480009_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

m a
IN
\ \ INSP-Eu
IluNA

0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 480009 _ Facility Status: Active Permit: AWD480009 — ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance In5nection — Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Hyde Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 08/11/2008 Entry Time:09:40 AM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: Skeeter Hog_Earm Owner Email:
Owner: Mark Carawan
Mailing Address: Rt 1 Box 185b Scranton NC 27875
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
SR #1152 between Scranton and Sladesville
Phone: [phone]
Latitude:35°26'25" Longitude:76°7Z42"
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream impacts Waste Collection & Treatment jj Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mark Carawan Phone:
On -site representative Mark Carawan Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
No irrigation events in 2008
Hogs were purchased from Beech Ridge and kept on site 45+ days in 2007.
Page: 1

Permit: AWD480009 Owner - Facility: Mark Carawan
Inspection Date: 08/1112008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 480009
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Q Swine - Farrow to Feeder 225 0
Total Design Capacity: 225
Total SSLW: 117,450
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Data Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
FINAL
60.00
agoon
PRIMARY
agoon
RECYCLE
Page: 2

Permit: AW0480009 Owner - Facility: Mark Carawan Facility Number: 480009
Inspection Date: 08/11/2008 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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at
Structure ❑
Application Field Q
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. 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 (l.e./ large trees, severe
❑ ■
❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■
❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑ ■
❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑ ■
❑ ❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No
NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑ ■
❑ ❑
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: AWD480009 Owner - Facility. Mark Carawan
Facility Number: 480009
Inspection Date: 08/11/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P2O5?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
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?
1 S. 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?
❑■❑❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
E
Page: 4

Permit: AVVD480009 Owner -Facility: Mark Carawan
Facility Number: 480009
Inspection Date: 08111/2008 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?
❑
■
❑ Q
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall 8, monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
Q
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (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?
❑
01111
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
Q ❑
27, Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑ ❑
Other Issues Yes No NA N
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? Cl ■ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ Q
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

s
Permit: AWD480009 Owner -Facility: Mark Carawan Facility Number. 480009
Inspection Date: 08/11/2008 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
n«. ,. �......__ YRrs Nn NA NF
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ ■
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? Q ■ O Q
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ ■ 13 Q
Page: 6

Facility Number
40 Division of Water Quality
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
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: Arrival Time: d Departure Time: County: Region: t/&L
Farm Name: Owner Email: 101,
Owner Name: _I� - _ _ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title: Phone No: W ff'eQ
Onsite Representative:
integrator: _i
Certified Operator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ao =' 0" Longitude: =o =
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -Layer
Cattle
Calf
Dry Poultry JLJD Cow
n AT-- ^-=-
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Design
Capacity P
❑ Yes 2rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
tid N
[-INA
ElNE
ElYes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 77
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): Alt "7
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes 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) thrr t, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes (�/Nqo
► 0 El NA El NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? El Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application.
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/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) i 4
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
❑ El NA El NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
L✓J No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Uo�o ❑NA ONE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES.answers and/or any recommendations.or,any other=comments
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone:-9 3(��O
Reviewer/InspectorSignature: Date:

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 ❑Maps El Other
Yes ❑ No ❑NA ❑ NE
ElYes [INo UNA— ❑ NE
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1"
Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23,
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
ET A
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
f(d'NA
❑ NE
25,
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[2 A
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
B o
NA
El NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
El Yes
El No
[❑,
I!d'NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
U No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
[] Yes
93<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
0<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
(R 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
Q<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
RTo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
f
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit 40 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 6 Arrival Time: ' Departure Time: County: 2404e, Region: "AJ
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
ryy� / WoGzT
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ❑ o =' E=] ++ Longitude: = ° = ` [� `+
Swine
Design Current
Capacity Population
Design Current
Wet Poultry C►apacity Population
Design Curren#
Cattle C+apacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish I I
Laver
El Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder I
JE-3 Non -Layer 1
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish I
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
14 Farrow to Feeder
I
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
ElNon-Dai
❑ Layers
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑Gilts
El Beef Stocker
❑Nan -La ers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Pullets
❑ Boars
El Beef Brood Cowl
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Other
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 4o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[I NA
❑ NE
❑ YesEl
FN
❑ NE
El Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

L
Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural Freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
❑ Yes O No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes 040,
❑ 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 PNoa ❑ 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 ❑ Yes 2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 2rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes jJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
ffNo ❑ NA 7NE
1
El No ❑NA
❑ No NA�
❑ No ❑ NA ;NE
N
❑No ❑NA
Comments (refer to question 4): Explain any -YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments P "`
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
0
Reviewer/Inspector Name I li2r—IM�1 � Q l er' Phone: ��- j��1iZ
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �'� �f"" , f��t J _ Date: /, zz..d T '9-Qd 6
Page 2 of 3 12MI04 - Continued

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

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 48 - 09 Date: 1116/04 Time: 1000 Time On Farm: 30 WaRO
Farm Name Skeeter Hog Farm County Hyde Phone:
Mailing Address Rt. 1 Box 185E
252-946-6194
Scranton NC 27875
Onsite
,,,Representative Mark Carawan Integrator Inde endent
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
'® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
IN No Animals -Date Last Operated: 6/25/03
❑ Operating below threshold
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
,. Design Current
If Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
® Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
p Gilts
❑ Boars
225
0
p Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaintllocal referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
� ."Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands?
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
-,4.,Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
requiring DWO notification?
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
[]yes ® no
5•' Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ®no
and/or public health?
6s-Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
' Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier primary secondary
Level (inches) 40 40 IF
CROP TYPES oastal Bermuda -hay jCorn,Grain heat Fescue -hay
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
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:
� ."Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands?
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
-,4.,Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
requiring DWO notification?
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
[]yes ® no
5•' Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ®no
and/or public health?
6s-Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
' Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier primary secondary
Level (inches) 40 40 IF
CROP TYPES oastal Bermuda -hay jCorn,Grain heat Fescue -hay
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

e= _
mber 48 - 09 Date:ER
1 /16/04
QQ No assistance provided/requested
r'FaN
ste spill leaving siteTECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
ste spill contained on site
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendmentvel
in structural freeboard
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
vel in storm storage
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
[112. Waste structure integrity compromised
28. Farms Need (list in comment section)
❑
El
[113. Waste structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
[114. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
2H.0200
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or ¢ 10 lbs.
30. re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PaA)
❑
❑
El17. Deficient irrigation records
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
El
❑
;, ❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organizelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
Zi-❑ 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 removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfieId conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker checklcalibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
[]Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation designrnstallation
❑
El
❑ Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
El
❑
f-=MADE BY OPERATION
❑
❑
46. Wettable Acre Determination
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationtrecommendations
❑
❑
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
❑
❑
1
61.
58. Cropfforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

,'Facility Number Date: F 1/16/04
COMMENTS:
_Waste analysis dated 6/10/03 nitrogen is 0.1 Ibs/1000 gallons
IRR2 records were available for review, complete and balanced.
0. Missing soil test for 2003 crop year. Remember to take soil test for 2004 and follow lime requirement.
.Waste plan needs to include soil types. Contact tech spec.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST 110artin McLawhorn IF
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 1120/04
Entered By: IMartin McLawhorn
3 03/10/03

on of Water Quality
O Divlswn of Soil,and Water Conservation .
Q'Other Agency -�
Type of Visit 0. Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit *Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 48 g Date of Visit: 12/3/2404 Time: 10:30
— — ] 0 Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ..............
Farm Name: SACc.ctli'x,Hog.farm............................................................................... ........ County:Hydg ................................................... W:R�?._......
Owner Name: Mark ...................................... GaXa. axk.................................................... Phone No: 25.2-9464.194..OffICE.......................................
MailingAddress: lit...X.. A�.1 S.................................................................................... Sc.r.4i( tin...NG-----.------............................................ 2.7.8.7.5 ..............
FacilityContact: ..............................................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: Ma1:k.Urpax,aa......................................................................... Integrator: htaci PRjadent..............................................
Certified Operator:J,!'laCk.12.................................. CAERLWAU ......................................... Operator Certification Number:j,$$3.4 .............................
Location of Farm:
SR #1152 between Scranton and Sladesville
0 Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude F 26 35 Longitude F 59
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Panulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
® Farrow to Feeder
225
0
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer JE3 Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 225
Total SSLW 117,450
Number of Lagoons 3
Diseharp_es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is.observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: . •.......P.rimary......... .......S�ecandat�t ......................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 30 44
12112103 Continuer!

Facility Number_ 48-9
Date of Inspection 1 12/3/2004
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application.
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc > 3000
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Corn (Silage & Grain) Wheat Fescue
❑ Yes ® No-
❑ Yes OR No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
I3. 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
I6. 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.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Scott Viipson. ,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 48-9 Date of inspection 12/3/2004
5
Reduired Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
12112103

of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
for Visit &Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number I Date of Visit:
rmitted ACertifi © Con Monall Certified Registered
Name:
/2/3 Tune• I WW:a4 "I '30Lk-
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Date Last Operated o Above Threshold: .
County.
Owner Name: ._.__.._ .------ - . _ .... . __. �. _.. _ ... _. Phone No:
11faffing Address:
Facility Contact: ___ ----Title: _ Phone No:
Onsite Representative: ��_ _' i __- Integrator.
Certified Operator: _ _ .... Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Shrine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • u Longitude i �u
Desqu Cat Pes'CCurrent - SGreat
Swine Po P2
lion
Lion
-Po ita_ ..Cattle
airy
-
Non -Dairy
�.
b
l►Ital SSLW
y
:F
- Wean to Feeder i Layer
Fender to Finish
Non -Layer
Farrow to Wean
arrow to Feeder s p Other
Farrow to Finish To>�
Boars
& Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
tructure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): A- 34
❑ Yes f`No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑Yes *'No
Structure fi
12/12/03 Confinued
& Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
tructure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): A- 34
❑ Yes f`No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑Yes *'No
Structure fi
12/12/03 Confinued

)Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie// trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ,,b No
seepage, etc.) " l
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes 4No
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 maintenancelimprovernent? ❑ Yes ro
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenan�mprovement? ❑ Yeso
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑Yes A Na
Waste Annlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenanceJmnprovement? ❑ Yes No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen CYompd ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type �$rt,✓ �(A4.a-
13. Do the receiving crops differ witlrthose designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes `M 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 r jo I No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes El No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below es ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yesfi:,No
No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes
roads, building structure, and/or public property) l
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes , P No
Air Quality representative immediately.
6.e11��'"`""-��/��^'—^: ",
064iNI�iI
I.'x.r 'G '"'1.aC'"�b' �..;—''T� J �S "ST•..7ss.=._y.-4�S.i9a�." .�
�. i�E:BiOi� S
;* E l *y}' . ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
m
l `
} r+t ,
>
ReviewerlInspector Name
Reviewerffimpector Siguatim: - Date: 'Lf
I2112103 Confinued

F"
Facility Number: 1- _.®f Date of Inspection
Recluire� Records & Documents
21. FaiI to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ErNo
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 qNo
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes q 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 is 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 ReviewerAkspector 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
LAMES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35) ❑ Yes JP No
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? o
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? es -No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? es o
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. s No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
12112103

Technical Assistance Site Visit Report kAJ
• Division of Soil and Water Conservation
t O Natural Resources Conservation Service
1 O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 48 Date: 130103 Time: 9:05 Time On Farm: 15 WaRO
Farm Name Skeeter Hog Farm County Hyde Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address Rt. 1 Box 185B Scranton NC 27875
Onsite
Representative see comment section Integrator
Tyne 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
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
® Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
225
o
O Routine
O Response to DWQIDENR referral
O Response to DSWCISWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
OO Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ 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?
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
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier primary secondary
Level (Inches) 10 F 30
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
❑ 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?
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
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier primary secondary
Level (Inches) 10 F 30
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
❑ 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?
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
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier primary secondary
Level (Inches) 10 F 30
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

48 - 9 Date:
9/30103
FFacliltyber
TER
O No assistance provided/requested
ste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
-Provided
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
®10. Level in structural freeboard
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
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.
�`-
❑
- ❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30. 2H.0200 re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Latelmissing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Latelmissing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Latelmissing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallclosure 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: 10-1-2003
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 certificat! onlrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
2
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, storrnwater 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. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

11
' facility Number 4r3 - � Date: 1 9/30/03
COMMENTS:
• Emergency site visit conducted as part of hurricane damage assessment efforts. No one on site at time of inspection.
• Unable to determine if floodwaters entered primary structure - did not enter lagoon 2. Storm water on lagoon 2 south &
est dike walls.
10 & 40. Level in primary estimated at 10 inches - unable to find marker. Ample storage noted in secondary structure.
Farm referred to 0WQ due to high waste level in lagoon 1.
Appears no animals on site.
Fw-
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST jPat Hooper Carl Dunn
SIGNATURE 2Ai
Date Entered: 1011103
Entered By: IPat Hooper
03/10/03

Technical Assistance Site Visit Report
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O.Other...
Facility Number 4$ - O9 Date:' 517/03 Time: 10.00 1 Time On Farm: 45 WaRO
Farm Name Skeeter Hog Farm County Hyde Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address Rt. 1 Box 185E Scranton NC 27875
Onsite
Representative Mark Carawan Integrator . independent
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
® Operation Review
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
[I Operating below threshold . -
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle [] Horse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
® Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
225
2
Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
Response to complaint/iocal referral
Requested by producer/integrator
Follow-up
Emergency
Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERALQUESTIONS:
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 to 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? p yes' ® no
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier primary J1 secondary
Level (Inches) 24 28
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
Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERALQUESTIONS:
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 to 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? p yes' ® no
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier primary J1 secondary
Level (Inches) 24 28
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 48 - 09 Date:,
617103
PARAMETER
*.No assistance provided/requested
-
❑ 8. Waste"spill leaving site
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
U. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
012. Waste structure integrity compromised
[113. Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)-
❑ --
--❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑`
❑
❑ 14. Over application >=10% & 10 lbs.
2H.0200
❑
El_
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or <_10 lbs.
30. re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑.
❑ _
32..Irrigation record keeping assistance
`❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation. records
❑ 18. Latelmissing waste analysis
33. organizelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
[119. Latelmissing lagoon level records
❑ 20. Latelmissing soils analysis
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
El
❑ .
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with wasterplan..,
36. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
[124. Deficient sprayfleld conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
s
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker checkleallbration
❑
❑
Reeulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑ .
0 Referred to NCDA Date.
43. Irrigation designlinstallation
❑
❑
❑ Other...
system •
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY QPERATION ,
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
47. Evaluate WAD eertifiicatlonlrechecks
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
dM
2..
49. Drainage workievaluation50.
Land shaping, subsolling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
3.
~.
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4. -
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
Cl
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5.
56.Operation S maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6
58. Cropfforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 48 - 09 Date: I617103
COMMENTS:
"Site visit made on 617103. Waste has been transferred from primary lagoon to secondary lagoon. Animal waste noted
Between houses has been pumped back into lagoon.
Waste analysis taken on 613/03 No results.
Mr. Carawan planning to lower secondary lagoon by land applying waste to coastal bermuda hay. Follow guidance from
raste plan.
2_ Large area of standing water at toe of secondary lagoon. Mr. Carawan stated this area was from four wheelers producing
mud bog". Area at toe of lagoon needs to be dry in order to conduct visual inspections of lagoon to note any seepage or
rosion problems.
`Mr. Carawan was asked to contact Hyde Soil and Water Conservation for assistance to prevent future problems as noted
bove. At this time, no contact made.
TECHNICAL_ SPECIAIJST IMarbn McLawhom
SIGNATURE
3 03/10/03

Technical Assistance Site Visit Report
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Natural Resources Conservation Service
0 Soil and Water Conservation District
0 Other...
Facility Number 4$' - 09 Date: 6/2/03 Time: 1300 Time On Farm: 30 WaRO
Farm Name Skeeter Hog Farm county Hyde Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address Rt. 1 Box 185B Scranton NC .27875
Onsite
Representative Integrator Inde endent
T e 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 U Came ❑ Horse
O Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaintllocal referral
O Requested bg producer/integrator
© Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity • Population
❑ Wean -to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow: to Wean
® Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
225 ..
2
Capacity Po ulation
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ 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 Ono
surface waters or wetlands?
`i
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 appfication, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
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
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier primary F seconda
Level (Inches) L 0 20
CROP TYPES
SPR YFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

I •�
48 - 09 Date:
6l2/03
FFacilityber
ER
QQ No assistance• provided/requested
ste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided:
® 9. Waste spill contained on site
®10. Level in structural freeboard
2& Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level. in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑ „
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
❑ 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% 810 lbs.
❑
El❑
15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30- 2l•t•t)200 re -certification
.016, Hydraulic overloading • 1
31. Five S Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑ _
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
32. Irrigation. record keeping assistance
❑-._
❑
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organ➢zelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
- ❑
❑ 21, Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22, Crop inconsistent with waste plan . _
36. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑ '
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑]
39: Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑ '
40. Marker checklcalibration
❑
❑. -t
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
- . ❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date: !
11 Other...
43. irrigation system desigNinstallation
El�
� El
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
.46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
47. Evaluate WAD certificationlrechecks
❑
❑
48.'Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
2•
49. Drainage worklevaluation •
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51.Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3•
_
52. Buffer Improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(OPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4. _
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5• -
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
~ ❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
fi
58. Cropfforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 48 _ 09 per: 617J03
COMMENTS:
*Site visit conducted to confirm animals on site. Mr. Carawan called stating 10% of design capacity had been placed May 9
2003.
6. Inspection of site noted primary lagoon had overflowed with animal waste between houses.
9. Animal waste was contained on site.
10. Lagoon level of primary lagoon was in structural freeboard.
*Contacted Mr. Carawan by phone on 6/2/03. He was aware primary lagoon had overflowed. Requested Mr. Carawan to:
transfer waste from primary lagoon to secondary lagoon
pump waste between houses back into lagoon and make sure there was no runoff
take waste analysis from primary and secondary lagoon
contact Hyde SWCD for assistance on land application of waste
**Will revisit site on 6/7/03 at 10:00 am
TECHNICAL. SPECIALIST IMaTtin McLawhom
SIGNATURE
3 03/10/03

Technical Assistance Site Visit Report
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Natural Resources Conservation Service
Q Soil and Water Conservation District
Q Other...
Facility Number 48 - 09 Date: 1131/03 Time: 9o0 Time On Farm: 5S WaRO
Farm Name Skeeter.Hog Farm County Hyde Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address Rt. 1 Box 185E Scranton NC 27875
Onstte
Representative Mark Carawan Integrator 11ndependent
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
® No Animals -Date Last Operated: 528/99
❑ Operating below threshold
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
Routine
Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Response to DSWC/SWCD referrai
Response to complaint/local referral
Requested by prod ucerh ntegrator
Follow-up
Emergency
Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population C P 1 i
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
® Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
225
p
ap2wty o u at on
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ 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
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier recycle primary secondary
Level (Inches) _ 30 . 30 IF.60
CROP TYPES lCom Soybeans Wheat 1coastal Senn hay
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What -type of technical assistance does'the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
1 03/10/03

Facility Number 48 - 09 Date:
1/31/03
PARAMETER
0 Na•assistance providedfrequested
❑ 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
❑
❑
[111, 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)
®
❑
[114. Over application >=10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
015. Over application a 10% or < 10 lbs.
30.2FI.021)0 re-0ertification
[316. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32Arrigation record keeping assistance -
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
[118. Latelmissing waste anatysls
33. Organizelcomputerizat€on of records
❑
❑
[119, Late/missing lagoon level records
❑ 20. Late/missing soils anatysis
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 checklcalibrat€on
❑
❑
Reeulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
0-
0 Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation designlinstallation
El
❑ Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
L' i T IMPROVEMENTS
45. operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination r
❑
❑
1.
47. Evaluate WAD certificationlrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecomniendations
❑ "
❑
2.
49. Drainage workievaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subso€ling, 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

r
ti
Facility Number 48 _ 09 pate; 1 1/31/03
MMENTS:
'No irrigation events for 2002 crop year.
'Lagoon dike walls have been mowed.
'Operation wants to remain active status.
'Last soil report dated 627/98.
'Continue to monitor lagoon levels.
'Last waste analysis dated 6/10/98 nitrogen was 0.85 lbs/1000 gallons
'Need to have 10% of design capacity on site for 45 days to remain active before 5/28103.
'Need to contact tech spec or local district for soil types to be included in waste plan.
'Address change: 1595 Puddin Hill Rd.
Scranton NC 27875
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST IMartin McLawhom
SIGNATURE
3 03/10/03

wgtor Certification N tuber i88 :. w: .....
Location of,Farm:
� etwec�n.Scrantoa and Sladfsvlue--
Swine `'p Pou Cam' £� =' I.atltude• 26, r---�"_ Longitude'Tb]•��
ley p e p Horse
olij'mg4 onds ol�l Traps Liquid age System� 1 �R
o � - rite Management _
4 '
i, Discharges & Stream Impacts w
"- 1: Is any discharge observed from any part'of the operation? p Yes.'® No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
y 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 r
_I No
c- If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d_ Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) p Yes p No
2_ Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p Yes, ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? 0 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 ....iieGycls_ ...._._ P�izilazy ._._...._5e ctAda�[y ...................---....
Freeboard(inches): ......... ............-...4&t.-•-------.....,..............................--........... ,................. ....... ....................................

F aca tY Number: 48-9 Date of Inspection.
i~ed�hha#e�ihrraLs to the m`tegnty ofariy of the stiiictbn'es observed? (W.trees, severe erosion, -
y 'No'
'seepage, etc)
s on -site which are not`groperl}raddressed`andlormanaged through a waste management or
{
0 Yes No
fang of questions 44 was answered.yes, and the s1ii atidn`pases an .> <'
nmediiiite.pub>ic health or environmental #lit eat, notf DWQ} ,
, "
�hw need mamRenance/nnprovement.
E3 Yes ®No
3 Y_ -ten` `\ �_ -- _ .� '- -•_ ..
ie waste than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
p Yes ®No_
-management-system2other
ram.. a. '—.
3ck adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
i] Yes ®No-
10 � Are the -a any,buffers that need mamtenance/improvement? � ; _ p Yes ® Na
1 ;w -r, _
l l Ys there esndenoe of over applic hn� r O lve`Ponduig 3 PAN �p Hydraulic Overload k 0 Yes ®No'
°LSS ssr w,.tF. i { i..9., s _ "'�.— .ri -'�
{.�5�£- L' `i"..i,-.�_,}��e �}� a��, _,--1 �, :s=:� � d � y,.� r -'�3
' 2�P� t 1 '�..'�c,�' a Coastal Bermuda
Do the re xeiving crop differ those designated m"the Cerdfi Animal Waste Management Plan'(CAWMP)� .p Yes ® No _
�:4,�Kt ."�='.�� fir- •cA�. ."'R x` j�. v�n',`,�; "ri_3�r w-.��`i�.-hat.. `*-- v-—•'""k��i ^. :s; ter- A•-•�1 :_ .-.:.
4Rra) Does the facility lackadequate acreage far land application? :' z T - p Yes p No
facility need a wettable acre determination? p Yes p No
- c) ibis facility is pended fora wettable acre determination? " L ^ ' p Yes p No
anti}-15. Does a rece:wing' c op need improvement?-: p Yes'® No
Y.. i4r 16 Is there a lack of adegiiate waste application equipment? p Yes ®No`
t Required Recordsr& Documents _ -
.d-`Fk`•�-'��•c •••,.:s`^e'-- a - _
; Paul to Have Certif cafe of Coverage &General Permit or other Permit readily available? '_ p -Yes p No
_ _-J •l 8'- Does.the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
�e/ WiJP, checklists, desi etc.} ` ' p Yes ®No
• ( gn, maw,
19. -Does record keeping need improv nt? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports} p Yes p No
20 = is faciiifj+ nat m comp)ranvcewith any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? p Yes ®No
2 I Did the facilhty fail to ha e a a 6ely;certilled operator m charges _ p Yes ,®No
22 Fail ionot�fjr regional DWQ:of emergency.sitiiations as required by General Permit? `
r - (ie)arge;'freeboard problems, over application) "" - ©'Yes p No
disch
- 23.- Did Reviewer/lnspector fail to discuss review/mspection with on -site representative? p Yes ® No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? p Yes ® No
1=' 25:- Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? t fj Yes ®No
o iio a - ous or- deficiencies were noted dur—m­g`E9-h_vEsWWE will_receive no. further correspon ence a out this visit
r In refer on°`" _ © men '"�ons o ntbercom�mets. `
=[TV*WCtto er 'm .. ,bans. ns�e a "ona . as . ece�ar97
p Field Copy p Final Notes
t ..
* Lagoon has been mowed.
*'Last soil test 6/22/98.
'' r In order for this facility not to be classified as "abandoned", 10% of design capacity (225 head) must'be onsite for
days, by April 2003.
Reviewer/Inspector Name roit Anson _ Wintered` y Ann: Ball j, T v�
Reviewer/inspector Signature: _ na+P• 9

05103101
Facility N umber: 483Date of Inspection FATMITI
Continued
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below 0 Yes p No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?. 13 Yes ® No,
i 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? p Yes ® No
34. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) . p Yes ® No
i 3l . ' Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? p Yes ®No
32.. Do the flush tanks Jack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? p Yes p No
f.
- •. � h h sy s` � - - �.��. ems;
' '� �:. -ti. y - � -Z' s' ,,} -�.., _ - F•��'i�`�-ter' T��� .,fie
� ..1 Y' � �� ��1 '�, • - "✓-% a.ta-��' 'Lr ;.h '�s`5� 0. i hi+�1.f: 'u'`yNWy[tr��..t�1
•, � ..�y,� - �-s.��.•- .y � _ .�{,"�z�+T �',7�'-� s r-a .'"'�c'� •ice 1 a``"' ''sYr..�!
` _ RFC' '. '•.1 _ _4'�r {! jl
"+ r-u.a � '} �• '~ - � - .=''�:3..zr. �+ Rc�1,� �ts.4c- -� .-s]• �f'., k ,� j� �..:
Aki
i+?' - .{ .+T e• i -� 'i�- f.„+. ,�, :'sue �.' �* .ram r, 's �� �.
.�� �Y .:.ram _;.���'���-€- '� � ,�.a�ss� 7 o.,�--�-•.� �• � —
011,3
Y-,u .. = y,`"^Y -ems s ,3s z- •-s M t
'f
�--
�,'��.T.r�'
.�rr,r..y.',i
s �.f --a y
..7't r,.+`F$ tea-
x All'e4isk-� -'' - a�, '^n3�.7� r ,.Fri„'-`�:,7'"� i..3. -ar•j -
S.+•-.'�4 s��,-;�'��.,.��1�ESi-2rlusee'SC--•�-K'�r���'"�X�"t"��'.r �� � ��-x.' "�w"�.-r•q"+..Cs'
;•. y wn- „ti ir,���� � � � �n.st'k--° .ar ��.,y. r .wx . �=`"�' 1Li,� i"Y �;t f-� - _t.- s -
'''�.€

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: d Time: a
Facility Number
Not Operational- 0 Below Threshold
13 Permitted $J Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated
�� or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: 4-I�_� V-�— ___ County: !4 u ,— _ II.6 xa
cr
Owner Name: pur _ C= "'n '_ - Phone No: �25�2,1 9 l b 4 % l9 q pQca
Mailing Address: AI •. E beer ! It7_6 _ _ S C.mlm ^ P �73LL
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: m ar' k
Certified Operator: M.111( coym W0.w
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator: __:rto tom/
Operator Certification Number: I yY3q
,,Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑Horse Latitude 0e & u Longitude 0
Wean to Feeder
N
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
No Liquid Waste
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Coffection. & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:A. r i
Freeboard (inches): l o$
05103101
❑ Yes Lp No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
En No
❑ Yes
V�No
❑ Yes tvNo
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection ? s-
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop hype �, d r-r. .' —L. ( =5 i "��Gr
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CA
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?
Re wired Re ords & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
t 8. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes [N No
❑ Yes V No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes qNo
❑ Yes [a No
❑ Yes D�No
Cl Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes *No t11_1
❑ Yes [3 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes ❑ No hl/�
❑ Yes L No
❑ Yes [N�No
❑ Yes .® No
E3 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Co'ments refer to'` uestton � �` ' ` x
( 'q 4#) ;Expl�am anyYES answers any orany recommendapons:or anyother comments
Use.-drawtngs of faciltt3 to fetter eaplam sits attons , (use addthonal pages n essary) ° ❑Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
_:
9-1
. -91� 40 /W G
1_4 es. fgi mbi-S - loe C -i Hp T_._ -[u )
_L.,,, ,
s
Reviewer/Inspector Name �f ~
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
`?/ L7:Z
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: Li Date of Inspection
dor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes %No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ONO
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located new the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes j No
3 L Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes OfNo
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
.r
05103101

Type of Visit p Compliance Inspection p Operation Review p Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit p Routine p Complaint p Follow up p Emergency Notification p Other p Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: F 2/1/2002r- Time: 13:58
O of Operational OBellowThreshold
p Permitted E Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Skeeter Hog Farm County: Hyde ................................................... 1?1ARO........
Owner Name: Mark Carawan Phone No: 252-946-6194 OFFICE
Mailing Address: RL.1...B.tx..185R.................................................................................... Scrantart..NC ........................................................ 27875 ..............
FacilityContact: ................Title:........................................... Phone No:................................................................................................................... ....................
Onsite Representative: Mark.Carxw2n......................................................................... Integrator: Indepetidwl ............................................................
Certified Operator* MArk.D................................ Casa.wan.......................................... Operator Certification Number: 18834.............................
Location -of Farm:
® Swine p Poultry p Cattle p Horse Latitude Longitude
Design _ urrent Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry. Capacity Population` Cattle Capacity ;]Population
p can to Feeder p Layer = p airy
p Feeder to Finish p Non -Layer JE3 Non -Dairy
p arrow to Wean
® Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
Farrow to Finish T-`
17 Total Design Capacity 225
p Gilts µ
m 103
Boars Total SSLW 117,450
Nmber ai Lagoons [3Subsurface Drains Present JJE3 Eagoon Area 113 spray 0rea
g 27 HoldrngIPonds-/ Sohd�Traps= p INO 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: [3 Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? [3 Yes [3 No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) Yes p No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) []Yes p 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? [3 Yes H No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway p Yes N No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .......... Xecycle....................primuy......... ........ scrwm lal:y........................................... .....................................................................
Freeboard(inches): ................a6...............................3.6..............................6.0................. ..............................

t.
Facility Number: 48-9 Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion,
L3 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
N 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
® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
p Yes
® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
U No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
12. Crop type Cam, Soybeans, Wheat Coastal Bermuda (Hay)
I . 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
p No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes.
p 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? 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) ❑ Yes ❑ No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes ®No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? p Yes ®No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ®No
0 o violations or deficiencies were noted uring this visit. You will receive no Jurther correspondence about is visit.
Comtiients refer tn' uestionn an YlSianswers arid`/_vr an' recommendatiansoi an a(her� nients s -
i7sc=drawingseof facility$to�better explain situations.(use additionalpages as°necessary) �: � '� -'
��: ti Field Copy ❑Final Notes
w -- �; r
_
* Lagoon dike walls have been mowed.
AL
* Vegetation on dike walls in good condition.
* No irrigation events since last DSW in 2001.
* Remember to take waste analysis before irrigation events.
* Operation was to remain active.
* Last soil test dated 6/22/98 with 0.5 - 2.8 ton lime required.
continued next page)
Reviewer/Ins ector Name y - -
p Martin McLawhornDella Rob bins -
,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

P5103101 Continued
aci i y Number: 48_9 hate of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below p Yes p No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? p Yes ® 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? l7 Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) p Yes ® 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
* Continue to maintain lagoon levels. _AL
* Irrigation is solid set & honey wagon.
* Wheat crop in good condition.
* No animals on site at time of inspection.
* Waste analysis dated 6/16/98 - nitrogen is 0.85 Ibs/1000 gallons.
• v
s
�i
F
i
•1
. d
J .
fl
[1 ,

of Visit © Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification. O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 48 9 Date of Visit: 10111R0(}1 Time: S:tl(1 pm Printed on: 11 /1 /2001
NNot Operational OBelowThreshold
0 Permitted ®Certified © Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: SUdu 1ka EaEm County: jl tit _ .__.. .__.... .._.... �1'Aaft.....
Owner Name: Mary---- �.__._.._ CatA.wAn..... Phone No: 252_:24fi-_619A.1v MC1E......... .................. ......... ..
Mailing Address: R1LJL.21aj.JM5jL.....� . _ . -. - ... _ cxaun�to�a NC ._......_ .......................................... --
Facility Contact: -_Title. ......._......_..................... Phone No: .......
_ ....._�. �....».... _.
Onshe Representative:.___. __.... ._....._...... _... Integra#or:
Certified Operator. AWRD ............... .... . _.� m ap - , ,_. _ Operator Certification Number: 1��.� ......_....
Location of Farm:
3R #1152 between Scranton and Sladesville +
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Worse Latitude F 35 'F 2676 35 Longitude 76 * 2$ 59
Design Current
Swine Cflnaeity PODnlation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
® Farrow to Feeder
225
0
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity "Population
ulation
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 225
Total SSLW 117,454
Number of Lagoons 3 JoSubsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds./ Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
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? (lf yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ 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 IN No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ....-._..Rw4m1r...._ --.- -Pxhnmry-------- ......-wry ....... .......
Freeboard(inches): . _ 2.R ___ ._-._..._. 32 ..... ......._..42t......... ...................._........._... _.... _..... _.. _......._...........

UNUNUL
Facility Number: 48-9 Date of Inspection 10/11/2001
(.onwwed
Printed on: 11/1/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ 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?
❑ 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/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
Q Yes
❑ No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified A WMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to.gaes'tivn #) "ExpNin!:any YE5 answers anwor any recommendations or any. other comments.`
Use drawrnes of facihty to'better explainsituations. (use. additional pages as necessary). [] Field Copy ❑Final Notes
7. Mow lagoon walls to keep visual inspection up.
There is a good stand of vegetation on walls.
There are no animals onsite and there have been no irrigation events this year.
Mr. Carawan wishes to remain active.
Reviewer/Inspector Name IScoft Vinson entered by Ann Tyndall
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 17 Date: f 2 /�/o

05103101 Continued
Facility Number: 48-9 Date of Inspection 1 /11/2001 Printed on: 1111 /2001
Odor Issues
26_ Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ®No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not Iocated near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ®No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ®No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Facility Number Date of Visit: o I a Time:
Q Not O rational Q Below Threshold
0 Pernumm jqCertune--d U Conditiom y Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ...................
Farm Name: ................................................ County: ......... 11:414L...................................
Owner Name:..........! ............... .............. C:ams........................ Phone No........... ��? .. Gr .... �� L�,l..�.........
FacilityContact: ............................................................................... Title: ............ I ........ I ................... ....................... Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address:
Onsite Representative:
Integrator:
Certified Operator:........ ,, ....................... .................... Operator Certification Number:.....�.1.. .L�.....
Location of Farm:
ff Sw1ne ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle []Horse Latitude • 4 64 Longitude • 6 �u
- -5
t . Desi Dena Current Design urren
PCa ..0CaiPCarreaitacotaci e Po ulatian CatHea❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish 10 Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
Farrow to Finish Tobd Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars TotaI,SSM "
Nrimbec:of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
:.Holding Ponds / Solid -Traps' . ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes Jt No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 14 No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes 2To
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes Al
No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3- Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure G
Identifier: ...........Y+ .t ...
Freeboard (inches): (/ 4
5100 2
{ Continued on back

Facility Number: Y �— Date of Inspection D p
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, [] Yes P'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 Q No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ❑ No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21,
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
•Yiola�iQns;e� dgfc�encte� vt�re itQte�• dig this;v�s�tr • Y:o� vt=iii•>�eeeiye Rio fu4 th�r • • •
correspondence. about this .visit_
Comments (refer #n_queshon #) ExplaiWany YES a[IFswers and/or;any�rep.ommeadati&is or -any other comments. 4
Usedrawins of faciiityrrto;betterexplain situations.,(use.adiiitiosallpages as necessarj!j
AL
C✓v�_ 1/`0 -�/►'� t1n- f g �. -T ,14-e, 4- �`''L G Pry- wo � v` r-
Reviewer/Inspector Name;
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: t 0 /li 01 5/00

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes MNo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes LEM
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes [][No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes E�No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes A No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
AdditionW Comments. an. , or' rat yngs:
al
5100

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O. Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Hate of Visit: 6I1/2001 Time: 930 Printed on: 10/10/2001
48 9
Not O erational Q Below Threshold
0 Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: 5,011299.....
Farm Name: 51w.c.r.Haz.FArm......................... ...... County: Hydc ................................................... WARO........
Owner Name . Phone No: 25J-9.4"1Q4..0�'FICE......`......--�-..�..�.�� G Mailing Address: lit...1... M1.1850.................................................................................... S.rraialoin ... ANC........................................................ 2.7.875 .............
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:..................................................... Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Mar.Is CArrA Ay ................................ ......... Integrator:lnd"PgJa ejal.................... ......................................................................
Certified Operator:ll'laxk...................................... C'AI ALINA>.......................................... Operator Certification Number: l%W1.............................
Location of Farm: _
R #1152 between Scranton and Sladesville
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 2ti 35 u Longitude 76 •F 28 ° 59 u
Discharp_es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. 1f discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .......... recycle.......... .......... primary -......... .......secondary.------ ................................... ............---.......................................................
Freeboard (inches): 29 29 32
0si0.4i01 r'nntfnued

#3$V3/01
Facility Number: 48-9 1Date of Inspection 1 6/1/200I
Continued
Printed on: 10/10/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify.DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat Coastal Bermuda (Hay)
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments prefer to gnestion #): Explain any Y>;S answers and/or an, recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations..use additional pages as necessary : ❑Field Copy ❑Final Notes
*Mr. Carraway does not wish to deactivate at this time.
_
*There have been no irrigation events since last DSW inspection dated 7/19/00.
*Last soil test dated./] 6/98.
*Need to secure new waste analysis before irrigating.
*Discussed IRR2 /waste analysis schedule.
*Irrigation is solid set and honey wagon.
17,22,26,27,30,31,32 N/A
Reviewer/Inspector Name iMartin McLawhorn
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

05103101
Facility Number: Y48-9
Date of Inspection 6/1/2001
Continued
Printed on: 10/10/2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
plan needs to be updated to show crop windows and nitrogen rates. ! -11
J

kX y k ;�a-DOnt�ston_
:t
:er o♦ Dmstonof wa
bf Sff and Wa_ter Co
h. e-----------------
Type nseS n*atton 1 -
z
of Visit (1 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 12-27-21100 Time. 1130 Printed oro: 12282000
Faeifiry Number 48 9
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted M Certified M Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered pate Last Operated or Above Threshold: .............
Farm Name: Skitex Ho 1 axxn Counts': B�yIdc................ .. R!al`S�i ..
Owner Name: 11�a� _... _ . �>t��:�I�.._................... _...................... Phone No: 252-,4!G-
.k19.4..OHJ.CE........__..........................
FacilityContact: .................... ........... ...... ............ ........... .......__.Title:................................................................ Phone No:
Mailing Address: Rf...l..&ta.185B............................................ ... Seanloin..NC........................................................ Z.7.8.7.5..............
Onsite Representative: no.Alae........... ............. _... _....... -..................................................... Integrator:
Certified Operator: Ma& ...................................... Chtx'a fail.......................................... Operator Certification Number: 18.83.4 .............................
Location of Farm:
`SR #1152 betweeUL Scranton and Sladesyille i .•
I
® Swine []Poultry []Cattle []Horse Latitude 35 ' • 26 35 Lunritude j 76 ;•1 28 59
Design Current
Swine ranacity Ponnlation
J0 Wean to Feeder
r❑ Feeder to Finish
j
11E) Farrow to Wean
JO Farrow to Feeder
225
T o
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
!0 Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity PopulationCattle Capacity Population
❑ Laver I JE] Dairy
Non -Laver, I I ❑Non -Dairy
I❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 225
Total SSLW 117,450
Number of Lagoons 10 Subsurface Drains Present !❑ Luggonn Area J❑ Spree Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ID No Liquid'A'aste Management Svstem
& S:rexm frrri�ar.Is
1. Is any discharge observed from anv part of the operation?
❑ Yes
®No
Discharge originated at: 0 Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a_ if di c;hamc is obser ed- ivas the L.oinr N anC2c man -mad::?
El Yes
®No
1). If discuarRc is observed_ did h mach iVaicr of the Star:." (ifnotifi" DWQ)
El Yes
Bi No
c, 11discharge is obs:n'cd_ is the csumat d fora' In Lmliniin')
d. Dud"s::hxra;' - bvDay? it I:Ipit7Il _ \.:iz i' (lJ'xcz,, noiiA ]D` Q)
❑ Yes
X No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
X No
3- Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
Z, No
Wa—,,le Collection & TrL'armeiii
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
El Yes
9 No
Structure l Strticiwe ? Stnucture v Structure 4 Structure >
Structure 6
identifier: .......... Xapycle.......... ..........primary ......... ........ S=11d-...................._.................... ...................................
.......
Irc t�al�t"d 114i nc;`:...............1.................................3.0.............................3X...................................................................................... I.......

5100
Facility° Number. 48-9 Date of Inspection 12-27-2000 Printed gym:
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees_ severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properh addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered ves, 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?
Write Annlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
Continued on back
12282000
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
El Yes
❑No
❑ Yes
❑ No
13_ Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reouired Records & Docurnents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard_ waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20_ Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21 _ Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did ReviewerAnspector 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?
4 'No violations t r deficiencies` were noted during thii visit:: You will'receive`no further: .
on eorresndence 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):
Elide by inspection and no one was onsite.
Records were not reviewed Refer to DSWC operational review for more info
go animals on site.
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[] Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
w
Reviewer/Inspector Name //

Y
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit: 7/14/2000 Time: 83© Printed on: 11292000
48 9
0 Not Operational Q Below Threshold
13 Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: SkmtfxHog Faxes.............................................................................. County: Hyde .................................................. Wa RO........
Owner Name: Mairk...................................... .Car~ra'.Wslot.................................................... Phone No: Mj-9.4fi-.6j,9.4..0EX10E ......................................
Facility- Contact:
Title: ...................... -.— .................................... Phone No:
MailingAddress: P,,.1...U01.185a.................................................................................... se rmloin..SIC........................................................ 2.78.7.5.............
Onsite Representative: M,ark.CaratXaa......................................................................... Integrator: Indepw dent
Certified Operator: MukD................................. Carawan ......................................... Operator Certification Number:. 18834.................. ...........
Location of Farm:
SR #1152 between Scranton and Sladesviile
r
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle
❑ Horse Latitude F35-1 OF 26 f
35 Longitude F 76 1OF28 ' 59 °
Design
Current _ Design .
Current m
-Design '' Curreat
Swine
-Population Poultry Capacity
Population. Cattle _,
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
w
❑ Laver
JE1 Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
I0 Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
® Farrow to Feeder
225
0
❑ Ocher
-
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
225
-.
❑ Gilts
-
=_ Total SSLW_-
117,450
-
❑Boars
Number of Lagoons 3 ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ L agoon Areu ID Spray Field Ares
Hold>sg Poods l Solid Traps= ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System -
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes ®No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in Eallmin`?
d. Does discharge b}pass 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 Stniclure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .......... re-ycle.................... primaq......... ........ s ny
Freeboard(inches)................2.4................ ...............3o............... ............... 6.0............... ............................................................................................................

5/00
Condnued on back
Facility Number: 48-9 Date of Inspection 7I1412000 printed on:
11/29/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public bealtb or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do anv of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
® 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 Ievel
elevation markings?
® Yes
❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
I I . Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat Fescue (Hay) Coastal Bermuda (Hay)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? '
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
�. -No violations: or;d'eficiericies• were:noted:during ttiis•visit: ;You will;receive ono •further; •' :-
�correspondence about thisvisit...:.. . ...... ............ ..: ..:..: :
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Comments (refet,to question#): E: plain_any YES answers and/or any. recgmmendations.or an : other, comriients:_
y
Use drawings of facility to hitter ex lain: situations. (use additional pages as necessary).- _
*Facility last populated 5128/99. 25 sows to remain active status.
*Waste analysis dated 6/16/98. Nitrogen is 0.85 lbs/1000 gallons.
*Soil test dated 6122 98. Lime has not been applied at recommended rates 0.50 to 2.8 tonslacre.
*Irrigation system is solid set and honey wagon.
17.N/A
*Waste plan dated 2/19192. Needs to be updated to current standards including PAN rates, crop windows, acreage and application
Vrj
Reviewer/Inspector Name T - -

IReviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5100 I
Facility Number: 48-9 Date of Inspection 7/14/2000 Printed on: 11/29/2000
Odor issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt. ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i_e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary rover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional'Comments�andlor Drawings:
7. Burial
9. Need marker in secondary lagoon
7. Need to mow lagoon inner walls to allow for routine and visual inspections.

Division of Soil and Water Conservation Operation Review
Division of Soil and Water -Conservation - Compliance Inspection
® Division�of Water Quality-= Compliance' Inspection - _
.. 0 Other Agency w Operation Review : r
O Routine O Com laint O Follow-u of DWQ ins ection 0 Follo,,%-u of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 7: 30 24 hr. (hh:mm)
E3 Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified © Registered 10 Not Operaational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: '� ....... � � County:......................................................C6-......................
Owner Name: ............M.^'.V Cir..vc+,n............... . -... Phone iNo:.......................................................................................
................................. .
Facility Contact: ........... ii titi Ckwa vA.,., ................. I.... Title: .............. Phone No:
..-
MailingAddress: .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..........................
Onsite Representative: .......... 1 �, k CarFvgn Integrator:........ _i.� �c A—+
........................................ .....V:........................................................
Certified Operator: :...........�Mti....Cic.r ylt".......................................................... Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
t............................................................................................................................. ................ .................................................................................................. I .................. .......-..
Latitude Longitude
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
2 Zr
25
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I JE] Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
LB
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation (If yes, notify DWQ)?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made''
h. It -discharge is observed, did it reach: ❑ Surface Waters ❑ Waters of the State
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system?
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm'storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: no-`''v al` "ecy"le
Freeboard (inches): -36 el 2y
.....................................................................................................................................
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes %No
❑ Yes [!�,No
❑ Yes NrNo
Structure 5 Structure 6
1/6/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: HI — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc_)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required top of dike, 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? ❑ Ponding ❑ Nitrogen
12. Crop type .�
13_ Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. Does the facility lack wettable acreage for land application? (footprint)
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'?
16, Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Re uired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20, Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(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'?
0• No.violations •or. derciencies :were n'o:t'd' during'Niis•visit:: Y•ou wilI*receive nofurther . -:
orrespatidence: abbot: this Visit.:::::::::::::::::::::.:::::.:::::::::::.:..:.:..:.:.:::::::::::.:.:. .
❑ Yes [,No
❑ Yes bg No
❑ Yes INo
❑ Yes tA No
❑ Yes 9 No
❑ Yes S No
❑ Yes allo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes 2�No
❑ Yes 64 No
❑ Yes MNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes 9 No
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or: any, other comments.-
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary)
NJ4s F..c, lAy �3
w*s �,;.la.owy q..J�.,�s . �.� X VZ ye�'S . Tke -c'.. 'y
fs C.i, oeAly 54jektA L,1 6N 2s Sot✓s T� g/ei 4& .4", I O OX, o f, 4.5i �n.
Will 4v se.Le, W41
pn dsc� bpi
L,/i1 d iv �t-i t,r454e pIa.. " t7Je1 'io i .w N h.4..ce
w
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Date:
1 /6/99

❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency
d1fivision of Water Quality
ID"toutine 0 Complaint 0 Fallow -up of DW_Q inspection 0 Follow-up of I)SNYC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection iU-L-99
Facility Number
Time of inspection �� 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Registered WCertified © Applied for Permit © Permitted of Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name:---......s� C vim.. Countv:......� .......................................................
................................ t1 1...)�
Owner Name: l� � .. Phone No: � — �Q
..................................... .......................... �1...... ................ �:.....................................
Facility Contact:.............................................................................. Title:.........................
Mailing Address:.. ..............�.,?Q ............................................
Onsite Representative:...---_ Nkj& .... (\— l,LUU.o? v`r.........
Certified Operator ,.-----.... .�..r.... ,GR_ A ems. p4,.tn...............
Location of Farm:
............................... Phone No:...................................................
lJ Cxn .......... G.....---... 1];-49JG
Integrator:.... F ...... . ........................
Operator CertificationNumber,1-Bg--4�-�...............
Latitude �• �' �'� Longitude ®• ��"
(� Ni►mber, of Lagoons / Holding Ponds j . J❑ Subsurface Drains Present Jj❑ Lagoon Area J❑ Spray Field Area
<<. , z- ❑ No Liquid Waste ManaPement Svstem 6.
'?
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge ori-inated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
❑ Yes B<O
❑ Yes El<
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Cl Yes 91] 0
❑ Yes ►R-go
❑ Yes 62 o
❑ Yes sd�No
El Yes
Continued on back

acilit;Dumber: k48
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes 2<0
Structures (I.agoons,Iiolding Ponds Flush Pits, etc.) �
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 2 o
Strut rre 1 Structure 2 �Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .................... ......?.Y..-....
�rr...............
Freeboard (ft):....., .... k..,....................... ........ s��..`$S'..�.......
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes E;Ko
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes E?-N--,o
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes B . o
(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
UrKlo
Waste :application
14, Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
Q No
(If in excess of WMP, or rru�n�o(f}f entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
Crop �,QO.a`.`.J`'
15. type ........................................................... .
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
Cl Yes
21 =o
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
R&O
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
0'&o
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
E?1Vo
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
Er No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
93'N'o
22. Does record keeping -need improvement?
❑ Yes
<o
For Certified or Permitted Facilitigs Qnly
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
�,�
K NN0
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
jvJ'No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit''
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 No.vio'lations or deficiencies were noted during this.visit.- .You.will receive -no further
' corre06ndence. about this,visit: :
ari v reco mendatt©ns or any otlter conirmenis
Cominents`(refer to question #):,Explain any,NES answers and/6OK
Use drawings of 5acthty:O.bel ter explain situations (use additional pages`as,necessarv) ` k�
01)1XS_tQ_ ; s (Q �C10 < < s fie,
�oe\_ Vt6O(_zD5 cOA T xQL tJ/ t' , { C1L. "SISi
j
Pk Nis -�-, 6, `C"),
1J�az� , y.�
7/25/97
rr
Reviewer/Inspector Name o v
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: C) -- R— 9 e

10 xoutme p uompiaint p rouow-up of uwV inspection p roiiow-up or uswu review p vtner
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
p Registered ■ Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted In Not 0perationa Date Last Operated: 8/1/95
Farm Name: Skeeter.HogFaria....................................................................................... County: Hyde WaRO
OwnerName: Mark ...................................... Carawait.................................................... Phone No: 92"921....................................................................
Facility Contact: Mark.Carawaa............................................. Title: OR= ................................................. Phone No: 252I94fi-6194.of er...........
MailingAddress: RL.I..Jilax.185H.................................................................................... Scrantan...NC ........................................................ Z7875.........
Onsite Representative: SEE.COAMVIENT.SEL'T.fON............................................. Integrator: ................................................................................... I...
Certified Operator: Mark.D................................. Carew= ............ :............................. Operator Certification Number: 18834.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ©•®L ©66 Longitude ®a 4 ®u
estgnEurrent-
AuesignCurren
es�gn urren
Swine = Capacity Population T Poultry^ _Capacity
Population ' Cattle Y
Capactty P,apuletion
can to ee er
n
1
--
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: p 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 flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25197
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No

ace um er: 48_9 Date of Inspection
S. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
p Yes
® No
Structures (LaQoons,IloldinQ Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
p Yes
® No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure
6
Identifier: ..Behindhouses... ...B ecyclaRand... ............ Fina�l...............................................
......................................................................
Freeboard (ft): 2.5 1.3 1.7
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
p Yes
® No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
p Yes
® No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
® 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?
p Yes
N No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
p Yes
N No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ......Cnastal_Bermuda.(hay)............................. .Fescue. ...................... ....................... MCA ................................................ Cm .............. ..........
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
Q . o -violations.or erencies'were.nos unng . is visit.,. as wi
: .receive na u er . ' .
• . • .....iaR�eAe� abode �t�iis•v... .:: � � :. • . .
p Yes ® No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
R Yes p No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes p No
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

I* Koutme p Gompiamt p ronow-up or tjwtr inspection p ronow-up of uawc. review p vtner
Facility Number Date of Inspection i - 1
Time of Inspection . ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
p Registered 0 Certified 0 Applied for Permit p Permitted 0 Not Op Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Skeeter..HogYas'm.......................... ..................................................... County: Hyde WaRO
OwnerName: Mark ...................................... Caraman...........................---------............... Phone No: 92&B92JL...................................................................
Facility Contact: .................................................................... ...Title: . Phone No:
..........................................................................................................................
Mailing Address: RL.L.Bnz185H.................................................................................... Scrantnil-mC......................................................... 27875 ..............
Onsite Representative: MarkCaramn......................................................................... Integrator:............................
Certified Operator: Mark.D................................. CarnwAxi.......................................... Operator Certification Number: IRK4.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ©0®4 ©u Longitude ®a ®4 ®46
13 Wean to Veeder
p Feeder to m�s
p arrow to Wean
® arrow to Fee er
p Farrow to Fmts
p Gilts
p Boars
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? p Yes ® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: p 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 flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes ® No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
0
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
p Yes ® No

Vacility Number: 48_9
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (La oons,Holding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
1 d en ti f i er:.................1.................................2.................................3..............................................
Freeboard (ft): 3.0 3.5 4.5
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
Structure 5 Structure 6
p Yes
N No
p Yes
R No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
N No
p Yes
® No
15. Crop type............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? p Yes N No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? p Yes ®No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? p Yes ® No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? p Yes ® No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? p Yes ® No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? p Yes N No
22. Does record keeping need improvement? p Yes N 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? p Yes ®No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit? p Yes p No
a. Noviar ons.or erencies-were.no a -duringis vise . -You will.receive n er . .
�ex>[es�iopdc>ae� �b4t�� X�iiS •v�si}; ..... ..... � .......
IReviewer/Inspector Name
IReviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: