710074_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

I
Type of Visit ()"Routine
Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ()/ Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: MOs Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: %L Region:
Farm Name: _ _ Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
j
Onsite Representative: V� µ ��►��SC� _�
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = c 0 i Longitude: = ° ❑ t
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
f c7 a,s ❑ Non -Layer
❑ Wean to Finish
® Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
[]_Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
I
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
El NE
❑ Yes
N'o
DVNo
El Yes
ElNA
El NE
El Yes
❑'NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection o.S
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes LjNo ❑ 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?: c
Designed Freeboard (in): C1, �' ! , J_
Observed Freeboard (in): y 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 2/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
L�'J No ❑ NA [I NE
8_ Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? El Yes
E? o ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes
E3'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ElYes
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 ElEvidence of Wind Drift ElApplication Outside of Area
�
GAS
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s) L 1] p E C L.
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
El NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
El Yes❑
7No 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
L1 N ❑ NA
❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
ElYes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Gamments (refer t question `Inswers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawingsrof facifity9tnCetter egplamtsttuatsons J`(useladditioaal pagcs as necessary):
fA,q,, APO �EG6n1rJ.S Loo,� C"0
Reviewer/inspector Name 6 �, �r Phone: 4
r
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: o

Fagility Number: 1 — Date of Inspection S aS
• Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes LrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If es, check the appropriate box below.
p g P Y
❑ Yes
1 J No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections []Monthly and i"
Rain Inspections ❑
Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
12flU
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
E- A
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
�fA
❑ NE
Other Issues ,�,9�
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? El Yes LNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
El No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
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;/NE1
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yeso
NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

Type of Visit OCompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation . I
Reason for Visit �"outine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of visit: k'U Time:
.,,,..��. Q Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted,�ertified © Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date- Last Operated or Above Threshold
Farm Name: County:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone No:
Facility Contact: _ . __ _. _ Tide:._ Phone No:
Onsite Representative: ad zi- 2 rdisQ4_,..w �.�.. Integrator:
Certified Operator __.. , , , Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
J246ine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • & " Longitude • 4 0"
Disebam & Streamimpacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes �o
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes Q-No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes -Ixo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes [�Wo
Structure I Struu t�ure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: —_ _ _ _.... s�7' .. _ . . _ �..
Freeboard (inches):
12/I2M Continued

Facility Number: — 7 Date of Inspection G
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes 0'1CTo
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes Pl�0
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancerimprovement? ❑ Yes,'No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes'; No
elevation markings?
Waste Aonlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes 02-No
11. Is there evidence of over application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 1PNo
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ moose 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 10
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes Q�No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes P�Ko
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ yes 0 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 o
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes o
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 M14o
Air Quality representative immediately.
ll�y oo�r
Reviewer/iaspector Name
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
Field Conv ❑ Final Notes
Date: �a
I7117./U3 Continued

Facility Number; - — ] Date of Inspection
Required. Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes—a-90
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 p'�Io
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes , 79'o
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes J2140
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ,E No
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes .ZMO
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes .-Ergo
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes 2�Ko
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35) ❑ Yes -PIN6
31, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? ❑ Yes ❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Foam ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1 " Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
,�L3J Plastse, case Gy�, ocA-ober1 (W14)i�cus Ve-
ctrVo,lys�.s -For your'
� 0ckober' Pump'
nn �' 4 2n�s � r �
� GoCi-eC4- —1 - PC,(ZZ
(USej
P4
d- 0 �en�s,
e
12112103

0
�y�
D-vrston of Water Qualtty
h' u 7 ' y ;-Divrsiori of.Soil and Water Consery anon Y t
r �'$n tz '� Age Cj! K
Other n ,
0i`".-�.i! ._ �- ... .. m x _ ... . „- .-.r�' _ - _. 'r._.+ - , i-P •. I?' L � .�, i krc ..-._
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit�outine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit: � of QZ j 5' j
Tirne: t� Printed on: 7/21/2000
/
Not Operational O Below Threshold
❑ Permitted 0 Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: J e Yt n . �c�+� r•t 1-r7 Z County': •-�C �t "�
.................................................................................I...--.I...............
Owner Name: ..............oC. Yt ........Tl Gt 'JO.h....................................... Phone No:...............-.................................-.............
Facility Contact: .--..
Title:........
Phone No:
MailingAddress:•.................................................................................................................... ...............
Onsite Representativr:�-al►"L •, Nasp�is0n Tj`1Qhn•Integrator:--•w!y-r- , �t
.....................................................................................
Certified Operator:................................................................................................................ Operator Certification Number: ......................
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude * Longitude 9
�- Design Current Design Current Design . Current
$ Poultry . Ci acAD*aonCa' ci Population Capacity Population
Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer I 1 ❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer I JE1 Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
Farrow to Finish Total Deli Ca cit
Gilts Y
�.
Boars Total %Lw
Discharges & Stream Impac
1. Is any discharge observed from any pan 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
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: .............. 1................. I............... �........... ......................... .............. .................................... .............................
Freeboard (inches): T 3 q5
5100
[]Yes FNo
❑ Yes ❑'No
❑ Yes XNo
-?) 14
❑ Yes J/ No
❑ Yes 0 No
[-]Yes J" No
❑ Yes VNo
Structure 6
Continued on back

1;aeility Number: f7j Date of Inspection Z4 d
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes JdNo
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 PNo
B. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes ONo
9_ Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ANo
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes 0 No
11. Is there evidence of over application? / ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes 'P'No
12. Crop type o *"''' l w key ��J u 4 be A!!, s _
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ,EfNo "
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes L! No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15, Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes 0No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes XNo
Revuired Records & Documents
17, Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes JyNo
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes k 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 040
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application) 0 Yes /0
No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes )2fNo
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
thjs:vsit; • y0l %fj•teegiye 00 Cui•tlt0'
yiQns'e dgcencere Qt] dxingi.....corceacabtthsysit::.r......... .
��. fVcCA �� b�� %� V.S we able owesctik., -the Z001 -Y be.Ah crcf, .
Nee(/ -,0 �je4 C41r_V1G doh S11Fe�a SZ+atN; �eia r� W id-i Cfts .�yti�a ./�
cAr� �,►1�IC.S e �, Whi Gln Skew Y1ow 4�e&Y A&G (A'e W:� z4e 6er�)r�1
a i,"d keer w; Ih41e e a rds
10a4C! LAeyoin A- has o 2-3 1^ek 1,eeboA fil 1,TJ vl� �� A►•�,
L-o-5 co►-. Z hAj 0. 2. S ;n cH
Reviewer/Inspector Name y��trw yt (I n z r
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ,� ,} ute: 11- 0Z 5100

Facility Number: i7l -'74 Date of inspection Printed on: 7/21/2000
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 vivo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes JZNo
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 16No
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 VNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes fi�'No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
5100

-1,
© Permitted 9Certified [] Conditionally Certified 13 Registered U Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name:.......ae�...... .1.j-'................................................... ...... County:.............
Owner Name:..............
Facility Contact: ........
Phone No:
.....Title: ................................................................ Phone No:
MailingAddress:....................................................................................................................... ..........................
OnsiteRepresentative:........................................................................................ Integrator:...... ,``!'..'..................................................
Certified Operator: ................................................. ; . ............................................................. Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
........................... ..................... ...... .............. ..... ..... w
Latitude Longitude
Swine
Design .;,_';Current
Capacity Population
Wean to Feeder
()
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design. Cori ent Design , _':Current
Poultry Capacity Po t lation Cattle ' _Ca se�ty 7-P6 ulation
❑ Layer _. FE] Dairy
Non -Layer Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total -Design Ca aeit
- P Y
Total SA -
Number of Lagoons ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field
Holding u
g Ponds LSond Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System r
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 ycs, 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
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): ............J.....
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [-]No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
qNo
❑ Yes
ro
❑ Yes CqNo
Structure b
5. Are there any immediate'threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
❑ Yes 2�No
3123/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: — f] Date of Inspection 0
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? El Yes O(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
aw
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
❑ 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
Mo
11. Is there evidence of ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
WNo
�'ver application?
12. Crop type L-i '5
13. Do the receiving crops differ Jth those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
0 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
PNo
16. Is there -a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
"No
Required Records & Documents
IT. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
f rNo
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
WNo
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
ff No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
PNo
21, Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator.in charge?
❑ Yes
NfNo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
)RfNo
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
gNo
yiot oT d fcier�cies ry re pOteti jjor ig Ois*V'Slt: You wii� fee iye o further
corresbondence•ahoiifthfsVlslt.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'•'. .'.'. .'.'.'. .'.
pt �',4 1 "J,
Reviewer/Inspector Name -
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 00

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge actor below N(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 qNo
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 ONO
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 qNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes KNo
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes WNo
s ,�
tlona -;Dm rients'an or -Addirawings `

Facilit,y Number
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection � 24 hr. (hh:mm)
p Permitted M Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered In of perat►ona pate Last Operated:
Farm Name: dentii.F.arm.#}.1..&.2....................................................................................... County: Fender WIRO
Owner Name:,1ohn.lC................................... Handisjun ......................
Facility Contact:
..............................Title:
........ Phone No: 411UM.92.5.1 ................................
.....I .............................. Phone No: ....................................................
Mailing Address: 22I.Washington.Cirde..................................................................... W.allaeiK.AC........................................................... 2846.6 ..............
. nsite k2epresentati�-e: y........................................................................................... nteagratot•:1.1�1ixrp by..F.amily.Farms...................
..................
Certified Operator:.lnhn.C................................... Hardison..Ul .................................. Operator Certification Number:1.7.2d.1.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ®�©� ©« Longitude ©0 ®C ©6�
Swine -
Capacity.. Population
® Weanto Feeder
5200
p Feeder to Finish
p Farrow to Wean
p Farrow to Peeder
p Farrow to Finis
p Gilts
p Soars
esign urgent - 7—
_` esign Current
Poultry Capacity -:.Population Cattle Capacity, Population
0 _ Layer
p Non -Layer
p Other
Total Design Capacity 5,200
Total SSLW 156,000
Number of -Lagoons p u sur ace rains resen I3 agoon rea [3pray He rea
- _..
_Holi4ingPonds:7 Soled -Traps =- p o Liquid Waste anagement System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes © No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes p No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) Yes p No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes. notify DWQ) p Yes p No
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? I] Yes l7 No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? E3 Yes 0 No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway p Yes [3 No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .................1................. 2....................
.............. .......................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches):...............2.Q..............................1.8.........................................
.......... ................... ............... ......................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, [3 Yes p No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on buck

1
Facility Number: 71 _74 Date of inspection 9/24799
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes p 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 p No
Waste Application
t0. 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
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? p Yes ❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
... .....s.o.... i�e�u'cres.we ..a....during. this .visit... ..v...rece. .till further- .. ........ ....... .... ... .. . .... .. .. ........ ..
: corxespo3idence: aboir# this:visxt:.................:.:...........:.............:...........:.:...........
Comments(refer to:"question #) Exptatnrany YES answers and/or any recommendations or any otlter comments
Use dra►rings of faci it to better explain sttua#ions (use addttt4nal pages as necessary)
W
urricane
lagoon freeboard levels after hurricane.
Reviewer/Inspector (Same
Reviewer/inspector Signatu

�01
Revised April 20, 1999
JUSTIFICATION & DOCUMENTATION FOR MANDATORY WA DETERMINATION
Facility Number
Farm Name: k�
On -Site Representative:2,
Inspector/Reviewer's Name:
Date of site visit: 34VC(R
Date of most recent WUP:
Annual farm PAN deficit: pounds
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 based on
exemption El E2 E3 E4
Operation pended for wettable acre
determination based on (0 4EV P3
Irrigation System(s) - circle #.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;
6. stationary gun system w/permanent pipe; 7. stationary gun system w/portable pipe
PART I. WA Determination Exemptions (Eligibility failure, Part 11, overrides Part I exemption.)
El Adequate irrigation design, including map'depicting wettable acres, is complete
and signed by an I or PE.
E2 Adequate D, and D21D3 irrigation operating parameter sheets, including map
depicting wettable acres, is complete and signed by an 1 or PE.
E3 Adequate D, irrigation operating parameter sheet, including map depicting
wettable acres, is complete and signed by a WUP.
In
E4 75% rule exemption as verified in Part 111. (NOTE:75 % exemption cannot be
applied to farms that fail the eligibility checklist in Part 11. Complete eligibility
checklist, Part 11- F1 F2 F3, before completing computational table in Part 111).
PART H. 75%. Rule .EIigibility-Checklist and Documentation'of WA Determination
Requirements. WkDeterrhinabon .required .because operation -fails one of the .eligibility
requirements listed --below:
_F1 Lack .ofacreage=which Tesultedimover'--applicationmfmastewater_(PAN) onmpray.
field(s)-accord inglofarm'slast twoyearsmf-.rmgation3-ecords
F2 Unclear,-:illegible,nor lack of information/map.-
F3 - Obvious -field .-limitations-(numerous.ditchesidbilureAo_deductTequired::.:_
bufferlsetback acreage;-or25%-.ofIotaI acreageadentifieddri_CAWMP_:indudes
small ;-irregulady-shaped fields fields -less- han 5:acresfor.travelers-or.less-than
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 Ili.

Revised April 20, 1999
Facility Number - 9 L
Part Ill. Field by Field Determination of 75% Exemption Rule for WA Determination
TRACT FIELD TYPE OF TOTAL CAWMP FIELD COMMENTS3
NUMBER NUMBER',2 IRRIGATION ACRES ACRES %
SYSTEM
l 1 1
I I
i I i E
I I i
FIELD NUMBER' - hydrant, pull, zone, or.point numbers may be used in place of field numbers dependinq on CAWMP
and type of irrigation -system. - If pulls, etc. crossTnore-than one field, inspeclurlreviewerwill 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 -map.
COMMENTS' - back-up fields with CAWMP acreage-exceeding°75% of its total --acres end having Teceived less than 50%
Of its annual PAN -as documented -in the farm's.previous two years' (1997 & 1 998)-of irrigation Tecords,-cannot sbrve-as-the
sole basis -for -requiring a WA Determination._Back-up fields -must -be -noted in the-commentzectionand must be accessible
by irrigation -system.
Part IV. Pending WA Determinations -
V P1 Plan.lacksfollowing -information: ern--.04 k
P2 Plan -revision -may:satisfy75% rule based on adequate overall PAN deficit -and by
adjusting -all field acreage#o-below 75% use rate
P3 Other (ie/in process of installing new irrigation system):

P._-std Amy 20, 1999
JUSTIFICATION & DOCUMENTATION FOR MANDATORY -WA DETERMINATION
Facility Number �� - ?� Operation is flagged for a wettable
Farm Name:_=M ; F� �,v� _ :acre determination due to failure of
On -Site Representative: 1ic.ti f�arfiso>h, Part 11 eligibility item(s) F9 F2 F3 F4
Ens ectorlReviewe�s Name: pva�ckfz�/—A�--
determination= Uperat+on not re � uire.d fv secure WA-
r at this time based on
Date of site visit exemption El E2 E3
Date of most recent WUPe: S Operation pended for wettable acre
determination based on P1 P2 P3
.Annual farm PAN deficit: `! t 10ppounds
�rIrrigation System(s) - circle '1..hard fioseiraveler .cent-r-.pivot system; 3. linear -move system;
4. stationary sprinkler system wlperr ianent pipe; .a. stationary sprinkler system wlportable .piper;-
_ stationary gun system w/permanent pipe; 7. stationary gunsystemw1poriable pipe -
PAK7 i. V,1A Deiermi nation. Exemptions (Eligibility failure,- Part 11, overrides .Part I exemption.)
E1 Adequate irrigation design, including map-de�iici3ng wettable:acres, is complete
and signed by an I or PE.
E2 - -Adequate D, and D)D3- irrigation ap_rating parameter shF---ts, including reap
depicting wettable acres, is complete and sinned by an '1.or PE.
E3 Adequate D, irrigation open-Ang parameter sheet, including map depicting
wettable acres,-is''camplaie and signed by a WUP.
V E4 75m rule exemption as vermad in Part III. (NOTE: 75 % exenrmDn -cannot be
aopiied to f arms fhat -ail the eiigibilty cnec list in Part 11. Comrilete aiigibiiiry
checklist, Par 11- r=1 F2 -3, baiore compievng computational table 'in .Pari I1I).
a -ART Ii.75% -Ruleyliginift-ChE!uMisi.and.Docvmentativn -oi VWA Datermination
Reauiremens. -WA A-Daiarminar-ion squired -becauseoperation iai!s ime ofihe �eIigibiiiiy
-eaisrrernen=.s•I:sied�eloKr • -
1 ! act.=answmcn7--svtieddn:ove apiicai nrmf -zs l_�t�}�N) -Dn:spray-
ield�s)�Lcosi�fQ�a3ar►m�a�-t�►vo�as�firri�tiona��s-.
2 Unclear;-Aeaible, fir tact: nT irrr"orn onirran_ -
F3 Dnvicussfaid�iirni�ionsnUrnarnus�iicb���liarao�iddfrc`qusred _ .
bu�erls�acicacreage�r�.�1��atio�t�creag��der�m��3n�AV1►i�IP.�.fnbit�das� -
srnalt,-1rraAu;ariy:sl;apedifeids= f=l s�Iess i;ar: �c s fir r3vaiar--�r�ess ;an -
2 acres-br=auonary:sprinklers)_
4 WA determination Tequiredbecause CAV4fMP.-crrdits-l-ieidts)'s acreage -in -exc--ss
of 75°a o; the respective;ieid's total acreage as noted -in table in Part III.

Facility Number ?/ -�
R-_%-scd r pcil 20, l gao
Part ill. Field
by Field Determination
of 75% t-_7cemption Rule for WA Determination
TRACT
NUMBER
FIELD
NUMBER1.2
TYPE OF
IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
TOTAL.
ACRES
. CAWMP
ACRES
FIELD
°la
COMMENTS3
11171:21
5-
1'
I -
? ')f 2
71
r
E
E
i ss
f
E
1-7 Y_A7l-7
11219
1 1
1
1.0
1
G%1`1"C'rl`�Lss
r =LDAUMBEW- hyri arrr�-pull,7onA;'arpointnurnbem nay brr used -in piam�; old numberstinpen,_ding on CAWM?
and Type r irrigation -slim' Ir nulls, at:: crossmom�ran one f )d,:insparinrir�viaw¢r will have to mnlbina�feids to
ralccr;atm75°nisidbyia1d doL-n-n zanon-mrmxsrnrg iDn,--otherwise oP----5iian gill to subja- ie WA,cieierminaiion_
-
CDMMFNTS'--bazE.im iieldswifi CAUVMn gn xt:a Bing=ram°:° rf ire im--r--S-arid-i.amaTe: aivedJessthan50%
Y its annual PAN �s �n�xmbrribd m �a aarm�zrrpviot=sue j►aars': (? °97 '& 1998) &-irricaiiorrrp=rxjs ,-_CannatZsrva-2stjs
3o1e:b sis r-'j puirintra'WADn'&-_rminaij errLsezborimnd irlLsi}��Zw
)y , Trigauarn
r
'art IV. Fen din g WAT3ete; minaiiDns -
F9 -PlanJacY.a-�T'allowingiribrMabDn: -
P2 Tula -based nn_Maeouate Dve►all PAN daiic��andby
aajLitng7alfii--id:a==rages=below7E5% us —iate
P3 Mer'Wn process of instaliing new irricaiion system):

LW) Rzvised January 22, 1999
JUSTIFICATION & DOCUMENTATION FOR MANDATORY WA DETERMINATION
Facility Number 9 � - t?�
Farm Name: i A,) --
On -Site Representative: cL ,
inspector/Reviewer's Name: "Ci�,
Date of site visit:___�����1��
Date of most recent WUP: (a ` z2 6
Operation is*flagged for a wettable
acre determination due to failure of
Part 9 eligibility item(s) F1 SW F3 F4
Operation not required to secure WA
determination at this time based on
exemption El E2 E3 E4
Annual farm PAN deficit: i6 M pounds
Irrigation System(s) - circle # 1O. hard -hose traveler, 2. center -pivot system; 3. linear -move system;
4. stationary sprinkler system wlpermanent pipe; 5. stationary sprinkler system w/portable pipe;
fi. stationary gun system w/permanent pipe; 7. stationary gun system w/portable pipe
PART 1. WA Determination Exemptions (Eligibility failure, Part 11, overrides Part I exemption.)
E1 Adequate irrigation design, including map depicting wettable acres, is complete
and signed by an I or PE.
E2 Adequate D, and D203 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 11- 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 application of wastewater (PAN) on spray
field(s) according to farm's last two years of irrigation records.
,/ F2 Unclear, illegible, or lack of information/map.
F3 Obvious field limitations (numerous ditches; failure to deduct required
bufferlsetback acreage; or 25% of total acreage identified in CAWMP includes
small, irregularly shaped fields - fields less than 5 acres for travelers or less than
2 acres for stationary sprinklers).
F4 WA determination required because CAWMP credits f+eld(s)'s acreage in excess
of 75% of the respective field's total acreage as noted in table in Part III.

Revised January 22, 1999
Facility Number r�� - 91
Part 111. Field by Field Determination of 75% Exemption Rule for WA Determination
TRACT
NUMBER
FIELD
NUMBER'-2
TYPE OF
IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
TOTAL
ACRES
CAWMP
ACRES
FIELD
%
COMMENTS'
c�
,
.13
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 if possible; otherwise operation will be subject to WA
determination.
FIELD NUMBER2 - must be clearly delineated on map.
COMMENTS' - back-up fields with CAWMP acreage exceeding 75% of its total acres and having received less than 50%
of its annual PAN as documented in the farm's previous two years' (1997 & 1998) of irrigation records, cannot serve as the
sole basis for requiring a WA Determination. Back-up fields must be noted in the comment section and must be accessible
by irrigation system.

Dtvisioni"of Soil and Water Conservation- Operation Review -� r 7, t,-
13 Division• of Soil and Water Conservation - Compliance Inspection _
.- 13 Division of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
(] Other. Agency - Operation Review .
.Routine. Q Complaint 0 Follow-up of 1)WQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
)ate. of inspection
Facility Number rj l 3
-- --- — —__ — -_ Time of Inspection ®24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted Certified © Conditionally Certified [3 Registered JE3 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name:-•��"y�'"`5..................................................................... County:��1
',................................. ....... � Sb "� J
�` q
Owner Name:......�7. ? ..... ..............+\5G+" ..............................-.....-..... Phone No- 9k0r-05--- 14-,.\• ...............................
Facility Contact: „Title: • ............... PhuneN{ ..,d`a..:..�d� ..
Mailing Address: Vv0.S�j � �`rt>� W..... �`L
Onsite Representative:--�Lu�, ,r Integrator: t--�
Certified Operator: ................................................... -- Operator Certification Number .-.........-......-...........
Location of Farm:
...... ".........................................................................---- ......--- ....................................................---- .................""11........-..-............. � -
Latitude Longitude �•°�
Swine Capacity Population
%Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSL W
Number of Lagoons 10 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JE1 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation (If yes, notify DWQ)?
Discharge originated at: ElLagoon ElSpray Field ElOther
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'
h. If"discharge is observed, did it reach: ❑ Surface Waters ❑ Waters of the State
c. If dischar�,,e is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/inin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system?
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): .......... a ... .
...............................................................................
Structure 5
❑ Yes [(No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
NNo
❑ Yes
jR No
❑ Yes MNo
Structure 6
1/6/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: — -1 Fate 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 tnaintenancelimprovemcnt?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9_ Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required top of dike, maximum and minimum
liquid level elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Ponding ❑ Nitrogen
12. Crop type CI %... ..................... ................................................`.....
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. Does the facility lack wettable acreage for land application? (footprint)
15. Does the receiving crop -need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes 9No
❑ Yes C`No
❑ Yes 9 No
n
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes C9 No
❑ Yes YNo
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes MNo
❑ Yes C"No
❑ Yes O No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
■ IN
❑ Yes MNo
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes IN No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No
El: Xdviolations :or deficiencies .were noted. during tliii-visit:. Y.ou wvilI-receive no further .:.:.
eorrespo;ideiice: about; this visit...... .............
:..: .:: ::.. .: .
Comments (refei.46 question #). Explain any. YES answers and/or any, recommendationis or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as :necessary) t _
GO __1 U .Z- I wg 1
Ae S vi R, a _ % t4 cc -ems. Nd d �\r � ��� G— C�d�
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: �3 1 1� 99 11/6199

❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency
13 Division of Water Quality
ISKRoutine 0 Com laint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection 10 � Go 24 hr. (hh:mm)
E3 Registered Certified 0 Applied for Permit 0 Permitted 10 Not Operational Date Last Operated: ,
r
`�
Farm Name:........... �. ......r�.. r". ......1..�` Z County:.......... ................ .............................. ..............
Owner Name Jo'�......�!50`�' c1/G .�.z3........................
.......-...................................................................................... Phone 'No: ...................................... ... .
Facility Contact:........................................................ ..... Title: --- Phone No:
Mailing Address: Z Z { '�` G' ` ^ 4 `
tI
Onsite Representative:....... J...........�!1.....-..1 ..... Integrator: ....... .-s.. r �� FF
Certified Operator; .................... �� ......... GJ; 5 �� Operator Certification Number;------...-.-.....-
......................................................................... .......................
Location of Farm:
Latitude =0=C 66 Longitude • =1 =11
rrent
yDesign Current Design Current
$ e _ . -;
....
Capacity .Fopulation Poultry w
Capacity. Population Cattle w _ Capac�t} Population
Wean to Feeder
2
JE3 Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer
-
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
E
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
,r
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
10
❑ Boars
Total SSLW''
Number of Lagoons i Hnidrng Ponds ❑Subsurface Drains Present
❑ Spray Field Area
ID Lagoon Area
v
AM
r
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes *No
2. 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 ONo
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes o
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 , o
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ((7No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes �No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes �(No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? El Yes 17No
7/25/97

Facility Number: — t
y8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
�No
fr
Structures (Laeoonsjjolding Ponds, Flush Pits, _etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
PNo
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: ................ ...........................................................
...................................
r Freeboard {ft}:..........y...... ........... .......... ............ 4......... .
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
�Po
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
'F No
SS
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ 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?
❑ Yes
yNo
Waste A lication
1
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
r
E No
(If in excess of WW, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .....................I.............................
......Z �..�i..................
:.................................................................................._................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
qNo
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? -
❑ Yes
W-No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
ONo
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
.❑ Yes
)ZNo
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
O
21. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
,[
,,
3 No
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
Oyes
❑ No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
0- No.vialations:vr deficiencies: were: noted`during this.visit. : You'will receive_no-furtlier .
_ correspQndeilce al%outthis:visit.- : : . • :: : • . • . • .. . : . : • . :. .. : :: :: :
❑ Yes �
❑ Yes WNo
❑ Ye o
7/25/97

�Iloutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inseection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number Time of Inspection Boa 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: ❑ Registered [I Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for I hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
Certified 0 Permitted or Inspection (includes travel and processing)
0 Not Operational Date Last Operated: . .. . ....
Farm Name: . . ...... P--fi d in _... ... . . . ..... . ...... . . .... . ..... County: _._.ke_Ja.0 ... . . .... . ...... . .. . . ....
Land Owner Name: . .... . Phone No: .CjjQ1QE_A0a .. . ....
FaciliConctact: . ...... . ..... . . ..... _ Title: Phone No: . 1( 2)4� ty 2-84-q05%
S 1 4. ... . ... ­.­..' Mailing Address:
Onsite Representative: ... ....... ............... . . ..... . ....... Integrator: . .............. . . ...... . . ......
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number: ---- — ----
Location of Farm:
. ..... . . .....
Latitude 0 1 �" Longitude
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
Designer g:.
Men
M
Design
Swine;aP Ipady:Popelation .,abaci 'P o ulahonCattieR 0 Layer
Wean to Feeder U000
0 D
0 Feeder to Finish 0 Non -Laver Non-Da'ryl
Farrow to Wean
M.
No
L] Farrow to Feeder 0
�30 Farrow to Finish
❑. ... .. ital VAM
Other . . . . . . . .
Number Subsurface Drains Present
'
Lagoon A= 0 Spray Field Area
J.
Area
Kieneral
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at. [I Lagoon [I Spray field 0 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
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes [� No
❑ Yes C9 No
[:1 Yes 60 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 03 No
0 Yes V9 No
0 Yes Qq No
M Yes 0 No
Continued on back

Facility Number: ...Ji...... —:...'...
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes J)No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (1¢agoons and/or Holding Eonds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
3�
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
Structure 4
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes Q No
Structure 5 Structure 6
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures Iack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ......... ..... ...... ...... .......... ........ ........ ........ fYs?............... ...................... ....... --...... ..........
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
For Certified -Facilities Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23- Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes 9 No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes IS No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 69 No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
Comments (refer to questioanswers ndoanyrecomenationr an#y other comments.
Use drawings- of facihry to better explarn situations: (use addrhona! pages as necessary} r >
s -.s kovO b�tFl a�rou�J Yvy ar t r pie Pmxtrra; i pc4f4us. Ver• or` �" I `" 4
Sjnoc)jt1 be- �oiaw
Z. 1_ , r. We'tls 4WI3 bQ mowed.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
c�..ce..ee`4f r ° t
.� .-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
T
cc. Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

❑ DSWC Animal .Feedlot Operation Review=
;
�DWQ Animal;Feedlot Operatio p x
n Slte Ins ectlon
16 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection {o S
Facility Number Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours �--�
Farm Status: ❑ Registered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review J
Certified ❑ Permitted I or Inspection includes travel andprocessing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated: ... �..__..
FarmName:.... X ±..... ..... .....!__.....»............._ ....._............. __..... _ ..... County: ..».2c...................................... _....... ....
Land Owner .......... _ Phone No: $
Facility Contact:...Sk):....... .i . _._.._ ....�:.....
�1� r` ...._..... Title:._..O—Qn�C ............ Phone No: , �if0.��.'.�4.�.........._......
MailingAddress: .... .... ._..... .............. .._.... . , ................... ... .._ _ 1. �AA1�,,L� . ...... ._.._ _...._ .... i ........
Onsite Representative: ...Sl....�Q?._........ _......._.... _ Integrator: .J311
Certified Operator: ...... !3 .... ta..... ...... .W ...... Operator Certification Number: j.1alL...._....
Location of Farm:
►>ft.iL?.W.IS�.( .7._.p..f�rrr�. �.4. ii..._.I.3LS�. _ m..........
LW�1 ..... ! .t..._...... .......... _..... ..._...... ....... _.................__.... ._....... _....... ....... ........ _.......... �3
Latitude —•©4 3a- " Longitude ©• S(, '
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
KV Design Current �NO e � Design. Currents Design Currept
$wine s Cattle X. Ca act �Po elation Pouliry Ca achy Po ulateon'"' Ca act XP. ulstton':
Wean to Feeder 10 La ❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non- Dairy
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder r� TotalgDesign Capacily� ar 600
Farrow to Finish.
Total SSLWODO
�Other
..❑ i1
>.'
Number of Iagoons/ W�,�
❑ Subsurface Drains Present
z% Now
- ago Spry
Lagoon Area y Field Area
n rat
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?
❑ Yes [N No
❑ Yes CO No
❑ Yes
l] No
❑ Yes
J� No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes to No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
R Yes ❑ No
Continued on back

Facility Number:
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes ® No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons an_dior Ifolding:Pk ds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
....__. _................... ....... .._...._-.......
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
Structure 4
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes [0 No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 5 Structure 6
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DLWQ)
15. Crop type .......................1 j2m.__................................._...................Int l.............. ......... ............
_ .......... .....
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
For -Certified Facilities Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
�. 4 SVl$Sitt) 6e & I� o,rctMJ %dvar.
s60M be r;hW max, gro"
+L. <s�) } b e i-,mA .
❑ Yes V9 No
❑ Yes [P No
V Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes [A No
❑ Yes a] No
❑ Yes fA No
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
Ve\
Reviewer/Inspector Name"
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: T Date:
�T
cc. Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

•
Site Requires Immediate Attentio
Facility No.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: �S - ( 1995
Time:
Farm Name/Own(
Mailing Address:
County: -f Az,-..
Integrator: _ Phone:
On Site Representative: OIn +� q,�_ l_s Phone: RIO)
Physical Address/Location: t C S (Z t 3 i; a- p212 V 0 • �i ,rr.A� k1lot—,
Type of Operation: Swine. 7 Poultry Cattle C+-7
Design Capacity: `aJ6 611-- Number of Animals on Site:
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude:,��° 3? Longitude: 7Z° �5 6 ' '�r'�" Elevation:- Feet
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) es r No Actual Freeboard: 3 Ft. Inches
Was any seepage observed from the agoon(s)? Yes Oro Was any erosion observed? Yes or Nd
Is adequate land available for spray? (5e or No Is the cover crop adequate? e' or No
Crop(s) being utilized: -
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings?0 or No
100 Feet from Wells? e' or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes orb
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line? Yes or
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes o 9 - If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, Iand applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? e , r No
Additional Comments: ✓ F
Inspector Name
S ignature -
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.

Site Requires Txnmcdiare Attentiou
Facility Number.
SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: Jjily 20 1995
Owner: John Hardisont III Farm Name: Jenni � #�1
County: *'
Agent Visiting Site: der SWCO Phonc:
Operator. phone: � 910 289-4058
On Site Representative: Phone:.,_ W
Physical Address: .25 miles north of Watha on SR 1313. Farm road is on the
Sri ht off SR 1313.
Mailing Address: P.O. &arc 359
Rose Hill, NC 28458
Typa of Operation: 'Swine ,"x Poultry _ Cie
f'.
Design Capacity: 260.0 vean-feed: Number of Animals on Site.. 2600 wean -feeder
Latitude: c 6Longitude: -o
Type of Inspcction: Ground X Aerial
• Circle Yes of No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour stone event
(approximately l Foot + 7 inches) G or No Actual Frxboard: 6 Fees 0 Inches
For facilities with more than one Lagoon, please address the other lagoons' freeboard under the
Comments section.
Was any seepage observed from the lWoa(s)? Yes or( i�c Was there erosion of the dam?: Yes or(s)
Is adequate Iand available for land application? G or No Is the cover Crop adequate? I& or No
. Additional Comments:
Fax to [phone] Signature of Agent

•
Site Requires Immediate Attention:
.Facility No.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
Farm Name/Owns
Mailing Address:
County:
Integrator: UN
On Site Representative:
Physical Address/Location:
DATE: — , 1995
r
Time:,
r
Phone:
Phone:(y to ) l_8-�
s1 171, t�
Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: Number of Animals on Site: D -
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: ?' ' 37 ' 2_" Longitude:7 7 Elevation: Feet
Circle Yes or No -
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) '.A or No Actual Freeboard: "?—Ft. Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes Was any erosion observed? & c2No
Is adequate Iand available for spray? (YQ or No Is the cover crop adequate? Yes or No
Crop(s) Tieing utilized:
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings?(]6;�or No
100 Feet from Wells? �Gor No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes orb
Is animal waste Iand applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line? Yes o 1�T
Is animal waste discharged into )ya rs of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? * 00 - If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management reco ds (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreaw with cover crop) Yes or No
Additional Comments: ( c -
Inspector Name
Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.

Site Requires Immediate Attention
Facility Nor.
—1L---K—
SrM VISITATION RECORD
DATE: _July 20
Owner. Y_2b xardison, III FarmName: Jennz #2
County: , Pender _ Agent Visiting Visiting Site: Kenneth Cook Pender. SWC Phone; 9
Operator: ,John Hargk n, III Phone: [phone]
On Site Represeatw ive: Phone:
Physical Address: .2-9,miles north of watha on SR 1313. Farm road is on the right
Mailing Address: _. P U Box
Rose Hill, NC 28458
Type of Operation: Swine X , Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: 2600 wean -teed Number of Animals on Site: 2600 wean -Feeder
Latitude: a Longitude: o "
Type of inspection: Ground x Aerial
is Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately I Foot + 7 inches) e or No Actual Freeboard: 4 Feet. 0 Inches
For facilities with more than one lagooa, please address the other lagoons' freeboard under the
comments section.
Was any seepap observed from the_14gaon(s)? Yes ono Was there erosion of the dam.?: Yes or�
Is adequate laud available for land application? or No Is the cover cmn adecuate? 1��_ or No
Additional Comments:
Fax to [phone] Signature of Agent