940003_INSPECTIONS_20171231

�Vn
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qua

I or
\� � �����` \ ���\�� \\
I
N.5
P
E
I
UN
lift

t
Type of Visit • Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 10 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 3.0� 1� Departure Time: County: egion:
Farm Name: 41.. �Ls�.e tom_ 144-C-1• / Owner Email:
Owner Name:Phone:
Mailing Address: f%S �� .U�tri� L
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone No:
1�
Onsite Representative: Integrator: p
Certified Operator: t°►� 2�1 f Operator Certification Number:.I Uf a `2
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =o =' =" Longitude: [�°= =
Swine
Design lrent
C►►opacity PopulationurWet Poultry
Design Current
C**opacity Popnlation
Design Current
C+attle C**opacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑ DairyCow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
❑ DairyCalf
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ DairyHeifer
❑ D Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
El Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cod
I
Qther
❑ Other
❑ Turkeys
Uiurkey Poults
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharees & Stream impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes � o ❑ NA [I NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure
6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):�i�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
El NA
El NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
YNo
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
El Yes
❑ 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 tlyfeat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes �1Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? El Yes �No El NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require El Yes �No El NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 2(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) 5 C_ C� -
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
El NA
El NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
,�
l� o ❑ NA
El NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
[No ❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
o El NA
�VNo
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
EComments (refcr to question #) Explain any YES=answers and/or any recommendations or" any otheie©muients
.Use"drawmgs of faOlity to better explain situations (use additionaF pages as necessary) ter...
r
Reviewer/Inspector Name «» Phone: APr
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
. f 1 12128104 Continued

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 ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes RrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crap Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
36,96
on'o-1/ D01
Vo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Yes o El NA [I NE
El Yes ;Iwo El NA El NE
El Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes WN o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes IJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes YN
� o El ElNE
El Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 6 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ENo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes d o ElNA ❑ NE
ElYes 7No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

11�wQr

WW',,,A AAFAMM

Facility Number.
_EiUL,-_2
Division.of Water Quality
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation a '
0 Other Agency k
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ® Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Arrival Arrival Time: li �(�
Departure Time: County:
Region:
Farm Name: G'd11"5
�4i''m57 _L1G
_ Owner Email:
Owner Name: V e ah,-"
Ge
Phone:
Mailing Address: /
Physical Address: 1�� i e f lYDstJ QfJ Gt A9edz
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: —
Back-up Operator: _
Location of Farm:
Title:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o = { = {l Longitude: = o = S = {1
Destgn Current" Design Current
Swine Capacity Population , .. "-,')Yet Poultry Capacity Po06lati6n
�� ❑Wean to Finish e
. ❑ Wean to Feeder
p ❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
DrymPoultry ,,
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
JE]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?
❑ Daia Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Numherrof.;
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 dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

i
Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection 3 / /D
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan? -
❑ Yes (a No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes 04o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes QNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes U} No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/orwet stacks) ,�,�
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes (� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste ApDlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? ,_�
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. El Yes 2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind, /Drift El Application Outside of Area
le
12. Crop type(s) �°��, — / S� — IdI 6difl
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
E o ❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
o ❑ NA
ElNE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
ElYes
WNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendati©ns or any other comments:
Use.drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages is necessary):, -
Z ,
�
Aj
�p�
0'
Reviewer/Inspector Name
(, Phone-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
Page 2 of 3 U 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents WNo
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes r No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ W­Up ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 2 o El NA ❑ NE
P g p
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain InspectionsFX0
Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? El Yes
El NA El NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? El Yes El NA
El NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? %a/iM4rf ❑ Yes o NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? /!%V. a 09 ❑ Yes �o ❑ NA [I NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? El Yes wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes VNo
El NA El NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document El Yes ❑ 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 U( o ElNA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by ElYes o El 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 7o ElNA ElNE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ElYes ►U/ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
ments,andlor.-�rawin s
Adi�itional�Contg
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 940003 _ Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS940003 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliano Insi2ection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Washington Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 05/19j2Q09 Entry Time, 10:00 AM Exit Time:
Farm Name: Coles Farms Inc.
Owner: Stephen Boyd Coles _. .
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 115 Quail Dr Hiirrells NC 2844 9228
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ■ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:35'4f'58" Longitude:? °30 5,41,' _!
Located on the eastside of NCSR 1127 (Railroad Bed Rd), approx. 3.0 miles south of Roper, NC
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection 8 Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Earl A Queen Operator Certification Number: 22409
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Earl Queen Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Waste analysis:
4-6-09 = .32
12-29-08 = .30
8-29-08 = .21
soil tested Dec. 2008
Looks Good!
Page: 1

it
Permit: AWS940003 Owner - Facility: Stephen Boyd Coles Facility Number: 940003
Inspection Date: 05/19/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Q Swine - Farrow to Wean 1,119 1,892
Total Design Capacity: 1,119
Total SSLW: 484,527
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
lagoon 1 04/27/95 20.00 73900]
Page: 2

Permit: AWS940003 Owner - Facility: Stephen Boyd Coles Facility Number: 940003
Inspection Date: 05119/2009 Inspection Type: Compliancee Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1, Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? 00110
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 (Le] large trees, severe
❑ ■
❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ IN
❑ ❑
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: AWS940003 Owner - Facility: Stephen Boyd Coles Facility Number: 940003
Inspection Date: 05/19/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Via It: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
PAN? ❑
Is PAN > 100/o/10 lbs.? ❑
Total P205? ❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil? ❑
Outside of acceptable crop window? ❑
Evidence of wind drift? ❑
Application outside of application area? ❑
Crop Type 1 Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2 Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 3 Small Grain Cover
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
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop andlor land application site need improvement?
❑ W ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS940003 Owner - Facility: Stephen Boyd Coles Facility Number: 940003
Inspection Date: 0511912009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design?
Maps?
Other?
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after> 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ 0110
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ ■ Cl ❑
Other Issues
Yes No NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30, At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AWS940003 Owner - Facility: Stephen Boyd Coles Facifity Number: 940003
Inspection Date: 05/19/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit? Cl ■ ❑ ❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 6

E Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 940003Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS940003 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Cgmpli nce Inspection inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Washington Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 06/18� Entry Time: 01:00 PM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: Coles Farms loc. _ _ Owner Email:
Owner: Stephen Boyd Coles Phone:[phone]
Mailing Address: 115 Quail Dr Harrells NC 2§444
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 35'49'1 " Longitude: 76°35'30"
Located on the eastside of NCSR 1127 (Railroad Bed Rd), approx. 3.0 miles south of Roper, NC
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Earl A Queen Operator Certification Number: 22409
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Earl Queen Phone:
On -site representative Earl Queen Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis:
6-9-08 = .46
4-9-08 = .52
12-31-08 = .51
Soil test 2007
Don't forget the caliberation.
Looks Good!
Page: 1

Permit: AWS940003 Owner - Facility: Stephen Boyd Coles Facility Number: 940003
Inspection Date: 06118/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 11119 1,100
Total Design Capacity: 1119
Total SSLW: 484,527
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
kgoon 1 04/27/95 20.00 56.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWS940003 Owner - Facility: Stephen Boyd Coles Facility Number: 940003
Inspection Date: 06118/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
DischaMees & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? 00011
Discharge originated at
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ ■
❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ ■
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑ ■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑ ■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Led large trees, severe ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
improvement?
Waste 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: AWS940003 Owner - Facility: Stephen Boyd Coles Facility Number: 940003
Inspection Date: 06/18/2008 Inspection Type. Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
PAN? ❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.? ❑
Total P205? ❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil? ❑
Outside of acceptable crop window? ❑
Evidence of wind drift? ❑
Application outside of application area? ❑
Crop Type 1 Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop andlor land application site need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS940003 Owner - Facility: Stephen Boyd Coles
Facility Number: 940003
Inspection Date: 06/16/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No
NA NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after> 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES
only)? ❑ ■
❑ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
Other Issues Yes No NA N
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AM940003 Owner - Facility: Stephen Boyd Coles Facility Number : 940003
Inspection Date: 0611812008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? n ■ n n
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? n ■ Q n
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑■0D
Page: 6

I
E Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number. 940003 Facility Status: Active _ Permit: &WS940003 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Wahinaton Region: Washinatgn _
Date of Visit: 11/07/2006 Entry Time:12:55 AM Exit Time:
Farm Name: Coles Farms Inc.
Owner Stephen Bgvd Colgs
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 1565 Railroad Bed Rd Roper NC 279709293 _
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
Latitude: 35'48'24"
Located on the eastside of NCSR 1127 (Railroad Bed Rd), approx. 3.0 miles south of Roper, NC
Longitude: 76°35'36"
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Jan Hendrik Fourie
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 988063
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Jan Hendrik Foure Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Jan Hendrik Fourie Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Waste analyses:
8-31-06 =.22
6-27-06 = .62
3-1-06 = 1.8
12-14-05 = 1.4
Looks good.
Phone:
Date:
Page: 1

,f
Permit: AWS940003 Owner - Facility: Stephen Boyd Coles
Inspection Date: 11/0712006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 940003
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Q Swine - Farrow to Wean 1,119 1,000
Total Design Capacity: 1,119
Total SSLW: 484,527
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
koon 1 04/27/95 20.00 52.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWS940003 Owner - Facility: Stephen Boyd Coles Facility Number: 940003
Inspection Date: 11/07/2006 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? ❑ In ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■ ❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■ ❑ ❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
. ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.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

5
Permit: AWS940003 Owner - Facility: Stephen Boyd Coles
Inspection Date: 11/07/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 940003
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
0 ■ ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ~■ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑ ■ Q ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
II& Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
20, Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS940003 Owner - Facility: Stephen Boyd Coles Facility Number: 940003
Inspection Date: 11107/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design?
Maps?
Other?
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑,
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑
■ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑ Cl
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑ ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
■ ❑
ntL__
Yes
No
NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AWS940003 Owner - Facility: Stephen Boyd Coles Facility Number : 940003
Inspection Date: 11/07/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? . ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

}'
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: ,� / 5 1 Departure Time: County: �(% h h Region:
Farm Name: j6awtuOwner Email:y
Owner Name: ;C Phone: ` 293_ 9-el4-p-
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facilitv Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: �O�B
Certif-sed Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
Other
❑ Other
Phone No:
Integrator: �linQVL�.7/p�
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: 0 c = . = Longitude: = ° = 6 =
if
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
I❑ Non-Layet
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey Pouets
❑ Other
Discharees & Stream impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifej
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes []NO
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
zOo
❑ Yes
El
ElNE
ElYes VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: q11 -3
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes RNo
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: P
Spillway?: _
Designed Freeboard (in): %f
Observed Freeboard (in): /11
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
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 ZNo , ❑ 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 environmentalthr at, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes INNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? El Yes ;No.
N ❑ NA El NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ON. ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes LEI 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 [:1 Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) ],S� ILA-
13. Soil type(s) 1AS l a Ll �� /T l 4�
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
I & Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipmentT
3+f!ME"=bk� sus•. ��-�.. - it ;s._ ,�.:.. _.+� :3.a ��r Y:i;.+`_:`��.s.�D�w.:s��c
% 4
❑ Yes
[ rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
[INA
ElNE
Zo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name I �.r��0 &1 S.y�,. Phone-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 Continued

Si
Ficility Number: 9 — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 7No
❑ NA El NE
20. Does the facility fail to have ail components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check El Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ W­UP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below,
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V
Rain Inspections Weather Code
�❑
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
El Yes
9 o
El NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
El Yes
El No
7NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
El Yes
El No
�Z"NNA
RJ NA
ElNE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
ElYes
No
El"
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
IQ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
Nc ❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
0 No ❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
0 No ❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
V ❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional comments and/or Drawings: Y 'mac
12128104

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 940003 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS940003 _ ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Rouline County: Washin n Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 031291 02 05 Entry Time: 11:15 AM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: Bowen Co. Northpork
Owner: George B Bowen
Owner Email:
Mailing Address: PO Box 394 Belhaven NC 27810
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°48'24"
Phone: [phone]
Longitude: 76°35'36"
Located on the eastside of NCSR 1127 (Railroad Bed Rd), approx. 3.0 miles south of Roper, NC
Question Areas:
0 Discharges & Stream Impacts Q Waste Collection & Treatment 0 Waste Application
Records and Documents 0 Other Issues
Certified Operator: Stephen Boyd Coles
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 27434
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Stephen Boyd Coles Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Stephen Boyd Coles Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
COC on site. Freeboard and rain events are recorded. Soil Test 1219104 - time applied. Everything looks great!
Waste analysis: 9/24104 = .93
6/18104 = 1.2
3/23/04 = .73
10/20/03 = .74
Page: 1

Permit: AWS940003 Owner - Facility: George B Bowen
Inspection Date: 03/29/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Facility Number: 940003
Reason for Visit: Routine
Current Population
Swine
O Swine - Farrow to Wean 1,000 1,000
Total Design Capacity: 1,000
Total SSLW: 433,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00 69.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWS940003 Owner - Facility: George B Bowen Facility Number. 940003
Inspection Date: 03/29/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Yes
❑
No NA NF
■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
moo
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?
❑
Yes
■ ❑
No NA
❑
NE
Waste Collection. SInrage & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe erosion,
❑
■ ❑
❑
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management 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?
Yes No NA NE
Waste 1pj i� cation
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN ? 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Corn (Grain)
Crop Type 2
Soybeans
Crop Type 3
Soybean, Wheat
Crop Type 4
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 5
Page: 3

Permit: AWS940003 Owner - Facility: George B Bowen
Facility Number: 940003
Inspection pate: 03/29/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Wasda
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)?
00
❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■ ❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■ ❑
❑
18, Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
0 ❑
No NA
❑
NE
Rernrds and nocument5
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
n ❑
Cl
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
N Cl ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑ ❑
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑ 0 ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑ a ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑ N ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
E ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑ 0 ❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS940003 Owner - Facility: George B Bowen
Inspection Date: 03MI2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 940003
Reason for Visit: Routine
Qther lasuP_5
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those mortality
rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concem? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ O
❑ E ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 5

(Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Tech. Assistance O Confirmation for Ren
[Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other p Denied Access
Facility Number 94 3 Date of Visit: 9Rd/2004 Time: 12:55
0 Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:...........
Farm Name: U.A?XICAI.CA...XS?1CxtIpQ1C.�..............................................................................County: W.I<5jj11agtAJ)..................... ................W."Q .......
Owner Name: G.CQr'tg.................................... B.O.W.tm.......................................... Phone No: Z52-��-94t?2..
Mailing Address:)'f?...RX.24.......•............................ 11�1haxen...�l. 2.7810 ..............
Facility' Contact: ...._. . ............................ . Title Phone No
Onsite Representative: SltCpben..CQljCs............................................................................. Integrator:#excsln.sSi.lia�s�iat�................................. ..........
Certified Operator: Stoh.m.Bad..................... COI -es.................................................. Operator Certification Number:,? ....................
Location of Farm: _
Located on the eastside of NCSR 1127 (Railroad Bed Rd), approx. 3.0 miles south of Roper, NC &I
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 4$ 24 K Longitude 76 35 f 36 u
Design Current
Swine Cepaeity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
1000
1000
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I❑ Dairy I I —d
❑ Non -Layer I EEI JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other . •
Total Design Capacity 1,000
Total SSLW 433,000
Number of Lagoons 3
Holdingr Ponds I Solid Trans
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? El Yes ®No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. 1f 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)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .........P.rimary......... ....... Secflndary....... -
Freeboard (inches): 60 + 70
12112103 Continued

Facility Number:` - _ 94--3 " - ' Date of Inspection 9/24/2004
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 maintenancelimprovement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ HydrauIic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc > 30(
El Yes
- ®N
ElYes
®No=
❑ Yes
® No
El Yes
®No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No ' i
❑ Yes
®No
12. Crop type Cotton Small Grain Overseed Corn, Soybeans, Wheat Irish Potatoes, Rye (grain)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? []Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? if yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes ® No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Comments (refer to question #) Explain any, YES;answers and/o aay reeomsne dations or any othee"commea, u&,.
Use drawings of facility to better explain}Atuationsr(use�addittonal pagesas necessary)-t ` 0 Field Copy El Final Notes
_3��-r" ...'-i. _ ", , �.yn,lsw,. 1-""° ay. �:`, _.. ,.,.4... r.,.. s..,- _ - ,- _ - -� `: _ _ - ._• _ _ .
New waste plan by Rufus Croom dated 9/22/04 in records for the inclusion of rye, cotton, small grain cover, and irish potatoes.
(Mike Harris tends crops.)
Waste 6/18/04 w/ SM=0.05 & LG= 1.2 Primary lagoon= SM, Secondary lagoon= LG and BL
1/23/04 w/ 13L=1.3 & SL=0.73
10/20/03 wl SM=0.21 & BIG= 0.74
Soils 10127l03 w/ 0.3 T/ac lime suggested. Cu'- Zn levels adequate.
* Remember to take soil test for 2004 and follow liming recommendations.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Scott Vinson--'.-,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
12112103 Continued

t
Facility Number: 94-3 Date of Inspection 9/24l2004
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
. (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After I " Rain
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑'Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
a-
dditional Ciimments`�andlor Diawiiigs:�
12112103
12112103

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 94 - �.J Date: /4/04 Time: 1230 Time On Farm: 55 WARO
Farm Name Bowen Co. Northpork County Washington Phone:
Mailing Address PO Box 394 Belhaven NC
Onsite
Representative Stephen Coles
Type -Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Norse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
®_ arrow -to Wean -
El Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
p Boars
i000
icon
-
Integrator
Purpose Of Visit
Q Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
252-793-9402
27810
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
252-793-9402
27810
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
❑ Other
252-793-9402
27810
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1.41 waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands?
❑ yes ® no
O
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
small
large
Level (Inches) 48 60
CROP TYPES orn Soybeans Wheat
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES Wd
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 94 - 3 Date:
514/04
PARAMETER
QQ No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
f,..❑
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
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
[114. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
30. 21i.0200
❑
❑
[115. Over application < 10% or ¢ 10 lbs.
re -certification
[116. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
:.,_,❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organizelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
[119. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
.: [121. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
El
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker checklcalibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
❑ Other...
43. Irrigation system design/installation
❑
❑
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
-LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
❑
❑
46. Wettable Acre Determination
1
47. Evaluate WAD certificationlrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
2;
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
El
❑
❑
3.
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5_
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6r
58. Croptforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
2 03/10/03

I' Facility Number 94 - Date: 1 5/4/04 I
COMMENTS:
COC dated May 1, 2003 and on site. AL
Waste plan being amended to include rye as a harvested crop with pan 150 Ibs/acre. PAN rate verbal by Rufus Croom,
Washington District Cons. Crop window needs to be included in waste plan.
Waste analysis dated 3/23/04 nitrogen is BL=1.3 Ibs and SL=0.73 Ibs.
Remember to take soil test for 2004 crop year and follow lime requirements.
Mr. Coles has documentation from Mr. Mike Harris for crop yields on corn. PAN rate increased by tech spec. to 145 lbs
itrogen /acre.
IRR2 records are complete and balanced.
Lagoon freeboard level recorded weekly with drops in lagoon consistent with irrigation events.
M
Ll
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST Martin McLawhorn
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 5/12/04 Entered By: IMartin McLawhorn
3 03/10/03

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ® Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit- Time:rO z
Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
,Permitted C Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Abov T eshol
Farm Name: I�,d]+. "c cc �rC R County:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
AL
Certified Operator:IF
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Phone No:
Integrator: a4. R L4S5 �j Z
Operator Certification Number: ! F 2,
swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 6 " Longitude ' 6 0"
Numher of Lagoons 1 I U Subsurface Drains PresentJIIJ Lagoon Area 1U Sprav Field Area I
Holdine Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liuuid Waste Management Svstem
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Stru tore S cturre� tructur. 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: I
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 AdR
❑ Yes Wo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
TNo
❑ Yes
14 No
❑ Yes
40 No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: 1-3
Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6_ Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance./improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Aanlication
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
12. Crop type Q ram, i n
0
13. Do the receiving Zps differ with thosle�esignated in the Certified al Waste lianagement Plan CAWM
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?
❑ Yes ,V No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes P[No
❑ Yes It No
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes K No
❑ Yes ENNo
1 j„��"i risk
4.X�V �.i��roec
❑ Yes [k No
❑ Yes ❑ No 1/
❑ Yes ❑ No 7
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes P(No
❑ Yes PkNo
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below . o
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes o
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes 44No
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 6No
Air Quality representative immediately.
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
5X.0A0.4a ; ►,\ copes-, 4-- 3
J3 i. 3 SL = 0, 73
a
Ste, 5 to 0.37 e J,� 5 C `Zn 1c..L
Reviewer/Inspector Name -
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: q — Date of Inspection ,2
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes )p No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes [XNo
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes E# 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 Jr No
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes RO No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes qNo
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes No
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes No
29_ Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes 4No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes 4No
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
des-8'No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
$-Fo
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
X]-Y-C�lo
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required fornns need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Efi4eg'$No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
12112103

i
9
r
"C
To: Producer
From: Scott Vinson
Emrironm� gineer
Washington Regional Office -
Subject: Animal Compliance Inspection
Year 2003
OX6 Michael F. Easley
Governor
Wiitiam G. Roes, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
Enclosed please find a copy of the Compliance Site Inspection (as viewed in the DWQ database) conducted at the referenced
facility by the Division of Water Quality from the Washington Regional Office. Please read this inspection and keep it
with all other documents pertaining to your animal operation for future inspections.
these ' ors included ng that: (1) the farm has a Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP),
(2) the farm is complying with requirements of the State Rules 15 , crate , an e
Waste Management Plan; (3) the farm operation's waste management system is being operated properly under the direction of a
Certified Operator; (4) the required records are being kept; and (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or runoff.
As a reminder, please note the following comments, which are conditions of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan and
the General Permit, therefore, these items must be implemented:
cp The maximum waste level in lagoonststorage ponds shall not exceed that specified in the CAWMP_ At a minimum,
maximum waste level for waste for lagoons/storage ponds must not exceed the level that provides adequate storage to
contain 25 year, 24 hour storm event plus an additional foot of structural freeboard
W An analysis of the liquid animal waste from the lagoon shall be conducted as close to the time of application as practical and
at least within 60 days (before or after) of the date of application_ This analysis shall include the following parameters:
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Zinc and Copper.
q) Soil analysis is required annually. Lime is to be applied to each receiving crop as recommended by the soil analysis.
(p The following records are required: off -site solids removal, maintenance, repair, , astelsoil analysis and land irrigation
records These records should be maintained by the facility owner/manager in chronological and legible form for a
minimum of three yeam
(p band application rates shall be in accordance with the CAWMP. In na case shall land._ a2plication rates exceed the Plant
Available Nitrogen (PAN) rate for the receiving cross or result in runoff during anv evven =Dhcation.
q) All grassed waterways shall have a stable outlet with adequate rapacity to prevent ponding or flooding damages. The outlet
can be another vegetated chambel, an earth ditch, stabilization structure, or other suitable outlets.
It is suggested not a requirement, to keep crop yield information for future use to update your waste management plan
You will need three years of crop yield data before your plan can be updated
The OIC has the duties to ensure that waste is applied in accordance with the CAWMP and General Permit by properly
managing supervising, and documenting daily operation and maintenance. The OIC also has the responsibility to certify
monitoring and reporting information. The failure of an OIC to perform hislher duties can result in a letter of reprimand,
suspension of certification, or revocation of certificates.
For your information any swine facility that has a discharge to surface waters of the State will have to apply for a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit with the Division of Water Quality, effective Jamrary 1, 2001.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation during the inspection. If you have any questions, please contact me at 252-946-
6481, ext. 208 or your Technical Specialist.
Cc: WaRO Files
SAV Files
943 Washington Square Mali Washington, NC 27889 252-946-6481 (Telephone) 252-946-9215 (Fax)

.
Type of Visit © Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O• Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency {Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 94 3 Date of Visit: /2003 Time. 11:00
Q Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified- 13 Conditionally Certified D Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:............
Farm Name: .............................................................................. County: Waskingwa .................................... W.A►RQ.......
OwnerName: G.eurge................................... Rowca .......................................................... Phone No: ZS2-791-9402.................. .... ......................................
MailingAddress: FQ..R.QX.394.......................................................................................... Rf1WyA1A..N.0 ........................................................ U.810 .............
Facility Contact: StcphCH-Cplea................................................ Title: L task................................................. Phone No: 25.2-7.93:9.402.......................
Onsite Representative: 5jcpb.aL.QQlcs............................................................................. Integrator: ftia5pia-Farms..Ind..............................................
Certified Operator: Stept ca.................................. C.Qlss ................................................. Operator Certification Nuinber:Z7.43.4 .............................
Location of Farm:
Located on the eastside of NCSR 1127 (Railroad Bed Rd), approx. 3.0 miles south of Roper, NC
T
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude 76 •F 35 36
Design Current Design_, Current. Design Current
Swine Capacity Po elation Poultry Ca aci �. Population Cattle Cabacitv Po b ulation
EFWeantoFeeder - ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
® Farrow to Wean 1000 1000
❑ Farrow to Feeder JEI Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Tota'l�Desiga=CaOhcity ., 1,000
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW 433,000
Number of Lagoons 3 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Managen
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? -
Area JE3 Spray Field Area
❑ Yes • ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
e. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? ;
- ❑ Yes ❑ No
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If -yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ®No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: Solids. Trap Primary Secondary
Freeboard (inches): 43 55
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 94-3
Date of Inspection 09/09/2003
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
f
❑ Yes
,
® No r
❑ 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. FaiI 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 incompliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22, Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23'. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a, follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
®No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to quest[on #) t Exp[a[n any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments ` +{i ,
Use draw[ngs of fac[]rty to betier eapla[n situatinons }{use add[t[onai pages as necessary) 0
µ Field Notes
o ❑ Final:
0. �h -,
* Soils analysis dated 3/20/03 with up to 0.6T/ac lime suggested. Zinc and copper within acceptable range.
* Waste analysis dated 7/24/03 with 0.07 IbsN11000 gal. in final and 0.95 ibsN/100 in secondary.
T
Reviewer/Inspector Name ;Scott Y[ns n Entered by Portia Deaden°
_
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 1819 `
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 94-3 Date of Inspection 09/09/2003
. 4
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 cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste dated 5/5/03 with 0.80 lbsN and 1.31bsN/1000 gal.
Waste dated 2/19/03 with 0.62 lbsN and 1.2 lbsN/1000 gal.
Waste dated 10/15/02 with 0.16 lbsN and 0.94 lbsN/1000 gal.
Waste dated 7/8/02 with 0.26 lbsN and 1.21bsN/1000 gal.
13. Per Rufus Croom there was a cover crop planted the Fall of 2002 of field #11 - ryegrass with 351bsN/ac and field #12 with
wheat with 35 lbsN/ac recommended PAN loading -rate. Mr. Croom has been very busy this year and has not had a
chance to amend plan. Please speak with him about adding this amendment to the WUP for the future. Records look good
with no over application of Nitrogen noted. Rufus Croom gave Mr.. Cole a Ioading PAN rate of 70 lbsN/ac for the cotton crop
but did not get a chance to amend WUP. Please have Technical Specialist amend WUP to cover such changes for future crops.
Stephen Cole does not foresee the field manager Mr. Harris planting cotton in the ftiture.
Mi
05103101

❑ Wean to Feeder
[I Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean i000 1o0a
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
✓ 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 94 -
✓ 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 94 -
Date: 1218103
Time: 1 1200 Time On Farm: 90 WARO
Farm Name Bowen Co. Northpork
County Washington
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address PO Box 394 Belhaven NC
Onsite '
Representative Stephen Coles Integrator Benson Farms Inc
Type Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
Purpose Of Visit
QQ Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producerfintegrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
Ca aci Population Capacity Population
El Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
27810
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 small large
Level (Inches) 1 60+ 48
CROP TYPES lCom Soybeans Wheat
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES Wd
7: What type, of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03
❑ Other
27810
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 small large
Level (Inches) 1 60+ 48
CROP TYPES lCom Soybeans Wheat
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES Wd
7: What type, of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 94 - 3 Date:
12/8103
PARAMETER
p 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
El
❑
[110. Level in structural freeboard
Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
[112. Waste structure integrity compromised
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
El
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
[114. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
30.21-1.0200
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
re -certification
[116. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organizelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Latelmissing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
36. 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 checkicalibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
❑ Other...
43. Irrigation system design/installation
El
El
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certificationlrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
El
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5.
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6
68. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

,r
Facility Number 94 - LI Date: 1218103
MMENTS:
Vill check on OIC form sent to DWQ. Raleigh has received OIC change form.
:OC dated May 1, 2003 and on site.
lake records available for 3 years.
hird party planning to plant rye on tract 11 and 12. Waste plan needs to be amended to include rye with pan rates and cr
ndows. Contact tech spec.
Vaste analysis dated 10/20/03 nitrogen is small=0.21 lbs and large=0.74 lbs.
7/24/03 nitrogen is small=0.07 lbs and [arge=0.95 lbs
515103 nitrogen is small=0.80 lbs and large=1.30 lbs
2/19/03 nitrogen is small=0.62 lbs and large=1.2 lbs
10/15/02 nitrogen is small=0.16 lbs and large=0.94 lbs
,oil test dated 10127103. Cu, ZN and ph within guidelines.
Ir. Cole secured pan rate for rye from Rufus Croom, Washington Co SWCD. PAN rate 150 lbs nitrogen per acre. This
:eds to be included in waste plan.
litrogen applied to cover crop was deducted from soybean pan rate and also pan rate for corn.
!. Cotton planted for 2002 crop year field 13 and 14. Mr. Cole secured rates from tech spec, 70 lbs nitrogen per acre. If
itton is to be planted in fields receiving animal waste, then need to be included in waste plan.
Vill send copy of lagoon and rain fall chart
agoon levels are recorded weekly with drops in lagoon consistent with irrigation events.
leed to secure copy of design (lagoon)
ift station working properly.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST IMartin McLawhorn
SIGNATURE
Date Entered:
12/16/03 1 Entered By: Imartin McLawhorn
03/ 10103

pe of Visit p Compliance Inspection p
p Lagoon Evaluation
IReason for Visit p Routine p Complaint p Follow up p Emergency Notification p Other
p Denied Access
Facility Number Bate of Visit: 3/28/2002 Time: 1:45pm
p Not Operational p BelowI'hreshold
0 Permitted 0 Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ............
Farm Name: Livestock Supply-Northpork
Owner Name: George Bowen
Mailing Address: P...O...Bo_t.39.4..................................
FacilityContact: ...............................................................................Title:
County: WasNagion...............
Phone No: 252-793-9402
...... Relhavem..NC.......
Phone No:
WAR.O.......
.... Z7.Slfl..............
OnsiteRepresentative: no.Aae............................................................................................ Integrator: Independrmt................. ...........................................
Certified Operator:Gceorge.-H .............................. B.owen.n.......................................... Operator Certification Number: 1S830.............................
Location of Farm:
Located on the eas se e o (Railroad e , approx. 3.0 miles south of Roper, NC
N Swine [3Poultry [3Cattle p Horse Latitude ©• ®r ®« Longitude ®. ©
Swine Capacity Population
13 Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
p Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ ayer ❑ airy
❑ Non -Layer 1 10 Non -Dairy
I7 Other
Total Design Capacity 1,00Q
Tofid SSLW 433,000
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ) 0 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 p Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: Solids..Trap............... I'dimay.......... .......Smon.dairy........ ...................................
Freeboard(inches): .......................................................................................5.6............... ............................................................................................................

M
Facility Number: 94-3 Dare of [nspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes N No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? p Yes ®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes N No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? p Yes ❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding p PAN p Hydraulic Overload p Yes ❑ No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CA WMP)? ❑ Yes p 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 ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes p No
16. is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? p Yes ❑ No
Reauired 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
I9.
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?
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
p 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?
p Yes
❑ No
In No violations or deficiencies were noted urmg this visit. You will receive no lurther correspondence about this visit.
"-"� ` � ��` '� �Ex lain`an YES answers an7d%ran �eeominendation" s�o`r`an �otiier cQmmelits � `- `
�� '
Usmedraw�ngs;of-facii�ity to better explaen-si# ns (uses�cidittonalpages as�n�sary�
©Field Copy p Final Notes
*Stacey Bowen had scheduled to meet me at the farm at 2pm today. He called me on my cell phone this morning to let me know that
an emergency had come up with his trash collection business and that he would not be able to meet me. I stopped by the farm to
take a look at the lagoon and will schedule to meet Stacey next week to review paperwork. Overall the farm looks good.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Scotf,Vmso v
ReviewerAnspector Signature: r Date: q y D�

O5103101 Continued
Facility Number: 94_3 Date 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 13 Yes © No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
2T Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? p Yes p No
28. is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, p Yes p No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? p Yes p No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) p Yes p No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? p Yes p No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? [3 Yes p No

As a reminder, please natethe following emmen s, which are conditions ofthe Certified.A,nnaal Waste Management Plan and
the General Permit; fiicrefire� these items must be ix*emented:
The xba?ciittum waste level in ds shad not exceed that: red in the CAW1Vii' At a minim }
r 'laPnmw/dt�e g[ _ - v�6firy. _ e im3,
maicinnum wastpeievel waste far:]agoa® lskrage Bands mist not exceed the level that provides adec r e stoke to
'' ca�ain 23 yew 24 ha�.stariu. ekixt is "additinoal faa� of str 4uad frePbnhrd ' T ` :
.r An'analysis'ofibe liquid ankW waste fro® the lagoon shall be conducted as dose to the time of 4plication aspraciical acid
at least within 60 days (before or a$rr) of the date of application.: Ibis analysis shall mclude the following parameters:
Mt ogee, Phospymi, Tme and Copper.
(p . Soilanalysis is requmed wally Lie is to be applied to each receiving crop as recommended by the soil analysis.
k
r cp - - The following nxosds iecjotited off�ite solids remoi�al, ice; repaa, wastelsotil analysis and land irrigafian
record. 'These records should be wed by the facility ownerfman-ager in chronological and legible foam for a
minimum of three years r _ ,
cp.. Land application rates shall be in accordance with the CAWW_ to no case slid land mm&aticdrates � ceed the Plant .
Available Nitroam (PAT) rate far the receiving crop ar result in ranoff dujmg any ens suplica#io� '
q)' All grassed waterways shall have a stable outlet with adaluate capacity to p vAmd pandiag or flooding damages. The outlet
can be another vegetated charnel, as earth dutch, stabilization structure, as aver suitaUle out3ets ;
�` It is sueaested not a requmrmehnt, to keep crop yield i�hfohimatiorn for future use to update your waste management plan
Youh will need these years of crop yield data before your Platt can be upd$ted. a:�..
For your information, any swine fiEraTity that has a discharge to surface waters of the State wtll have to apply for a National
Pollutant Disdmrge Elimination System (1`IPDFS) permit with the Division of Water Quality, ef6:five 3alivary'l,=2001_ - _
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation during the inspection. Nyou have any questions, please cantacd me at 252-946-
6481, ext 209 or your Tedmical Speaalist
Cc: WARD Files
S iles
943 Washington Square Mal Wesshirrgton, NC 27889 252-946-5481 (Telephone) 252-946-9215 (Fax)

Facility {Number Date of Visit: 4/5/20l}2 Tinie: 2:45pm
p of Operational p e o►s resho
■ Permitted E Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Livestock Supply-Northpork County: .HaAd gton..................................... .W..wA.RQ.......
Owner Name: George Bowen Phone No: 252-793-9402
Mailing Address: P.Q..Bax.194........................................................................................... Bdha..ycn...NC ........................................................ 2781.Q ..............
FacilityContact: .............. -_........ .......... ... ................... ................ Title: ... -.......................................................... Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Slater.-BetarEaiStephen.Cnld .......................................... Integrator- Indeptendent.................................. .........................
Certified Operator: GorgeB,...._.... - ..-.-- Bowen II............- ............................ Operator Certification Number: i$&3Q._..........................
Location of Farm:
cate on the eastsi e o roa e , approx. miles soul o Roper, I
N Swine [3 Poultry [3 Cattle p Horse Latitude ©• � ®�° Longitude ®• t -_ i4
'Design' , Current ' - ` = Design Current -Design Cdfreht
Swifle= _ Capacity Population,- poultry Capacity Population Cai#Ie . Capacity Population' '.
_r
p Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
IM Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
p Gilts
Boars
`". ❑Layer ` ❑ ally
p Non -Layer
❑ on-Dauy
Other
Total Design Capacity - 1,000
_ Total SSLW 433,000
Number of Lagoons u sur ace rains Present p goon rea 13 pray ie Area
T, Holding Ponds/Solid Traps o Liquid aste anagement System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? [3 Yes ❑ 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/rain?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes r
_3 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? p Spillway p Yes N No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure b
Identifier: Co11E.ctimbt.._ ........2:imuy................Secondary........
Freeboard(inches) : .................................... ............... 24................ ............... 57............... ............ ........................ .................................... ........

c) This facility is pended fora wettable acre determination?_ 7 _ p Yes `p No
' 15 Does the receiving crop need i. p Yes '®No
- 16. Is thers`a lack of adegeiate Wide:application equipinent`� } _ Yes ®No
Required Records & Docuiiients - z Y = y -
r 7 Fail to have'Ce UBcate,o f4Coyerage-& General Permit or othead r Permit reily availaiile� p Yes ®No
k 1
_ 18.- Does the fa'`cihtyfail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily�available9
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) - , = _ p Yes ®No
19. Does record keepirig need improvement's (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) =' p Yes--® No
20. f Is facility -not in compliance with"any app.icab.e setback criteria in effect at the time of design? p Yes'® No
21 Did the facih fail to have a active. certified o r in ch e p Yes �® No
tY y Pam° -_ "_ _ -
;� 22 Fail to notify regional _DWQ of emergency situ ations'as reguired by General Permits =
4(ie/.discharge, freeboardproblems, over application) _r 1 - '7". ~' p Yes'`s® No
23. Did Reviewer/lnspector fail to discuss reviewrmspeciion with on -site representative? E3 Yes M No
Does facility requae a follow-up visit by same agency? - = ' p Yes '®No
25.= Were any additiona. problems noted which cause noncoinp.iance of the Certified AWMP? -- _.. p Yes ®No
k- _ ;• _ .
o vio ations or deficiencies were notedurui is visit.: Vou.wiH,receive no lurther c6MR—Ppaence about this visit.
�AliiIDeII$? iGeler �0We �151►� D ErS II DI CCQIDIII {On ell ii�il�tF ci�II1ffii"n�=�"� �
USe�i swings DL 1aC'llit�T�lnfSi�BtlOni5e II[�1t1UII8ilES IIS7ifsCeSSar� r S-
s a �-- ._ — p Field Copy. p Final Notes
* Stacey Bowen is having Stephen Cole, farm manager, studying to become the OIC and will be taking the. test in a few weeks. Stephen
Cole will be the new contact person the meet inspectors to review farm in ihe.fiitiire:
Waste Analysis dated 2/15/02 with I.Olbs.N/I000gal.
* Soil analysis dated February 2001 with lime required and applied last year., Awaiting report back from this year's samples.
Reviewer/Inspector Name cot TEE
= -�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

of
05103101 Continued
kacinty Number: 94_3 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 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 Is No
it roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? 13 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 -Z No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? 0 Yes ® No
y 32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanenthemporary cover? 13 Yes 13 No
t
fi
� � r�s' l{� i` Yr ,+G-� }'t�e+.:i�+"`��•a. '�Y - - -!�'� '4�`}S, y, �:i.� „X� ,�, ,,.5 '(�si... Z •4. ry� y'�i-� �.� �.y�,,� =� � ,
W� rf4t 'ti
T f . ���� z�--� ✓� .f� � �"�-."� s+'y+T'S-�'�i� �-'="��----�' � `,;: '7va ��gr yC" s .fir -�rG� �'i.�� 'C''y`Y .
� .� r .tst C+ts�A- ,.� `a4' ��} "'�•a;r ems^
^tea._ i �. �, e4#,� yT„r,{'sf'• a5
ZL
r r �-_r �� �i,. �.i �"� �'•�` �"r t -� i+'c 4� yam.
J

Facility Number 94 3
J]Dateofvisit. 1012t±7;001 Time: 130 m Printed on: 10/31R001
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ■ Certified 0 Conditionally Certified D Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: LiVr.SXQAk.S.Uppj,Y-NQ thplork................. I .............. ... ............... County: .._ _ I.W
Owner Name: ... ... ................. ..u�C>x.__.,._....._............_................_.. Phone No: Z:Q�Q4. ......... ................. _..... .................
Mailing Address: ESL..1.Q139.4......................... .... .... -•................ _----------------------
FacilityContact:.... ............................ .................. Title: ................................................................ Phone No: ........... ...... ....... ....... _........ _.
Onsite Representative: 1��y. S1]Y fA�. _....._...... ........ .................... .... ............... Integrator: ltldcVcjldt±Alk............ .... ................. ........... ..........
Certified Operator:.Gjmrgc.$ ............ ........ ....... Rawril.11 ............................... Operator Certification Number:1883Q... _.._ ....._. �.._
Location of Farm:
Located on the eastside of NCSR 1127 (Railroad Bed Rd), approx. 3.0 miles south of Roper, NC •
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 . • ®� 24 Longitude 7b • 35 36
D'ign urat:.i�11.yZAVDes'
`
n Curreat , NOWsiga Current �`
Swine Ca aci Po ulaUon�Poultry
Ca s� Po'aulation Cattle. Ca aci Po uiatioa -
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Wean to Feeder
JE3 Non Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
®Farrow to Wean
1000
700
,. —Z t -_ ��,
❑ other
❑ Farrow to Feeder
El Farrow to Finish
., �lotavDes1 Capacity 1,000
`�-
❑ Gilts=
❑Boars
y" x3 .
TotatrSSLW 433,000
..
umber-o[-Lagoons _. 3 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
o%,Ponds,! S lidTraps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 0 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 0 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: Coll.Wiaa.Pit... Primary..... Secoadaty................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 48+ 60+
6-5/0.3/01 rantinued

05103101
Facility Number: 94-3
Date of Inspection I0/26l2001
Continued
Printed on: 10/31/2001
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 Com, Soybeans, Wheat
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑Yes NNo
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes N No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable 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
IT. 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 N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
[] No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
* Waste analysis - dated 9/26/01 with 0.74 lbs N/1000 gals. - primary lagoon; 9/26/01 with 0.35 lbs N11000 gals -
secondary lagoon; 5/16/01 with 1.7 lbs N/1000 gals - primary lagoon; 5/16/01 with 0.65 lbs N/1000 gals - secondary
_
lagoon.
* Soils analysis - dated 2/2001 with over 1 T/acre of lime required for 3 of 4 fields.
Reviewer/Inspector Name :SeottYinson�-.entered,by"Ana�TyndalIj3
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: /- f ,-?p/" /

O5103101 Continued
Facility Number: 94-3 Date of Inspection i0/26Rflfl1 Printed on: 10/31/2001
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 ® 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 cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
To: Producer
From: Scott Vinsoni Ik
Environmental Engineer
Washington Regional Office
Subject: Animal Compliance Inspection
Year 2001
Enclosed please find a copy of the Compliance Site Inspection (as viewed in the DWQ database) conducted at the referenced
facility by the Division of Water Quality from the Washington Regional Office. Please read this inspection and keep it
with all other documents pertaining to your animal operation for future inspections.
In general, these inspections included verifying that: (1) the farm has a Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP);
(2) the farm is complying with requirements of the State Rules 15 NCAC 2H.0217, Senate Bill 1217, and the Certified Animal
Waste Management Plan; (3) the farm operation's waste management system is being operated properly under the direction of a
Certified Operator; (4) the required records are being kept; and (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or runoff.
As a reminder, please note the following comments, which are conditions of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan and
the General Permit; therefore, these items must be implemented:
of The maximum waste level in lagoons/storage ponds shall not exceed that specified in the CAWMP. At a minimum,
maximum waste level for waste for lagoons/storage ponds must not exceed the level that provides adequate storage to
contain 25 year, 24 hour storm event plus an additional foot of structural freeboard
(p An analysis of the liquid animal waste from the lagoon shall be conducted as close to the time of application as practical and
at least within 60 days (before or after) of the date of application. This analysis shall include the following parameters --
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Zinc and Copper.
cp Soil analysis is required annually. Lime is to be applied to each receiving crop as recommended by the soil analysis.
(p The following records are required: off -site solids removal, maintenance, repair, waste/soil analysis and land irrigation
records. These records should be maintained by the facility owner/manager in chronological and legible form for a
minimum of three years.
q) Land application rates shall be in accordance with the CAWMP. In no case shall land application rates exceed the Plant
Available Nitrogen (PAN) rate for the receiving crop or result in runoff during any given a plication.
9 All grassed waterways shall have a stable outlet with adequate capacity to prevent ponding or flooding damages. The outlet
can be another vegetated channel, an earth ditch, stabilization structure, or other suitable outlets.
(p It is suggested, not a requirement, to keep crop yield information for future use to update your waste management plan.
You will need three years of crop yield data before your plan can be updated.
For your information, any swine facility that has a discharge to surface waters of the State will have to apply for a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit with the Division of Water Quality, effective January 1, 2001.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation during the inspection. If you have any questions, please contact me at 252-946-
6481, ext. 321 or your Technical Specialist.
Cc: WaRO
SAV Files
943 Washington Square Mali Washington, NC 27889 252-946-6481 (Telephone) 252-946-9215 (Fax)

01/16/2000 12:52 92F-715-6048 DWQ NON DISQiAP,CF- BR ?AGE 04/09
Inactive Lagoon Field Data Sbeet
G� 51 v 1 qs�
Facility Number; MR - Inactive Lagoon Number: u
Latitude 5 Loynd tads 3 5 "�P5 ❑Map
4. Waste Last Added (mm/yv) ❑ Owner El Estimated
5. Estimate of suface. area (acres)
6. Effective heigAt of embaalanent (feet)
7. Distance to Blue Line or intermittent Stream (feat)
I❑ Determine Fmru Field Measurement ❑ Map I
S. Down Gradient Well
< 250 0250 - 1000 ❑ 31000
a Is there a down gradient well lomted witWn 2.50 feet? ❑ Ye5 ❑ No
b. Is an intervenmS stream not located between any pan of the, lagoon and the ncarast well? Yes ❑ No
9. Distance to WS waters or HQW (nv.) P<5 ❑ 5 - 10 ❑ > 10
10. Doe; the representative Imow of overtopping from outside .waters?
11. Appearance of Lagoon Liquid
a. Sludge Near Sinface
b. Lagoon Liquid Dark, Discolored
c. Lagoon Liquid Clear
12. Embankment Coin dition
l
a. Poorly Built. r~arge Trees. Erosion. Burrows. Slumping, Seepage. Tile Drains. etc_
b. Constuctim Specixa=adoA UnItc►own But Dam Appears in Good Condition
c_ Constructed and Maintained to Current MRCS Standards
13. Outside Drainage Arca
a. Poorly Maintained Diversions or Large Drainage Area not Addressed in Design
b. Nas Drainage.Area Whieb is Addressed in Lagoon Design
c. No Drainage Area or DiNvmiow Well Maintained
14, Liner Status '
a. High Potential. for Leaking, No Lmor, Sandy Soil, Rock Outcrops Present, etc.
b_ No Liner, Soil. Appears to Have Low Permeability
e. Meets MRCS 1r iner Requirements
+i
15. Application Equipment and/or Sprayfield Not Available
16. Contact coW par be made with on -site representative
Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknawa
Sol
I
Yes ❑ No ❑ Uakpown
Yes ❑ No
u,Uns
1/t21fl0 �

81/18/2898 12: 52 919-715-'6848 DWQ' NDN DISCHARGE BR PAGE 05/88
Comments (Refer to ,tstion #): Fxpiain any Yes answer and/or any ocher comment :.
!Ar
UI2l00 � '
Y
r,

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 94 3
Date of Visit s/1o/2oot1 Printed on: 5/22/2000
0 Not O erational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ■ Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ................
Farm Name: Li.YC51QS.k.5.UPP.ly: NQrtJaP.Qr t....................................... .... County: WashiAgtm .................. ............. ... .WAR 2.......
OwnerName:(rrR,'gg............................ B.Q.W.QEl.............. ........................................... Phone No: 2522.943:3.Q.Z4................................... ......
FacilityContact:.........--•--•...............................................................Title:........................... Phone No
MailingAddress: r0..,5Qx..3_94............. -............. ........ —-........ .......... ....................... clhaxes...N ............_.........----.... ... 2.7.810.............
Onsite Representative:)Ia�y.xy�m--•-- .... I!ntegrator:..........
Certified Operator:lg�.A.,......_._..-.- DA.}Y.gtI.A......................................... Operator Certification Number:J.88.30 .. .. ._._.. .
Location of Farm:
.................................... ...... ........... .......................................... ..... ,......... ....... _.......... ........ ................................................ _.......................... _............... ....... ..... ........._ .
L.n.�atlYd.Qn..thy..�astside. >f.N. .112.?.. aiir.Qasi.)Qe . ,. xox�..Q. males..sQu>ktl..Qi Q �xa..�i.....................................
®Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ' 48 24 " Longitude 76 ` 35 i 36
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Cavacitv PoiDulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
I❑
Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer I
I
Non -Dairy
® Farrow to Wean
1000
1000
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
-
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
1,000
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
433,000
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 3 ". ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area Spray Yield Area
'HolduzgPonds/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 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 l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .................................... ........... ", ...... *"**"* .......... ............ . ..................... .................................... .................................... ....................................
Freeboard (inches): 50 30

Continued on hack
Facility Number: 94-3 1
Date of Inspection 5/10/2000 Printed on: 5/22/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
®No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental 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 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
® No
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CA VIW)?
❑ 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
I9. 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
13: 3�ip'yiolatio�s:or deficiencies were:noted:de�ring'tbis visit.-'Yd1 W. l teive ao �'iiirthi.
eir
: corres pondence aiwitt Phis:visi#.:::: ::::::::::::: ::::: :::: ::: : .. . .
:ecords available for review.
taste analysis: 3/21/00 = 1.2 & 0.22; 10/14/99 = 0.44 & 0.15
-rigation records of winter crop - up to date, within allowed nitrogen.
lake sure to use the correct waste analysis in association with irrigation events within 60 days, in the
imputation.
reeboard levels are recorded but could not find records before Jan. 2000.
heck internal website of NCDA for last soil analysis (ck. Harris Farms). SEE PAGE 3
Reviewer/Inspector Name Lyn Hardison T-- 'Entered by Ann Tyndall

Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Facility Number: 44-3 Date of Inspection 5/10/2000 Printed on: 5/22/2000
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 0 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 Z 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
ontinue to manage the farm as you have.
you have any questions, contact me at 252-946-6481, extension 318.
NOTE - It is suggested to have your waste plan revised to match your wetted acres.
.&I

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine Q Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 94 3 Date of Visit: 12/1/2i100 Time: 13:00
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .....................
Farm Name: Ia1YsrSftllCk llRp1.Y: RJIt14RS?1Cli................................................................ County: !!aSLxlmgkl2A..................................... WARD.......
OwnerName: GigQJ.................................... J$.Q.W.Rlj ......................................................... Phone No: ZS.2-21-3i?4...........................................................
FacilityContact......................................................... ...................... Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
MailingAddress: PQ..11Qx-324........... :............................................................................... Mt> un.-KC........................................................ 2.7810 .............
Onsite Representative: ................................................................................Integrator:.....................................
Certified Operator:..GMrge................................... DO.Wgja ...................... Operator Certification Number:1.8B 0.............................
Location of Farm:
Located on the eastside of NCSR 1127 (Railroad Bed Rd), approx. 3.0 miles south of Roper, NC
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 48 24 Longitude 76 • 35 36 K
Swine :.
❑ Wean to Feeder
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Ca aci ,YPo ulation. Poultry Ca aci P,o ulation Cattle Ga acit Pa ulatio0
❑Layer ❑ Dairy
=� ❑ Non -Layer on- airy
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
1000
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 1,000
Total SSL,W 433,000
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 3 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
lmlHolding Ponds 1 Solid Tiraps ❑ 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 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 S Structure 6
Identifier:.....---•-•.F.final................................................. ................................... .....................................
Freeboard (inches): 48
einn �-+.....a-...-.i .... a...,.r.

5100
Continued on back
Facility,Number: 94-3 Date of Inspection iff132000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
® No
(if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental 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 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
®No
12. Crop type Wheat
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16. Is there a Iack 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
�10•vio'IA6,is_or ddideiwdes•were:aoted:during• his Visit:: Wti will receive no furt_ lief~ : -
correspondence about this.visit.. .. .. .. ...
soil samples 11/29/00. Ready to go to NCDA
well vegetated.
IV
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rufus Croom

I Reviewer/Inspector Signature: .. Date: $/pp'
Facility Number: 94-3 Date of inspection 1 12/1/2000
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 cover? ❑ Yes ® No
J
i/00

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 12, 1999
Mr. George B. Bowen
Livestock Supply - Northpork
Post Office Box 394
Belhaven, North Carolina 27810
SUBJECT: Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
Livestock Supply - Northpork
Facility No. # 94-3
Washington County
Dear Mr. Bowen:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection (as it is
viewed in DWQ database) conducted at the referenced facility by the Division of Water
Quality from the Washington Regional Office. Please read this inspection and keep it
with all other documents pertaining to your animal operation for future inspections.
In general, this inspection included verifying that: (1) the farm has a Certified Animal
Waste Management Plan (CAWMP); (2) the farm is complying with requirements of the
State Rules 15 NCAC 2H.0217, Senate Bill 1217, and the Certified Animal Waste
Management Plan; (3) the farm operation's waste management system is being operated
properly under the direction of a Certified Operator; (4) the required records are being
kept; (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or runoff.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation during the inspection. If you have any
questions, please contact me at 919/946-6481, ext. 318 or your Technical Specialist.
Sincerely,
Lyn B. Hardison
Environmental Specialist
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
p Registered 0 Certified E Applied for Permit p Permitted 113 Not 0perationa Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: LIyjmtack.S,apply...Nurftnxk................................................................. County: Washington WARO
Owner Name: Gaarge................................... BO-WAU ......................................................... Phone No: 252-943.-3U24.ozr..15Z-.7.9,3-9.9.Q2.(i'arm).......
Facility Contact:...............................................................................Title: ...... Phone No:
Mailing Address: P.Q... )fox.394........................................................................................... Belhuen-NC ........................................................ 2,781jft..............
OnsiteRepresentative: G.B_.Bom n................................................................................. Integrator:.......................................................................................
Certified Operator: G.gorge.B.............................. Rawca.0 .......................................... Operator Certification Number: IR810 ............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude �• ®° ®� Longitude
i7Wean to Feeder
13 f ee er to Finish
p Farrow to Wean
1000
® Farrow to Feeder
® Farrow to Finish
250
p Gilts
p Boars
General
1. Are there any buffers that treed maintenance/improvement? 13 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 ®No
p Yes ® No
n/a
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
p Yes ® No
Continued on back

- U
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
p Yes
® No
Structures (Lagoons,Holding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
p Yes
® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:...--•--•---••.......................................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard(fl): .............4.48............. .............4.58..... ......... ................................... ....................................
....................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
p Yes
N No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
p Yes
N 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
® No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ...... Cam.(Silage.&. Graiia).........Small.Gxain.4.L'lq=aL Barley. ................... .Sralcl ams................................................ ...............................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated m the' Animal Waste Management Plan (A WMP)? p Yes ® No
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 Onlv
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 A VR P?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
IQ • li i! YIV kLl LlVlil•lli i.Aw. fQ[I�:1G3 VYGI•G •IIV LGU •V41111 LlliJ V 1J1L. 2 V11 7V 111 •f GLsGlYG !1V i{ii LLGl
.: ioi-iend iO erice about tfiiri.visit: : • . .. ..
p Yes ® No
Yes ® No
p Yes ®No
Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ®No
p Yes N No
p Yes ® No
k
1
Y
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �- �' Y 2 Date: _ Z7 -

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, and
Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr_, Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
July 22, 1999
Mr. George Bowen
Livestock - Northpork
P.O. Box 394
Belhaven, NC 27810
M. U, F; q, Ar
04CDENR
NORTH CAROLiNA dEPARTMENi OF
ENVIRONMENT ANp Nsa7um kj- RESOURGEs
SUBJECT: Animal Feedlot Operation Compliance Inspection
Livestock - Northpork
Facility No.94 -3
Washington County
Dear Mr. Bowen:
On May 5, 1999, I conducted an Animal Feedlot Operation Compliance Inspection at the referenced
facility. Overall, the operation was found to be in satisfactory condition. A copy of the inspection report is
attached for your review.
In general, this inspection includes verifying that: (1) the farm has a Certified Animal Waste Management
Plan (CAWMP); (2) the farm is complying with requirements of the State Rules 15 NCAC 2110217, Senate
Bill 1217, and the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan; (3) the farm operation's waste management
system is being operated properly under the direction of a Certified Operator; (4) the required records are
being kept; (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or runoff
The recommendations and/or comments regarding your inspection can be found in the comment section of the
attached inspection form. It is very important as the owner and Operator in Charge that you address any noted
concerns, as soon as possible.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance during the inspection. Should you have further questions or
comments regarding this inspection, do not hesitate to call me at [phone], ext. 321.
Sincerely, W
Q��8 -
Daphne B. Cullom
Environmental Specialist 11
cc: hington County SWCD office
V
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889
Telephone 252/946-Wl FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

N
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection :�i3 24 hr. (hh:mm)
N Permitted N Certified 13 Conditionally Certified p Registered 10 of Operationa Date Last Operated: ...........................
Farm Name: Lixf5tack.Satpply.-111ox1h}pork ............................ ........................................................ County: Washington WARO
OwnerName: G�................................4�!Fil.__..................................................... Phone No: 44.:��4....................................................................
Facility Contact: ................................................................................Title:
PhoneNo: ....................................................
Mailing Address: 4....o1i.94.................................................... .. ...... 7.76,11 .............
Onsite Representative: Stacey.Bawen......... ................................................................._ Integrator:
Certified Operator:.Gg.9l$ . .............................. 41�gt1.��.........._.._.._.._.._................... Operator Certification Number:. $ Q .......
Location of Farm:
Latitude ©. ®4 ®K Longitude ®• ©4 ®K
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder t0 rmish
® Farrow to Wean
1000
900
13 Farrow to Peeder
p Farrow to Finish
p t is
[3 Boars
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
p Layer jr3 Diary
p Non -Layer I j3 on- airy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity I 1,000
Total SSLW
_ Number of Lagoons 0 ❑Subsurface rains resent ❑ agoon rea
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps JE3 No Liquid Waste Management System
Dischatges& Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field 13 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)
ray r iew Area
p Yes g No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes p No
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes g No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes g No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes g No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ............. F.inal............. .................................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ....................................
Freeboard(inches): ...............26............................................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iet trees, severe erosion, p Yes g No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: 94_3 Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
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
12_ Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat
a No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
® No
© Yes
g No
❑ Yes
g No
❑ Yes
g No
(3 Yes
g No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes g No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes g No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? p Yes R No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
ENO
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
g No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
g No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
13 Yes
g No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
g 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
g No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
g No
0 :: a �iotations- or:deficiencies were: noted: during this: visit.: Vou.wil)f receive: no: further . :
..c6tr0p6ndence Aboutthis: visit. . :::::::::::::::::::: ::. ::: ::::::: :
Analvsis 3/99. Irrigation records were amended after coltectmg recent sample as
1999 soil analysis.
does not need a WA Determination.
you have any questions about this inspection, please contact me at [phone], ext. 321.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Daphne B. Cullom
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: i Date:

Routine
13 Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Operation Review
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Compliance Inspection
13 Division of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
O Other Agency - Operation Review �L>?
of
I Facility Number 94 3 I
Registered ® Certified D Applied for Permit 0 Permitted
ow -up of DSWC review Q Other 1
Date of Inspection 5/14198 �.
Time of Inspection 8:45 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: LjycaIQck,SWPAJjy.-.LYtt.Lk.................................................... .... County: Washington .......... -...... - -- ... WARQ.......
Owner Name: QcoiMe................................... Ho fM............................. . Phone No: 9.4"024 ...................................................................
Facility Contact:.�.Wenl........................... ..... ......... ......... _ Title: Alma=.... ........................... ... Phone No: Tom .79,3-.9402.............
Mailing Address: P.0..Rax.194........................................................................................... Belha.ymAC ....................................................... 7.7810 .............
Onsite Representative: G,J,.B.QW JL................... ...... Integrator: Uycstpe�i Su ........................................................ g ARMY..................................................
Certified Operator: Gen=3. ............................. BetAeC&EL............ ............................. Operator Certification Number:18.83.0 .............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 35 • 48 s 24 u Longitude 76 • 35 36
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
900
M Farrow to Feeder
250
M Farrow to Finish
250
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer . I ❑Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ID Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 500
Total SSLW 484,750
Number of Lagoons I Holding Ponds 2 1 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present © Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management Svstem
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in 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?
7C7 5 /07
❑ Yes
M No
❑ Yes
M No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes M No

Facility Number: 44-3 Date of Inspection 5/14/98
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Laaoons.Holdin2 Ponds Flush Pits etc.
9. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard(li):................................................................_......................................................................................._.....
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
I I . Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
wmurge" OR OUCK
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
Stricture 6
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? ❑ Yes N No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes ® No
(if in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ........ s, �..�..........Somali..ixAim.LA�xe�at. aGI�Y=. .................... &312cm ...............................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes N No
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
N No
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
N No
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities On1y
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
N No
24.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
N No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes
N No
0 No.violations or,deficiencies.were-noted-during this -visit.' You will-i&6vi a no further.
- .correspbi)dence 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):
3. Waste Utilization Plan - To be updated by technical specialist (R. Croom) to show increase of risers to 64 and utilization of +
Analysis Report 4/2/98.
*-LO-6 — 0 CA-- ! IA'5-�- i rrica-t cL- Zve--'&
Reviewer/Inspector Name _Rufus Croom
Reviewerllnsnector Signature: Date:

41
�13 Division of Soil and Water Conservation 0 Other Agency
. ® Division of Water Quality
E ,
Routine O Cohn laint 0 Follow-u of DW ins ection O Follow-u of DSWC review Q Other
Date of Inspection `7 -Z7 S
Facility Number
Time of Inspection t3 t cl 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Registered 0 Certified [3 Applied for Permit 0 Permitted L© Not Operational I Date Last Operated:... ,p �y
Farm Name: t J 4,� Y....k ! .`!....................... :1:-i..
................. f.r-.._.r .�I�............NPAk. ..... County:...........
Owner Name:.......... ..-........... I.. ..... � aV h............................................ Phone No:...... ..- ` . '5..-. .Z. ...............
..
Facility Contact: ........4 .:.... ............� k(.ts. �............ Title:......... s.Q�— ........................... Phone No:.
Mailing Address:..... .:. .........%i�....0A ..................................................I ......� .. I U �-±s ................... �, '..............
OnsiteRepresentative:..... ._ ......... ..... ................................... I.......... Integrator.......................................................................................
Certified Operator:.......G .... 31^. ...... e) ..... ..... B.a.W.CK........ ................. Operator Certification Number:Lsgi. .........
Location of Farm:
0
Latitude Longitude �• �' �"
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes iallo
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? - 0 Yes IgNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray meld ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes [jj No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ® No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'! (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes KNo
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
&No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
9No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
RLNo
maintenance/improvement?
b. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
-RNo
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
%No
7/25/97

Facility Number: —
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
B No
Structures (Laeoons.Haldine Ponds -Flush Pits, t1g.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
JgNo
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .... !(! ....... ...... C ..................
........................................................... ............
.... ..................................................................
Freeboard (ft): 11., ,.
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
[ffNo
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
E4 No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
ONo
(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
&JNo
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes KNo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type r -
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 reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities 0"1,
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?
No.vitilations:or. deficiencies.were noted -during this.visit. You.r�ill recei�e:irti:fwrtlieri::
.•correspQ>iT<Bence.atioutfhis:visif.�:•:-:�:-:•.. .::•:.�::�.•,•.•, .�.::::�. .: :•:: : :�:-. .•
❑ Yes B No
❑ Yes [$ No
❑ Yes JR No
❑ Yes B No
❑ Yes 51 No
❑ Yes [RNo
❑ Yes 19 No
❑ Yes [a No
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes 8 No
3-1 -��
�ccorR��'f Flo C 3 Potcp�,._ x1� �S S°s-•�-d�-c.c�
� 16o 1 bs k J.o
.
UM R Z . r_&c,, ,�� t_L� (,&,k._U1 _ ivUk, _&-a •kP i21 1AtPcAaJ, a, z3,, M
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: r] 02 7 -

Site Requires Immediate Attention: N Q
Facility No. 9 4-03
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT '.
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS. SITE•VISITATION RECORD,
Date: 1995
Time:
Farm Name/Owner : SQj'v y / C6DAA ." )34V CAy
Mailing Address: 1;U. doe 2151- if A*:'tjW* a2J .AJ-C-47SID
County: WA f&..1
Integrator: Phone:
On Site Representative: Phone: _
Physical Address/Location: NC-1A M2?
Type of operation: Swine.- X Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: SOc]O No. of Ani— m� on Site:
DEM Certification No.: ACE • DEM Certification No.: ACNEW
Latitude: Longitude: Elevation: Ft
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Ft + 25 year 24 hour
storm event? (approximately 1 Ft + 7 in) Yes or No
Actual Freeboard: S Ft O. Inches
Was•any seepage observed from the lagoon,(s)? Yes or %
Was any erosion observed? Yes or (& .40mrg fAOSL.t'ftc LJ/ 'ejol e^
Is adequate land available for spray? (9 or No PAO lu gO-A-s3
Is the cover crop adequate? <2ZL.o-c No
Crop(s) being utilized: 0. ,�
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria?
200 Ft from Dwellings? <�R or No 100 Ft from Wells? 4G�vr No
I the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Ft of USGS Blue Line Stream?
e r No ~A " C^
Is animal waste land applied or spray,"i"rrigated within 25 Ft of a USGS Map Blue
Line? Yes or
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state b man --made ditch, flushing
system, or other similar man-made devices? �� Ho
If Yes, please explain:
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure,
land applied, spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? Yes or No
-I nspector Name Signature
r ,
cd: Facility Assessment Unit
Comments & Sketch on Back of Sheet

DEM
SITE VISITATION RECORD
Page'Two
Comments: ,v
Sketch
AL r P,.•TA-Y
Sc Go. JoTA-r ��2s
X�

Revised April 20, 1999
JUSTIFICATION & DOCUMENTATION FOR MANDATORY WA DETERMINATION
Facility Number qL( --_-S
Farm Name: l -
On -Site Representative:
Inspector/Reviewer's Name: '
Date of site visit:_ S-- 5--�Ctq
Date of most recent WUP:_.(,n - 3b - q6
Annual farm PAN deficit: -47Oct pounds
T Operation is flagged for a wettable
acre determination due to failure of
/Part 11 eligibility item(s) F1 F2 F3 F4
Operation not required to secure WA
determination at this time bas on
exemption E1 E2 E3 4
Operation pended for.wettable acre
determination based on P1 P2 P3
r
Irrigation System(s) - circle #: 1. hard -hose traveler; _ 2. center -pivot system; 3. linear -move system;
4. stationary sprinkler system w/permanent pipe; 5. stationary sprinkler system w/portable pipe;
Ostationary gun system w/permanent pipe; 7. stationary gun,system w/portable.pipe
PART 1. WA Determination Exemptions (Eligibility failure, Part II, overrides Part I exemption.)
E1 Adequate irrigation design, -including map depicting wettable acres, is complete
and signed by an I or PE. ,
5
E2 Adequate D,, and D21Da irrigation operating parameter': sheets, including map
depicting wettable acres, is complete and signed by an I or PE.
E3 Adequate D, irrigation operating parameter sheet, including map depicting
wettable acres, is complete -and signed by a'WUP.
E4 75% rule exemption as verified in Part III. (NOTE: 75 % exemption cannot be
applied to farms'that fail the eligibility checklist in Part 11. Complete eligibility
checklist, Part II - F1 F2 F3, before completing computational table in Part 111).
PART 11. 75% Rule .Eligibility Checklist and. Documentation of WA Determination
Requirements.. WA Determination required -because-operation fails -one of the -eligibility
requirements listed:below:
F1 Lack -of acreage which -resulted in over applicatiori"of wastewater(PAN)'on-.spray.
field(s)-according to#arm's:last two -years mfdrrigationTecords..
_µF2 Unclear, -illegible; -or lack -of information/map.-
'F3 Obvious.field:limitationslnumerous-.ditches ,#ailure_to_deduct:required _.... , -
buffer/setback:acreage;_:or25%`of.total,acreage.identifdd.in CAWMP..includes� -'.';,.I �=
-small;"irregularly-,shaped-fields=-fields.lessahan 5-.acres:for"travelers-orJess--thaniAl
2 acres for -stationary -sprinklers). -
F4 WA determination required because CAWMP credits feld(s)'s acreage -in excess
of 75% of the respective field's total acreage as noted in table in Part III.

Revised April 20, 1999
Facility Number G4- -
._._f)
Part III. Field by Field Determination of 75% Exemption Rule for WA Determination
TRACT FIELD TYPE OF TOTAL CAWMP FIELD COMMENTS3
NUMBER NUMBER'S IRRIGATION ACRES ACRES %
SYSTEM
loofa
I_3
ICA -Z
t�ua
`vim
49
_
1
t,
FIELD NUMBER' - hydrant, pull, zone, or point numbers -may be used:in place of field numbers depending on CAWMP
and type of irrigation system: If pulls, etc. cross more than one field; inspector/reviewer will have to combine fields to
calculate 75% field by field determination for exemption; -otherwise-operation will be subject to WA determination.
FIELD NUMBER' - must be clearly delineated -on -nap: _.
COMMENTS' - back-up fields with CAWMP acreage -exceeding 750/6-of-its total :acres -and .having -received less-.than:50%
Of its annual PAN as:documented in.the-farm's previous :two_yeaW-(1997.:&a998).of irrigation:records,-cannot-serve:as;-the
sole basisfor requiring a WA Determination.-_Back:upfields rnustbemoted:in the-commentaection:andmust.be:accessible:=:-.
by irrigation system. ---
Part IV. PendingWKDetenninations--.
P1 Plan.lacks•:followinganformation: --
P2 Plan -revision-maysatisfy:750/WWile_based:on-adequate-overall PAN'deficit;and°by�,:--1
adjusting -all field acreage:tobelow 75%,.use rate?-
P3 Other (ielin process of installing -'new -irrigation -system):