees, seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4• Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ❑ yes ❑ no
ponding requiring DWQ notification?
6• Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ❑ no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ❑ no
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier _ 1
Level (Inches)
CROP TYPES
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 46 - 15 Date:
9/7/D4
PARAMETER
0 No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
El
El 11. Level in storm storage
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
30. 2H.02D0
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application a 10% or a 10 lbs.
re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33.Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39.Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
/Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
El Other...
43. Irrigation system designllnstallation
❑
❑
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
2
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5'
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 46 - 15 Date: 1 9I7104
COMMENTS:
GWC staff met with Larry Mitchell, Paul Boone with NRCS, and Greg Hughes with Hertford SWCD to discuss waste plan
iscrepancies for pulls 4B and 5 that were noted during 8-30-04 routine operation review. The two pulls are separated by a
rassed waterway.
Billy Gilliam, Irrigation Technical Specialist, combined pulls 4B and 5 for a total of 6.59 acres for the farm's wettable acre
etermination.
The 1999 waste utilization plan showed incorrect acreage with pull 4B at 6.59 acres and pull 5 at 6.5 acres.
In the newest waste plan dated 1-22-04, acreage was also incorrect with pull 413 at 2.59 acres and pull 5 at 4.0 acres.
For 2003-04 wheat crop, Mr. Mitchell used acreage from the 1999 waste plan and not the newest plan resulting in a
itrogen over application based on the 1-22-04 waste plan.
Since both plans were incorrect, it was agreed that a new plan was needed. Mr. Hughes revised the plan with the newest
Ian dated 9-2-04. The acreage was corrected with pull 4B at 4.0 acres and pull 5 at 2.59 acres. The new plan also include(
ie 30 lb/acre cover crop option.
A copy of the signed 9-2-04 waste plan will be forwarded by DSWC to Scott Vinson with DWQ in accordance with the farm
ermit. DSWC staff had discussed the problems with Mr. Vinson. The plan was originally revised on 1-22-04 to include
heat for grain and soybean options in response to high lagoon levels as noted in the 2-6-04 Notice of Violation.
DSWC will not issue a Notice of Referral for the 8-30-04 review.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST jPat Hooper
SIGNATURE
3 03/10/03

Technical Assistance Site Visit Report
• Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 46 - 15 Date: 121171D3 Time: 1 12:50 Time On Farm: 50 WARO
Farm Name Brian Mitchell Farm County Hertford Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 251 Qubec Street Harrellsville NC 27942
Onslte
Representative Larry Mitchell _- _ Integrator IMurphy Brown of Virginia
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
Operation Review
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
p Routine
O Response to DWQIDENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
Q Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population ❑ Wean to Feeder Capacity Population
❑ Layer
® Feeder to Finish 1776 1720 ❑ Non -Layer
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® 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 ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment []yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structural Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier - primary
Level (Inches) I
CROP TYPES lCom, Grain Ismail grain cover
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES NoB'
BOB
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® 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 ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment []yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structural Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier - primary
Level (Inches) I
CROP TYPES lCom, Grain Ismail grain cover
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES NoB'
BOB
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 46 - 15 Date:
12/17/03
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
26. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
011. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
El
12. Waste structure integrity compromised
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list In comment section)
❑
❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% $ 10 lbs.
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30. 21-1.0201) re -certification
❑
❑
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organlzelcomputerizatlon of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
[121. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
[123. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker checklcalibration
®
❑
Reaulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation design/installation
❑
El
❑ Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certificationlrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
El❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
-
5.
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
-
6
58. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

r
i
r�
Facility Number 46 - 15 Date: 12/17/03
COMMENTS:
11. Farm is operating under a thirty -day Plan of Action at this time +
* Last waste analysis dated 12-2-03 at 1.7 Ibs11000 gal. Previous report is dated 5-2-03 at 3.0 Ibs11000 gal.
* Last soils report is dated 4-4-03 with pH, copper and zinc levels within acceptable range.
* Weekly lagoon level records are complete for 2003 - lagoon went into 18 inch range on 11-4-03. Lagoon drop the week of
-3-03 is consistent with application events.
* New state permit and Certificate of Coverage dated 5-1-03 in farm records.
0. There is a six inch difference between the marker and surveyed low area on the dike. Recommend resetting the marker
with the construction bench mark and not the low spot on lagoon. Contact the Hertford Soil & Water Conservation District
Office for assistance as needed.
* Mr. Mitchell has gotten verbal permission from neighbor to apply waste to wheat - need to contact technical specialist to
put conditional amendment in waste plan for additional acreage. Farm has almost completed applications to 2003-04 cover
crop to complete nitrogen balances. Contact technical specialist to look at cropping options.
* Greg Hughes with Hertford Soil & Water Conservation on site for review.
TECHNICAL. SPECIALIST IPat Hooper
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 12/19/03 Entered By: 1Pat Hooper
3 03/10/03

Type of Visit © Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit *Routine O Complaint O Fallow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 46 15 Dnte of Visit: 11/19/20Q3 Time: 2:30
10 Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: BrlBata.MiXCMllMM................................................................................. County: He rkfiord........................................... V1AM.......
Owner Name: Braw....................................... Mitcheu....... ............................................... Phone No:(252).35&279.0 .......................................................
Mailing Address: 25j.Quher,5jrat ................................................................................ Hairnel1ax11le-M................................................. 27.99Z.............
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: Lnrry..Mfxchglj........................................................................... Integrator:MuMby-Bro.m ......................................................
Certified Operator: AdAn.C................................. MlkCIWL........................................... Operator Certification Number:,IU1.............................
Location of Farm:
located on a gravel road, SR 1440, east of harrellsvill approx. 1.7 miles +
V
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 ° 17 Longitude F 76 °F 45 00
- .. �� ....... .. LField Aicn
..: Spray
g 1 ® Subsurface Drams Present ❑ Lagoon Area
Holdtt► Poads ! Sohd T
++ Nut�ber of La Dons
g raps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Imnact_s
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. notil , DWQ) [] Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/rain?
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 Sinicture 3 Stricture 4 Structure 5 Stnrcture 6
Ideutifrer:.......... .Ildaz . .....................Actual..........................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): ............... 1,1 ............... 2.1

U3/U—VU'1
Facility Number: 46-15 Date of Inspection 11/19/2003
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees; severe erosion, ❑ Yes N 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
(U 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 maintenancehmprovement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
ONO
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
N No
12. Crop type Corn Small Grain Overseed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated yin the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
N No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ® No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes ®No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes N No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ®No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ❑ No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-sitc representative? ❑ Yes N No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ® Yes ❑ No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
9 & 25) According to the marker the freeboard level is; 15", however there appears to be 6-7 additional inches of refreeboard available.
Please have Paul Boone/Greg Hughes, Tech. Spec., determine marker elevations in accordance with the current top of lagoon level.
*Greg Hughes, Hertford S&W, visited this farm on 11/20/03 to determine the top of lagoon level in relation to the marker. Mr. Hughes
reported that there is 6 inches of addtional freeboard above the designed top of lagoon elevation. The marker was set correctly in accordance
with the lagoon design however the lagoon wall was built up above the top of dike elevation to take into account settelling. Ou l l/19/03 the
waste level was approx. 21" from the exisiting top of lagoon, even though the waste level read 15" on the marker. With the 2 inches of rain
at fell on the night of 11 /19/03 the waste level rose to 18" from the existing top of lagoon wall. Mr. Mitchell was faxed a 30day POA and
with he1D from Paul Boone faxed it into WaRO on Mon. 11 /24/03. �I
ReviewerllnspectorName
Reviewer/InspectorSlanature: Date.
A

05103101 Continued
t
Faeklity Number. 46-15 Date of Inspection 1111912-003
y
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drill 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?
Waste 5/2/03 with 3.O lbsN/1000gal and 12/31/02 w/ 2.1 1bsN.
Soils 4/4/03 w/ up to 0.5 T/ac. time suggested and Cu & Zu levels adequate.
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
j] Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ❑ No
The wheat cover crop is written in the plan as not to be harvested, therefore you are limited to only 30 lbsN/ac that you can apply to tb
heat that is to he deducted on the following corn crop. Consider revising WUP to include either the option of cutting and bailing the
heat before planting cons and you will be allowed 50 lbsPAN/ac that can be applied as well as not having to deduct what you spray on
heat from the following corn crop. Also discuss with tech. spec. the pros and cons of going to the more often used corn, wheat, and
rotation that most row crop farmers use.
J

:onservanon a �:
Type of Visit V Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 4 Routine 0 Complaint O Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other
Date of Visit:
Facilih• lumber
Permitted Certified 13 Conditionally Certified © Registered
Farm Dame: 4JUA F.:� eV4
]�J
Owner Name: /"f
Nlailing Address:
Facility Contact: I A Ti e:
Onsite Representative: 4
Certified Operator: cm
Location Location of Farm:
Time:
J
❑ Denied Access
Date Last Opera or b ve T reshold:
COu ntN-:
Phone No:
Phone No:
Integrator: fflu,v,=
Operator Certification Number:
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' 04 0 K Longitude 0' �•
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Ca achy Population Poultry Ca achy Po ulation Cattle . Ca aCity Population
0 Wean to Feeder ❑ Laver I I I ❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer I I ❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons '' �❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area _ g Spray„ Field Area
:Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Li uid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑Yes No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon El Spray Field ❑ Other /L
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑Yes ❑ No
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes No
Waste C9ljggti2lj 8 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: 1.", LJ _
Freeboard (inches):
0510310.1
4z
Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
5. Are there anv immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
El Yes
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑ Yes
[ No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ 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
1� No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenanceiimprovement?
❑ Yes
EgNo
11. Is there evidence of over applicati ? ❑Excessive nding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic verload
❑ Yes
EANo
c
12. Crop type (�
13. Do the receiving crophoiifer Athose designated in the Ce lfied Animal Waste CARWRAW Plan (CAVS'MP)?
❑ Yes
KNo
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?
El Yes
No
16, Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
qNo
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
No
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design. maps, etc.) / ✓
j�
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
WNo
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
A No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
i® No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
(ie. discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
X No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
M No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
(M Yes
J*No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
a j ••...0 1: jU •§ H'e <,v -Y1 t3 7 'ail ,:.i@» iiY td Zvi sv S s•' k i 6 rt ij a a <'p i {
Comments:(refer to gii,&d6ii E=plalin anyu,YES answerssand/ur;any recommendations ar nnv:other,comments:r�
s _ _. _ .•., .'.
Use drawings of facility to better explain stfiaftons (use additamai pages as necessary) r " 1 ❑Field Copy Final Notes `
it i„,",,_wi,.:'-=Aro.iae:lt.;�4:�J1•t�_:ua7�Sl;._iS:..r a�.. ��_�ak:.�r-'.r==«m ,.a..-..'..•s�,•m1 ».. ..]'.e:a. -� 4 ..
4d4wr.e...:«.n�-.�.�e«: �+wr-•m4en �. i,v�:'*c":
4A 4,S" 2 03 w/3,0 l4 pilloiV. 4 IzIsi 9-A wl 2►114 AlloOX
S w r 4, % '� pp� a 5 �-� k 6,,A-a
Cg',(- t j V
-e. i w► r 3� 145 NJA 4t4— cwo -JYI
4
9,,.,
Reviewer/Inspector Name .�"„'.ylin91�.. 1 4.,:k"i1i&hdoC.,NSiv.,.•.'A`Y.`..-d� x.aJ.w��,...�.W^,°11lkiNi�S'...,AX. x,; � .w.h�i.';k.,K 11Ge:w
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101
Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26, Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or la4.ioon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
24. 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? O.c. 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?
R%,,' 15 N/Y/a 3 y,
. /aA 4v'14'.
v,�e 4 0,5-Tk /��
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ )'es No
❑ Yes XNo
❑Yes ❑No
4 c, 4zh
SAO--
JUJ
05103101

of Visit *Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit OO Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number q6 15 Date of Visit: 11f19/ZD03 'dime: 2:30
O Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified ® Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: Br1an.M1kh9j1Yt=.................................................................................. County: Herdad ............................................ WAX0.......
Owner Name: Brim ....................................... Mitchell ................................................... ... Phone No:(252).35&279.Q........................... ......................
Mailing Address:25I.QuAim.SlkraL............................................................................. HarAwkVille-M ................................................. 179.42 .............
FacilityContact:.............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: Lairry.Mitchell.......................................................................... Integrator: MWhy-Bamm .....................................................
Certified Operator: B.taAn,Q................................ Adikcl I........................................... Operator Certification Number: ,JUG2.............................
Location of Farm:
located on a gravel road, SR 1440, east of harrelisvill approx. 1.7 smiles ►
®Swine ❑Poultry ❑ Cattis ❑Horse Latitude 36 ° 17 30 Longitude 76 • 45 ' 00
Disc�es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes ®No
Discharge origivated 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 D WQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c, If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ONO
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ® Yes ❑ No
Structure l Structure 2 Sinieture 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Struuture 6
Ideutificr: ..........11 bar......................AcWl..........................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard(inches) ...13............................. 2.L...... ............................... .............. ......... ........................ ................ I ....... I............ ...................................

US/U.VU! �.••w•-•✓-
Facility Number: 46-13 Date of Inspection 11/19/2003
1
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integtity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes N No /
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 ❑ Yes ® No
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancohmprovement? ❑ Yes N No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stnetures lack adequate, gauged markers with jequircd 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 ® No
12. Crop type Com Small Grain Overseed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes N No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable scree determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ®No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WLIP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes N No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes ® No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ® No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes N No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ❑ No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes N No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ONO
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? N Yes ❑ No
Cj No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
& 25) According to the marker the fieeboard level is 15", however there appears to be 6-7 additional inches of refreeboard available.
lease have Paul Boone/Greg Hughes, Tech. Spec., determine marker elevations in accordance with the current top of lagoon level.
ireg Hughes, Hertford S&W, visited this farm on 11.120/03 to determine the top of lagoon level in relation to the marker. Mr. Hughes
;ported that there is 6 inches of addtional freeboard above the designed top of lagoon elevation. The marker was set correctly in accordance
ith the lagoon design however the lagoon wall was built up above the top of dike elevation to take into account settelling. On 1 l/19/03 the
aste level was approx. 2 1 " from the exisiting top of lagoon, even though the waste level read 15" on the marker. With the 2 inches of rain
,at fell on the night of 11/19/03 the waste level rose to 18" from the existing top of lagoon wall. Mr. Mitchell was faxed a 30day POA and
(with help from Paul Boone faxed it into WaRO on Mon. l 1/24/03, I TI
Revieweranspector Name Y TM :1rf�.`.'T Scott inavaE
Reviewer/TnspectorSignature: �--3 Date:

05103101 Continued
r Facility Number: 46-15 Date of inspection 11/19/2003
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
Waste 5/2/03 with 3.0 lbsN/1000ga1 and 12/31/02 w/ 2.1 lbsN.
Soils 414/03 w/ up to 0.5 T/ac. lime suggested and Cu & Zn levels adequate.
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
The wheat cover crop is written in the plan as not to be harvested, therefore you are limited to only 30 lbsN/ac that you can apply to th
heat that is to be deducted on the following corn crop. Consider revising WUP to include either the option of cutting and bailing the
heat before planting corn and you will be allowed 50 lbsPAN/ac that can be applied as well as not having to deduct what you spray on
heat from the following corn crop. Also discuss with tech. spec. the pros and sous of going to the more often used corn, wheat, and
rotation that most row crop farmers use.
71

0 Division of Water Quality
p Division of Soil and Water Conservation ,
p Other Agency
Type of visit p Gompllance Inspection p operation Review p Lagoon tvaluatlon
Reason for Visit p Routine o Complaint o Follow up p Emergency Notification p Other p Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: ti113/21102 Time: 1:Oo
p Not Operationalp lielowI'hreshold
Permitted E Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Narne: Brian Mitchell Farm County: Hextfoxd.............................................WARO.......
Owner Name: Brian
Mitchell
Mailing Address: 25.1.Qubec.Strul.........................................................
FacilityContact: ...............................................................................Title:.................
Phone No: [phone]
Ha,rreUsyilie-NC................................................. 279.42 ..............
Phone No. ..................
Onsite Representative: Lao:ry..Mitchel1........................................................................... Integrator:Carxoll's..F.00d&O.f..Y.a.lac..............................
Certified Operator: Brian.C................................. mitcheu ............................................ Operator Certification Number: 18219.............................
Location of Farm-
�located on a gravel road, SR 1440, cast of harrellsvillapprox. 1.7 miles
N Swine p Poultry p Cattle p Horse Latitude ®a©� ®46 Longitude ®a ®4 ®«
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
p Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
[3 Farrow to Wean
[3 Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finis
p Gilts
p Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
13 Layer l]. airy
p Non -Layer JE3 on- airy
p Other
Total Desigrr;Capadty , 1,776
Totai SSLW 239,760
Number of Lagoons' 0 ®Subsurface Drains Preseniagoon rea ® pray ie rea
Holding; Ponds /;Solid Traps
p No _Liquid
. Waste Managernem s y-5 s eem
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes N No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes p No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) 13 Yes p No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d, Does discharge hypass a ]agoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) p Yes p No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p Yes N No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? © Yes N No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4• Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway p Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches): ................13..................................................................................................................................................................................................

0
Facility Number: 46_15 Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
I3 Yes
N No
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
p Yes
®No
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
p Yes
N No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
13 Yes
® No
11. is there evidence of over application? p Excessive Ponding N PAN p Hydraulic Overload
M Yes
p No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain Overseed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
p Yes
® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
p No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
p No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
p No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
p Yes
N No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
p Yes
®No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
p Yes
®No
18. Doeg the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
p Yes
® No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
p No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes
® No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
p Yes
®No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
p Yes
®No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
p Yes
®No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
p Yes
®No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
p Yes
®No
0 No violations or cieliciencies were noted uring this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about ►s visit.
Comments refer to aestion # ., Explain an YES answers and/dr tiitV.'Oec6ftiihtndatioits',,6r:any other comments:
iise drawings of facilsty fa`better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary); Field Copy Final Notes
p
* Waste 5 20 02 with 2.41bsN 1000ga .
1/24/02 with 2.3 IbsN/I000gal.
11/7/01 with 2.0 IbsN/I000ga1.
* Soils 3/26/02 with up to 0.6 Tlac lime suggested.
* (11, 19) Need to review IRR2 calculations with Paul Boone, tech spec, to correct PAN balance: calculations on 5 pulls made between
5/23/02 and 6/10/02 on corn. PAN balance needs to be in units of lb.N / ac. not lbsN/field. Please contact me at [phone] ext
08 after meeting with Paul Boone to give me the PAN balance on each field. r
Reviewer/inspector Name Scott Vinson t j
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: i� Date: V/4/02

05103101 Continued
Facility Number: 46_15 Date of luspectioll
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below [3 Yes 13 No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? 13 Yes ®No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, p Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? 0 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.) 13 Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? p Yes ® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? p Yes p No
*Mr. Larry Mitchell met with Paul Boone and cleared up the method as to which the IRR2 forms should be filled out. ,L
Mr. Mitchell corrected IRR2 forms and mailed into WaRO office on 7/23/02.
11) & 19) Corrected IRR2 forms showed an overapplication of PAN on corn in field 4B = 0.3s% on 5/29/02 and field 4A = 8.5%
(11.7 lbs PAN) on 5/27/02. These overapplications are considered minor and a Notice of Deficiency will be sent to Mr. Mitchell.
Notice to keep irrigation records and especially the units of measurement as given in accordance with DWQ IRR2 forms to avoid
overapplication in the future.
f
1
1
1{
1 1
Ii
U
F
I [
' 1
V 1
I
1:

A
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Mr. Brian Mitchell
Brian Mitchell Farm
246 Quebec St.
Harrellsville, NC 27942
j
*0,A
,a46*1,
NCDENFt
NORTH i..AROLINA DERARTMEN-r op
ENVIRONMENT ANO NATURAL RESOUFRGES
January 25, 2000
SUBJECT: Animal Feedlot Operation Compliance Inspection
Brian Mitchell Farm
Facility No. 46 - 15
Hertford County
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
On December 21, 1999, I conducted an Animal Feedlot Operation Compliance Inspection at the referenced
facility. Overall, the operation was found to be in satisfactory condition. A copy of the inspection report is
attached for your review,
In general, this inspection includes verifying that: (1) the farm has a Certified Animal Waste Management
Plan (CAWMP); (2) the farm is complying with requirements of the State Rules 15 NCAC 211.0217, Senate
Bill 1217, and the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan; (3) the farm operation's waste management
system is being operated properly under the direction of a Certified Operator; (4) the required records are
being kept; (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or runoff.
The recommendations and/or comments regarding your inspection can be found in the continent section of the
attached inspection form. It is very important as the owner and Operator in Charge that you address any noted
concerns, as soon as possible.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance during the inspection. Should you have further questions or
comments regarding this inspection, do not hesitate to call me at [phone], ext. 321.
Sincerely,
V-�-
Daphne B. Cullom
Environmental Specialist II
cc: Rudy Grammer, Carroll's Foods of Va., Inc.
Hertford County SWCD Office
WaROc/
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

10 Routine _0 Complaint 0 .Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC revlew 0 Other J
Facility Number 46 m15 Date of Inspection 12-21-99
Time of Inspection 1414 24 hr. (hh:mm)
12 Permitted 9 Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: BnTlata.Ml1chc11.)Farm............................................................... .................... County: Herffard ........................................... FARO.......
Owner Name: Brim ....................................... 1.1'1(jAchall...................................................... Phone No:2;5j-7356r27q.0 ..........................................................
FacilityContact:.............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: z,46..Q.Ul?M.S1j=t............................................ .. HarxAWville..Nr................................ .. Z7.Q42�.............
................................ ................
Onsite Representative: Na.QIAI~.9JO.,&xtA............................................ ............... ......... Integrator: �IixAAl11'.�.�QlRd4.�.Y..a�]qC................................
Certified Operator: Rriam.C.................................. 1Y.1,iichell........................................... Operator Certification Number:18219 .............................
Location of Farm:
�_..�.:..... .... . �::-:........................
. _ ........:::—.........::::::::....*.._........._....._...._......._..,_.w_ ___._...._,_ i......,.
lla�attYrl.p�a a.gxaxl xaa�dd..S �4�Q4.�a� t.taf�tllaxtll appa .................. aa...1.7..ltes......................................................................................................
................................................................... .
Latitude Lab '0 17 ` 30 �I" i.<►nXitude 76 ° 45 00
Design Current
awme Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish 1776 unknown
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer - ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 1,776
Total SSLW 239,760
Number of Lagoons JOSubsurraceDrainsPresent ❑ Lagoon Area ® Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ID No Liquid Waste Management System
l;iscia�►rlFes & Stream ImImcts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 0 No
❑iscliarge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a.. 1f discharge is oi�tiurvcd, rva the convcyaticc ❑lau-m;Ecie'? ❑ Yes 0 No
b. if dischar-e is obszivvd, did it reach \dater of the State'? (Ifyes. notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No
c. Irdischarge is observed. what 18 the estlnaled flow of gal/mill'?
d. Does discbarge bypass a la=oou system? (II'ves, notiN DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 0 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 Struetur 4 St'UCIU!'e 5 Structure b
Identifier: ....................................................................... .........
Freeboard(iilehes):...............2Z...........................................................................................................................,.......................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the strnchrres observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: 46-15 Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Wa_ste.Aoplicatio.n
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type
rnntea on 1/271201)0
12-21-99
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
❑ No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? [:]Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reuuimd Records &.lbocninerts
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, frecboard, 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 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):
Unable to contact owner via phone. No one on site at time of inspection.
11 - 25. Records not available for review.
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
v
Reviewer/Inspector Name Daphne B. Cullom
UPviawnrfincnPrtnr Cionatnro Q B.
_ Tlotor
1_ l .tJ.XX A v`-

p Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Operation Review
p Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Compliance Inspection
p Division of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
0 Other Agency - Operation Review
10 Kou[me 0 complaint 0 rollow-up of DWt4 inspection 0 Follow-up of D,WU review 0 Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
p Permitted p Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered In Not OperatIona Date Last Operated: ...........................
Farm Name: JirI2JLXl1U1ell.FarM................................................................................... County: Hertford WARO
Owner Name: l ll l�l....................................... �Y1it It�1X..................................................... Phone No: 35.#.-27.9.9.......................................
............................
Facility Contact:...............................................................................Title:............................ .. Phone No:
Mailing Address: z.4...S�.tigk�G...tlt~t.....................
.................................................. 1.79.4Z .............
Onsite Representative: Brian.311tchell........................................................................... lntegrator:.Carroll's.Faods..Of.VA.JAc................................
Certified Operator: .I#ilA.................................. 1Nit.F#ill#............................................ Operator Certification Number:.J.$219 .............................
Location of Farm:
n�caxcid.iatt a.gravel.road.Sli.X4lh.east.af.lxaxxsllsvill.apprrax..l 7.xnlles......................................................................................................................
Latitude ®a ©6 ®64 Longitude ®• ®& ®66
Swine Capacity Population
p
Wean to Feeder
®
Feeder to
Finish
1776
1776
13
Farrow to
Wean
p
Farrow to
Feeder
p
Farrow to
Ines
o
its.
[313oars
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
p Layer p Dairy
p Non -Layer p on- airy
p Other
Total Design Capacity 1,776
Total SSLW 239,760
Number of Lagoons ® u surface ra ns resent a agoan rea pray a rea
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps 0 p No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes N No
Discharge originated at: ❑ 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) p Yes N 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 N No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? p Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway p Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier- -------------------------------- -------........ _
Freeboard (inches). ............... 3.7 ..............
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, p Yes ig No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/gg Continued on back
Printed on 10/22/99

Facility Dumber: 46_ l5 Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
4. 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
Printed on 10/22/99
El Yes
® No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
ig No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain Overseed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? (3 Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ic/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
14. 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: violations, or.dericiencies were: noted: during this: visi& Vou:will receive: no' 11irtlie r
correspondence about this; visif.: ::.:: • : • : • : •
13 Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes 11 No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes N No
p Yes ® No
13 Yes N No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 11, 1999
Mr. Brian Mitchell
Brain Mitchell Farm
Route 1, Box 154A
Harreilsville, North Carolina 27942
SUBJECT: Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
Brain Mitchell Farm
Facility No. 946-15
Hertford County
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection (as it is
viewed in DWQ database) conducted at the referenced facility by the Division of Water
Quality from the Washington Regional Office. Please read this inspection and keep it
with all other documents pertaining to your animal operation for future inspections.
In general, this inspection included verifying that: (1) the farm has a Certified Animal
Waste Management Plan (CAWMP); (2) the farm is complying with requirements of the
State Rules 15 NCAC 2H.0217, Senate Bill 1217, and the Certified Animal Waste
Management Plan; (3) the farm operation's waste management system is being operated
properly under the direction of a Certified Operator; (4) the required records are being
kept; (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or runoff.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation during the inspection. If you have any
questions, please contact me at 919/946-6481, ext. 318 or your Technical Specialist.
Sincerely,
Lyn B. Hardison
Environmental Specialist .
Cc: LBH files
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

10 KOutine p i-ompiaint p ronow-up of uwv Inspection p roilow-up of uaw4 review p utner
Facility Number Date of llisllecdon 6-11
Time of inspection © 24 hr. (hh:mm)
p Registered X Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted 10 Not 0perationa Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: M. an.MitcW1.Farm..................... ............ ............................... County: Hertford WARO
OwnerName: Rrjan....................................... I itchell................... ...........I.................. Phone No: ..........................................................
Facility Contact: ...............................................................................Title: . Phone No:
MailingAddress: RU..fox.3S.4&...................................................................................... Harre1IsxjI1c..NC ................................................. 279.42 ..............
Onsite Representative: Bri�ajlJ.!Ljchell........................................................................... Integrator: Cajrxo.U'SXojads.0f..V&.1ac ...............................
Certified Operator:Brrilan.0. ................................ Michell............................................ Operator Certification Number: I82L4.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ®• Longitude ®•
f:
Swine s.
p Wean to -Feeder
® Feeder to ins
13 Farrow to can
p Farrow to ee er
p Farrow to Finish
p Gilts
p Soars
esign CUFFen ., esign 1 urren
Poultry;= CaPojiulation `, Cattle ' Capp, ity�;Popolation���
hL .-r
p Layer p Non -Layer ' ❑ air
p on- airy
JEr Other.�' _
� o
F Total Design Caspacity
s= v Total,SSLW._ 239,7
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2, is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: Cl Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flaw 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?
pYes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
n/a
p Yes ®Na
pYes ®No
p Yes ®No
® Yes p No
p Yes ®No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
p Yes ®No
Continued on back

8. Are there Iagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? 13 Yes ® No ,
Structures (Lagoons.Holding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Yes g No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft):..............192............ ..................................... ................... ................ .................................... .................................... ................ I...................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? t] Yes g No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? 0 Yes ® No
12, Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? I] Yes g No
(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? El Yes g No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? 13 Yes g No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ....... Cmu.(Silagc.A.Grain�.................................................................. ......................................................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? 0 Yes g No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
0 Yes
g No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
E3 Yes
g No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
[ 3 Yes
g No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
© Yes
® No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
0 Yes
g No
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
p Yes
g No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
p Yes
®No
24, Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
13 Yes
g No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
p Yes
g No
Y • yo:iql4tjekis•0W a afib eiititsvere46 al fig s Visit: oii-w-Fewive 5-5 F —6
iorcesOonderic'e ab6tit tliis•visit:;
Coinments (refer to'question 'Ex lain an YES tins�vers atad/or ab � recotnroenda' tions ar an other eom nents� "" ; "'
_p , Y Y` y _ �
:Else dr..awattgs, offactlity to better explain situation..s y(use additional pages as necessafy)
aci ity.is airy new an ere asp t been a.need to app y.wastewater ere ore not irrigation records:*-.'-
�y. a." 3 v�.
<� �•x.,rJ". ISt,.'iti±"�'^'bel"�t *.,��
ll ibo& s were available for "review I '� ^ �
x e. 'er_ F e �• � }li Fro. � r..-.4� lw','L- '^�,n - ,f - F-3 J` is- 7- l ..�•,— t d
'S Need to work on tlie�sformwateriiiversion`areas between the houses and lagoon'.t z• ;
e vegetation on thre.dtke wall has unproved from last year ._Continue,to work on the bare spots that still exist
,.-tyec�, ' � 4 '= `k • J
pon'reFeiivving'your general permit; y' bu will aeequirrted to rard`weekly freeboard, ^It -{- suggested to install a g.auged.marker
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
akson t�
tit
and maximum pump [nark, This form'o
Tl
Date: 6 - / /

F .``yy❑DSWC Animal Feedlot Operation Review ! := Y 1M DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection s. _
10 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of FWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC. review 0 Other
Date of Inspection -17
facility Number �0
Time of Inspection G% ! Z 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Farm Status: ❑ Registered ❑ Applied for Permit
jj Certified ❑ Permitted
Total Time in fraction of hours
(ex:1.35 for I hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
or Inspection (includes travel and processing)
0 Not Operational Date Last Operated: ................................................................................................................................................
��QQ s �t �p�
Farm Name :.....t r?�[im ly1 h� l� �g:&r!r+........................ County:....L{� }. ....... 44
.................................. ..................
P
Owner Name:.,,An +`ka.t.j`.............. ...... ........... Phone No: Iq j.3...-..b........................
...
..........I..... ...........
Facility Contact:....,..R +.'�:.44.F-11........................... Title:......... !il.c................................. Phone No:..,.,......,.,....,................................
14failing Address:.... nOu.�:�...........Q.....«�..`t�................................................ .. GL,ICf..� �i ✓ 1l� er....................... ...... . , 4q7
Onsile Representative: ........................................................................................................... Integrator:....4..a �? �1.., ��� g.....6....v. '.... � Certified Operator:......�}X. t . ................ ........................................ Operator Certification Number%.A.1./�.vv
.��<14 .........
Uication of farm:
AR ................r�.....a ,...........Q....................................................
1 ✓�
....1!: .rx., eleA..... ...................... .............. W
Latitude # c .9 Longitude c :c
Type of Operation
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
7 1 ptj ❑ Non -Layer
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Other
Design:.. Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW r
Number of Lagoons / ftolding Ponds 1 % ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Eield Area
�um■r
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes -�-iQo
Discharge originated at; ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made" ❑Yes ❑ No
h• If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If�di.charae is observed. what is the estimated flow in gatimin'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify I)WQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge'?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement'?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes .-Blgo
❑ Yjes 43'1�0
Aes ETNo
Continued on back

Facility Number: — �S
6. is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ,KNo
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes 13'No
8. Are there lagoons 6r storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes E o
Structures La Dons and/or Holding fonds
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes , fNo
Freeboard (ft): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S Structure 6
................3.................................................................................................................................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes J2-90
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? 'es ONo
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ,ryes ❑ No
(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 O'No
Waste ApBlication
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes ET50
(if in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ) Ao - Mo-- J
15. Crop type tp.?...!................................... .. ..................................................................................................................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes S31qo
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes RrNo
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes ,0''io
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes 0&0,
21.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes )2-ldo
For Certified_ Facilities Only
22.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes )2-Ko
23.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes -43150
24.
Does record keeping need improvement?
Cl Yes " ""
r5 h.er� - 1 -NO +
Oka
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit
Date: 0,L / %
4/30/97

Facility Number: — Date or inspection
4/30197