030001_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Division of Water Resourc :l
Facility Number O Division of Soil and Water�servation
0 Other Agency
a of Visit: Compliance Inspection O Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
on for Visit: *, Routine 0 Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: (ADO Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: (tom �"� (t K Caoux i (( �4_r►n Owner Email: A eLro r144�p� i i 1 -7 �P 4 M4 j
Owner Name: Phone: N 3so! 37 a $
Mailing Address: 3O S ( � aly to i i Kai , s�0.:� k + N G % S -- - --
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 1)O11,` 1A ©r A&-r-p try
Onsite Representative: 'Loxi j Aax d✓ti —
Certified Operator: Zl &1 td
Back-up Operator: 4Ck-ro n -,7, c)D 5 3
c)6 : ] 31o3 - Y3s 1
Integrator:
Certification Number: by
I�-�3r'aOfy
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: NO 0 33 �Ci ! Longitude: 15 1 (O �✓ ��
d
U5 ',[a[ 1V, _-�� >�, as}FwY a� +�l, t�VV I S,, R tiny 43 �ii"trm�tr5
- Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -Layer
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Dischar1jes and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation`?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
�Q `
Beef Brood Cow
I5-1�)✓0,� Jj&W131*0
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Aere evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes •ErNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facilit • Number: - Date of Inspection: 7
Waste Collection & Treatment 10
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
• Structure 1Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: �Q�7{� pDrxj
Spillway?: Lv
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
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 which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes
Structure 5
iNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
0 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes r"7-1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures
require ❑ Yes ZNo
[] NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes ,krNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
10 there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground
❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift
❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13, Soil Type(s):
*14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? P� Yes ❑ No ❑ 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 ❑ Yes ❑ No N NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21 oes record keeping neer'provement'? Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Applicat' n eekly Freeboard Waste Analysis 'Soil Analysis ❑ Weather Code
infall Stocking Crop Yield s Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No ER -NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facilit Number: - Date of Inspection: ,$ —7
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste app -ication equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No
the appropriate box(es) below.
WFailure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
❑ NA ❑ NE
JNJINA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes 4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes [N'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes 0� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes OdNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
C] Yes gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31 _ Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
, ,[
❑ Yes )J No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
!ll���
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-cotitpliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes eNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes jSno ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
UdWrawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
7.7
5 Si-i I I i n P roq r-e",�need p�rY7 a �� c(o5cjre_ a l�h w"e-t/dr`y S �c-tL- i 5' bu c (')trP witit be. ? ioo e-6-tIe_ ov Lo i- 1-0
te5 (5 7 � -Q-� - �� ✓�''`� c?-�'`�`P �,°��-Hir-c,Od 1-,
d �I a b! (o c i 1 b ra�-� j vr1 7 Ca I rY d- C t_ 9 0 00 , 6 66nt 'I 3 r� Q • ? '� 9
o�
3. w up * b e- t-e. V i 5 ej q- tip d a-+e d 0.� e r S t�- i 5 e 0 )/1 54'Y-- u (:,-+ ed
&A4
U-
C�
A �, V
� .. � ace
J1.'Ju-p .— " f!j D
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
c Page 3 of 1 )
Phone: j 1 , 776 , R tp 9
Date: 5_ d -7
21412615
�. 4

Division of Water Resource.
Facility Number ®- 0 Division of Soil and Water bervation J A M
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine O Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: �jp►rrival Time: Departure Time: County: ��y/ Region: �S�Q
Farm Name: n( �j j f �� j i (� F[±r-nn — _ Owner Email: 7
Owner Name: I ]n V } [�Cl.rl0..lt�t i — — Phone: 14 1 33 n . 3 7 Z , sZ$ 1 i
Mailing Address: �d� (1<[] L �,�—F-� • �L~'"C� , �} pZ �7 7�
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: [k.4' 1�10d— +0S Integrator:
Certified Operator: Q_.LD�f �ii l l 7 Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Far Latitude: Longitude:
U.S 1 �'-77 US HVj Z1 J L Wy 7-2-y wr� 93 F4a`
F i6h ,cn �� l `onA,u.�n
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
L
ayer
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharaes and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge'? �^
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Q
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facilit 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
XIdentifier:
`spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
"6
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes UNo ❑ 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 P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application'? if yes. check the appropriate box below. Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals ( u, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): (, V rn S t [ Q,a(2i tQJ
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
ANo
[�NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
1`-'' No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the 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 ❑ Lease Agreements
21 es record keeping need ' provement?+
aste Applic ion Weeklv Freeboard Waste Analys
Rainfall [Stocking 0 Crop Yield l20 Minute Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes Nr<o
❑ Yes P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
10 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Soil Analysis Weather Code
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment`? ❑ Yes TT] No
Page 2 of 3
❑ Other._
❑ Yes
❑NA ❑NE
NeGA ❑ NE
21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - S Date of Ins eetion: ,0
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No �A ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No �YNA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes 1XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XNo [] NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes [�rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use dr •ing facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
3 5, 7 A-5 )-013+ -7/X-7f 1 te i In5Pe As ons,` e. '�n4 bw O Fy�'Sh
-+r vuCis (>roe.v,�4e4, Flo�t.�._5 -"r6 v, r-ov SP�-1n h
5o L=w1 we--�+ cAmec ©� k,'JC4'*+e' sir lX+U e-lP a T i ' l0L.0 OD b's cx,�al
-7 b l,�_ +o 4 (xy — w 25 tz I ,L %j ej 6L. o v e 5 Q n'
.19 �te , � �- p rn I-k on 7
porm-1 t - AV_V_ r WSP I�AL'svre 4Avxe_
r
9dito 15oi1 4-e 5 d .7 Ndf �e;t (IioC+ vise
CaIi b I-CR {10►7 0- 0�;r 16 7 Noe-F. '(,a1�;M�+CZ`��, �bo�i►��'�)ijC
3 1,� u P v cL&+J +b vv�&Je -\ '�Mc� o [Y�G� i . � N 5E l e}}
M64jcv' a�,8 uJ , 5
' T - `f c F - A rn rya F-� l owl �s-� l ac t s ?
-t' l t _ C J
li o V\t o -7- S 46 F - Z { �-� -� , L0 D-5 1
LOOP, j(PI tV26' LC;'0_'5 0-1pphe-4- -T-4,J() jRAr1(Aj6(A1-)
Revi ewerA nspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
_ 6D ,, 4_ _ _ .tco vA0(: 1 11 a t
M ssc . roses IroC.IL�
"r, 1al
Phone: !2,) 1�0J� 1�
Date: 1 Z��Z b �p
21412015

7
■ Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil'and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number: 030001 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC030001
Denied Access
Inpsection Type: Structure Evaluation Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Follow-up County: Alleghany Region:
Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 07127/2016 Entry Time: 12:30 pm Exit Time: 12:50 pm Incident ft
Farm Name: Gambill & Gambill Farm Owner Email:
[e-mail]
Owner: David T Gambill Phone:
336-372-2819
Mailing Address: 305 Gambill Rd Sparta NC 28675
Physical Address: 145 Gambillyd Sparta NC 28675
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36° 33' 20" Longitude:
81' 10' 34"
From Sparta take 21 N to 221 S, then take 93N to Elk Creek Church. Turn right on Farmers Fish Camp Road. Go about 2 112 miles.
Turn right at Gambill Dairy sign.
Question Areas:
0 Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Certified Operator: David T Gambill Operator Certification Number:
22600
Secondary OIC(S)"
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name David Gambill Phone:
On -site representative David Gambill Phone:
Primary Inspector: el Ro ebro Phone:
�-7 o2016
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
5. & 7. Today's visit was to document the progress towards closing the existing waste storage structure. Beef cattle are on pasture
while closure is progressing. The waste level is at least five feet below the top of the dam today.
The inflow of fresh water on the southwest comer of the waste structure from an underground spring into the waste structure was
observed to be 0.5 - 1.0 gallon per minute today. See file photos. The inflow of fresh gound water into the waste structure was first
obeserved by DWR staff in 2013. Mr. Gambill has a closure plan and is in the process of removing and land applying the waste at
this time. The new dry stack is to be constructed in the same general area as the existing waste structure and the spring water
diverted around the new concrete walls. The entire concrete lot is to then be covered/roofed according to Mr. Gambill who is
receiving financial assistance for the closure of the existing structure and for construction of the new dry stack.
assisted Mr. Gambill with the requirements of the DWR closure report form and obtained photos of the freshwater flow into the
existing waste structure.
page: 1

*• 0
Permit: AWC030001 Owner -Facility: David T Gambill Facility Number: 030001
Inspection Date: 07/27/16 Inpsection Type: Structure Evaluation Reason for Visit: Fallow -up
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current promotions
Cattle
Cattle -Beef Feeder 200 0
.� Total Design Capacity: 200
Total SSLW: 160,000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Waste Pond WASTE POND 60.00
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑ ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? 6
❑ ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
MEI
❑
maintenance or improvement?
page: 2

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number:
030001 Facility Status:
tnpsection Type:
Structure Evaluation
Reason for Visit
Emergency
Date of Visit:
10/05/2015 Entry Time: 10:50 am
Farm Name:
Gambill & Gambill Farm
Owner:
�Cla+(idwl Gambill,'
Mailing Address:?:GambiilrRd,f:.
Physical Address:
145 Gambillyd
Facility Status:
■
Active Permit: AWC030001; ! Denied Access
Inactive Or Closed Date:
County: Alleghany Region: Winston-Salem
Exit Time: 11:45 am Incident #
Owner Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
�5parta'PNC28675:�;sL
Sparta NC 28675
❑ Compliant Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36' 33' 20" Longitude: 81° 10' 34"
From Sparta take 21 N to 221 S, then take 93N to Elk Creek Church. Turn right on Farmers Fish Camp Road. Go about 2 112 miles.
Turn right at Gambill Dairy sign.
Question Areas:
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Certified Operator: David T Gambill Operator Certification Number: 22600
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name David Gambill Phone
On -site representative David Gambill Phone
Primary Inspector: M a oseb o
Inspector Signature:
Secondary InspecNr(s):
Phone: [phone] W 96" 1
Date: 0 2 u s—
Inspection Summary:
Farm has had 15-16 inches of rain since September 20, 2015. Waste level was 24 inches below maximum liquid level on
September 20, 2015. Waste level rose above maximum liquid level on October 1, 2015. He reported high freeboard on October 2,
2015 and overflow on -October 3, 2015. Discharge was not reaching surface waters today.
page: i

Permit: AWC030001 Owner - Facility : David T Gambill Facility Number: 030001
Inspection Date- 10/05/15 Inppection Type: Structure Evaluation Reason for Visit: Emergency
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Waste Pond WASTE POND 0.00
Waste Collection, Storage & 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 (I.eJ large
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
S. 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?
& 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 No
❑ M ❑ ❑
❑■❑❑
❑ MEJ ❑
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
page: 2

0 0
Rosebrock, Melissa
From:
Mitchell, Patrick
Sent:
Saturday, October 03, 2015 1:11 PM
To:
Basinger, Corey; Knight, Sherri
Cc:
Rosebrock, Melissa
Subject:
RE: Myers Dairy
I have attempted to contact all the farms I had that were at or above the max level in their waste structures.
Below is a summary of the updates at this point.
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
Eagle Falls Swine Farm: approx 6 inches to spillway overflow.
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
s Davi&Gambit Beef Farm: he had not checked the structure when I spoke to him. He is checking and will call
me back. He indicated they had over 3 inches of rain and it likely is overflowing now.
Edwin Joines Dairy Farm: they have transferred waste to Greg Gambit Farm and now have approx 6 inches of
freeboard.
Allen Joines Dairy Farm: approx. 5 inches to spillway overflow.
Mike Atwood Beef Farm: indicated nearly full but no overflow. He will be checking and contact me if
overflow occurs.
Chase Smith Dairy Farm: over 1 foot to spillway overflow.
WILKES COUNTY
Zach Myers Dairy Farm: left voice mail message... have not received call back yet. I will continue to contact
hire.
YADKIN COUNTY
Cole-gaige Dairy Farm: below max level on marker.
Patrick L. Mitchell, REHS, LSS
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
NC DENR-DWR
CELL: [phone]
OFFICE: [phone]
Sent from Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: "Basinger, Corey"
Date:10/03/2015 12:20 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Knight, Sherri", "Mitchell, Patrick"
Subject: Myers Dairy

To follow up on my text message earlier, please let Sarah and Jay know what's going on with Myers Dairy as soon as you
have additional information.
If necessary, please notify PWS if there is an overflow reaching surface waters.
Thanks,
CB
W. Corey Basinger
Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Resources
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.

+' 4 Division of Water Quality -
Facility Number r33 - O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency 11
(Type of Visit: pliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance 1
Reason for Visit: rRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access I
Date of Visit:
'-7
Arrival
Departure Time: County: Al
Farm Name:
&CV^6116)i
__i�%rnel"k 1 l FA_j
I
Owner Email:
Owner Name: DnJ
(rlm6, 11
Phone:
�'� 377- — Z$f
Mailing Address: ,30.E
.,�11 I I FU. , .
S,pa�r-
I� L
Region: `J F,0
Physical Address: 1( I I
ty a'. Gs,.,rn, i tt 1
Facility Contact: � I Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Integrator: —r
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude: 36 ! 33 2 Longitude: g i 9 1,9 /'3Ll
Rk) Zl ., L Rw) - ,/ --� Ow93 11.1 r f, i-�!t t �d� > - 01 kJ.
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
[Layer
Non -La er
Design Current
Dry Poultry Canacitv POD.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
urke Poults
Hc
ther
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other_
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
12 0
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes ;�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: ,j - 4y jDate 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: W'ff
Spillway?:-S
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 26
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
J0
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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10, Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
5
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application
Outside of Approved
Area
12. Crop Type(s):,�G,,t
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
4-
❑ 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
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
V0
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Yes
[:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard OWaste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
Ej W ste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield []Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
0 No
NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412011 Continued

Facility Number: 3 - 13 Date of Inspection: o
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes No
NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes 9No
NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes No
0
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field 0 Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
9 Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
2!, Sa�lfQIAi yA" �s "Xx J['e e,nI
Z �ti� j� CRi,�lai�`b� rf �cx� �c b Quo6�G+r 2h16.
32, w R f W.d-f = 1,k �p��ic F&A r Crc�pJ �C�� sf6_11'1 f 76APAS! ✓
p r j�, �; ,� - I�j C' f1 A 'k%f; 1 lit . hli! N�[i � l � 3 ,
Mif/� - f; a WGs�e o�+ s s+�� 2d �� c� �c; t�,r. e� ed4 roc `l� E.�e kAySts
w; ev", L d �CIJ �- Vnb-t'C' o �
>J � � s ti a ��a� x � ,1, Ael 2o1 ��'�,•, - R� l�sleo . - .
Zo)q= 0,5,3�w
Reviewer/Inspector Name: pG( Ri� �� } l Pho
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: " Date: 02 2-0
Page 3 of 3 21412011

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number ©- 0 Division of Soil and Water L u servation
i3 � i � +✓r
0 Other Agency
type of Visit: qompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: JyRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Fallow -up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: "J Arrival Time: r AC {,, Departure Time: Z; i County: t Region: W6 f Q
Farm Name:T o tot 4- &- M));ff it 1-1ar"M Owner Email:
I ``__
Owner Name: D add (�'kM L + I � Phone: (14) r Z ' 2 F/..�,,,
Mailing Address: 3 a.s G a"A V; l 1 Q G 2x& 7 J
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: D a.y , Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Phone: C4, '3 (,3
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34, .3 �2-0 rl Longitude:
1- w� 2i •� L l-"J� 14, `�' 3 A � K ��� � 11 9J.1 K C 1L. I //
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Nan -La er
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
-2-DO
/ s
Beef Brood Cow
Discharges and StreamImpacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
x No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

'41 Facility Number: 0-3 - 00 Aw,
1 jDate of Inspection: 3t
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? 0 Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? 0 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ose
Spillway?: 7 G5'
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): Z2
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not property addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
r
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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes( No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? T C
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
0' Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
D. PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes �2No
❑ 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
❑ Yes ❑ No
NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes XNo ❑NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑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 ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall [] Stocking D Crop Yield ❑ Monthly and 1 " Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ONE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:]Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: 3 - 01 jDate of Inspection: 3
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No 1W NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document [] Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal? X
���"""CCC29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
X Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the [] Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application) 0
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
KYes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field N Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
Yes ❑ No
��❑
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments. I
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
�I r hJAJ4 Cff, of t.?d 646-1f -®'&/ck1 , 6aad 0,ow by 4ck ! 2Z r
Z , Kd )/kct � t 1�`t� r GfvP s . j' � I� S�G 1"C
s 2a1Y �, s316n1
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature
Page 3 of 3
Phone: S% ` % ZZ -j Z�S
Date: 71 _?I Zzo C
21412011

j; . ,
Pat McCrory
Governor
Mr. David Gambill
305 Gambill Rd
Sparta NC 28675
C4,A
. 0
NCDEINR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natura
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations
Thomas A. Reeder
Director
Subject Property: Cattle Farm at 305 Gambill Rd, Alleghany County
Dear Mr. Gambill:
Resources
John E. Skvarla, III
Secretary
April 2, 2014
On March 28, 2014, in your attendance, I conducted an on -site meeting to determine if a stream was present
in the area you are considering for a future waste storage structure on the referenced property. Linda Hash ,
SWCD and David Tucker, NRCS and Patrick Mitchell with the Division of Water Resources (DWR) were present
during the site visit.
During my site visit I determined that there was a perennial stream below the existing waste storage pond as
approximately shown on the attached map. The stream begins at the outlet of an existing pipe carrying
clean water under/around the existing barn and waste storage structure. I also noted that there are
wetlands in an area upslope of the existing barn which feed into this pipe.
This letter should not be considered a complete determination of streams and wetlands on this property.
Please note that at the time of this letter, all intermittent and perennial stream channels and jurisdictional
wetlands are subject to the Clean Water Act and other state regulations.
The owner (or future owners) should notify the DWR (and other relevant agencies) of this decision in any
future correspondences concerning this property. This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from
the date of this letter.
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Location: 585 Waughtown St. Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27107
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.newatergttahty.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
Ntmally
ehCarolina

David Gambill
Gambill Cattle Farm
April 2, 2014
Page 2of2
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWR or Delegated Local Authority
that a surface water exists and that it is subject to the buffer rule may request a determination by the
Director. A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o Cyndi
Karoly, DWR, 401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit, 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250, Raleigh, NC
27604-2260. Individuals that dispute a determination by the DWR or Delegated Local Authority that
"exempts" surface water from the buffer rule may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60
days of the date that you receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal
time does not start until the affected party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of
this decision. DWR recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third
party appeals are made in a timely manner. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to
Chapter 150E of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing
within 60 days.
This letter only addresses the applicability to the mitigation rules and the buffer rules and does not approve
any activity within Waters of the United States or Waters of the State or their associated buffers. If you have
any additional questions or require additional information please contact me at 336-771-4964 or
sue. homewood @ncdenr.gov
Sincerely,
Sue Homewood
DWR Winston-Salem Regional Office
Enclosures: Aerial of Property
cc: Linda Hash, Alleghany SWCD (via email)
David Tucker, Ashe NRCS (via email)
Christine Lawson- Animal Feeding Operations Branch/Division of Water Resources (via email)
DWR, Winston-Salem Regional Office

R
.. I
j
c'
`: i
�h
�'
� .4 �
S
r`
� ,�
�,
r

• •
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 030001 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC030001 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: EmerQency County: Alleohanv Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 02/20/2014 Entry Time: 01:30 PM Exit Time: 02;15 PM _ Incident #:
Farm Name: Gambill & QQQiUiill Farm _ _ ._. _ Owner Email:
Owner: David T Gambill Phone: -
Mailing Address: 305 Gambill Rd, ySUarta NC 28675
Physical Address: 145 Gambillyd Sparta NC 28675
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant E Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36*33'20" Longitude: 81°10'34"
From Sparta take 21N to 221S, then take 93N to Elk Creek Church, Turn right on Farmers Fish Camp Road. Go about 2 1/2 miles.
Turn right at Gambill Dairy sign.
Question Areas:
0 Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Other Issues
Certified Operator: David T Gambill Operator Certification Number: 22600
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name David Gambill Phone:
On -site representative David Gambill Phone:
Primary Inspector: Patrick Mitchell
Inspector Signature: 'I --
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone: �I
Date: : 11
Page: 1

•
•
Permit: AWC030001 Owner - Facility: David T Gambill Facility Number: 030001
Inspection Date: 02/20/2014 Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation Reason for Visit: Emergency
Inspection Summary:
On February 19, 2014 at 5:00 prn the OICIPermittee (David Gambill) for the subject facility notified the WSRO via a voicemail
message that the waste pond serving the subject facility was "leaking over the spillway and some waste had reached the creek."
On February 20, 2014 WSRO staff person Patrick Mitchell responded to the above notification. At the time of the site visit the waste
level in the waste pond was above the maximum level mark, and waste was observed to be actively overflowing the spillway of the
structure. Waste was exiting the spillway from two areas; with one portion of the discharge flowing into a culvert and the second
flowing down the spillway itself. Waste was estimated to be flowing out of the waste pond at a rate of approximately one gallon per
minute at the time of the site visit. Waste was observed to be actively discharging into an unnamed tributary to the New River.
NOTES 1 OBSERVATIONS:
- There was a visible impact and strong odor present at the point of discharge into the surface water; minor observable impact and no
odor detected approximately five feet downstream of the discharge point; and no visible impact or odor present beyond that.
- At the time of the site visit the facility reported 83 head of cattle being stocked on the lot which is served by the waste pond.
- At the time of the site visit observed land application fields were found to be unsuitable for land application (i.e. saturated and
partially snow covered).
- The most recent land application event occurred reportedly in October 2013. The waste pond was reportedly "emptied" at that time
(i.e. >6 ft. of freeboard present); WSRO staff observed there to be approximately 42 inches of freeboard on November 5, 2013 during
the most recent routine compliance inspection.
The WSRO was notified by the facility of the waste reaching and exceeding the max freeboard level at the time of occurrence, as
required by the permit. WSRO staff believes that weather, land application field conditions, and a freshwater spring observed to be
flowing into the structure on November 5, 2013 during a routine compliance inspection, did contribute to the excessively high waste
levels in the waste pond.
Mr. Gambill is to update WSRO on waste levels and any continued discharges. Mr. Gambill plans to closely monitor the weather and
site conditions, and to land apply waste as conditions allow.
*NCJ-ZoJ`-_Fc -c655-*
Page: 2

Permit: AWC030001 Owner - Facility: David T Gambill Facility Number: 030001
Inspection Date: 02I2012014 Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation Reason for Visit: Emergency
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Q Cattle - Beef Feeder 200 83
Total Design Capacity: 200
Total SSLW: 160,000
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
aste Pond WASTE POND 00
Page: 3

Permit: AWC030001 Owner - Facility: David T Gambill Facility Number: 030001
Inspection pate: 02/20/2014 Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation Reason for Visit: Emergency
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ■ D D D
Discharge originated at
Structure ■
Application Field D
Other D
a. Was conveyance man-made? Q ■ ❑ D
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ■ D ❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)? unknown
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ■ D ❑ D
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ■ 0 D Cl
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than ■ D D D
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes No NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate? ■ D Cl ❑
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 D ■ ❑ D
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management D ■ D D
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ■ ❑ D D
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
D ■ D
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
D ■ D
D
improvement?
Other Issues Yes No NA
NE
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report
D D D
■
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional
D ■ D
❑
Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge,
D ■ ❑
D
freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? ❑ D D ■
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field D
Page: 4

I
Permit: AWC030001 Owner -Facility: David T Gambill
Inspection Date: 02I2012014 Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation
Other Issues
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
Other
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 030001 -
Reason for Visit: Emergency
Yes No NA NE
n
0 0C 0
■ Q 0
■,QQ1)
Page: 5

i
�.Division of Water Quality
`Fidlity'Number C - D Division.of Soil and Water C".. ation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: A
Compliance Inspection U Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: _Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1 Df !3 Arrival Time: ; 30q Departure Time: 1 F,, County: A IeAk"%4 Region: W,SP D
Farm Name: 10 ` V, 6,1'.�; �� rsQ/YY� Owner Email:
Owner Name: PW 6a"I bil Phone: [,H' 372 — Z F 11
Mailing Address: 30 57- G 4'�% b j 1 R �' S 17a r .4. t� G 7
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: G�,.Vjl 0�s4rg b i !J 1 Title: Phone': (r_)
Onsite Representative: Integrator: 1
Certified Operator: Certification Number: ,, 1 2— 3t 120/.3
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Certification Number:
el Latitude: 36 33 2— ri � Longitude:
Hwy 2-I �,, L � ;�� 22� 5,, 14ww 93 r!, R r'�f~f• FJ4 6,10 k4'1
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
. Other
Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
Non-L;
Pullets
Poults
Design Current
Discbarees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discbarge 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 the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Design Current'
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
2j10
0
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes I VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[—]Yes [::]No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: 63 - t7 I • jDate of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ 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: hjaj�_ Poo
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes X
No❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes )�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): 6.,or4 4-
13. Soil Type(s):
ikA
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the 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.
❑ Yes Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes [:]No
ONA
❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes fig:No
❑ Yes XNo
�] Yes XNo
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA 0 NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Trans ers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
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 ❑ No XNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Faci lity Number: j53 - Date of Inspection:0
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? XYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check C] Yes ❑ No ANA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
r] Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field �Lagoon/Storage
Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes 9
No
[::]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
PM
jX No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes teNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
ru�� n .,� ��x� A")'xri&&,4, "/.0
- 1 2
31,, rI R ipT�%IGj awj ^ ►+^e (nor fK dnr� �h `�
�6? j RVN1 cr -� �-�c t rl l c.J� Mill .
Y P � f %
n
' G0.
7/ 2-D13 = D. 71 l4 k,
Reviewer/Inspector Name: �q �; G J�' 1 W l,�t,� Phone: (336) 7) j �S
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �,� Date: 05 201
Page 3 of 3 21412011

Division of Water Quality •
�[ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 030001 _ Facility Status: Active Permit: AW 0 00 1 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: �trVcture Evaluation Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Follow-up _ County: lllleghanv Region: Winton -Salem
Date of Visit: 07/26/2013 Entry Time: 01:00 PM T Exit Time: 2:3Q 0 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Gambill & Gambill Farm _ Owner Email:
Owner: David T Gambill Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 305 Gambill Rd . Sparta NO 2,,S675
Physical Address: 145 Gambillyd Sparta NC 28675
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant 0 Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 36"33'20" Longitude: 81°10'34"
From Sparta take 21 N to 221 S, then take 93N to Elk Creek Church. Turn right on Farmers Fish Camp Road, Go about 2 112 miles.
Turn right at Gambill Dairy sign.
Question Areas:
W Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Other Issues
Certified Operator: David T Gambill Operator Certification Number: 22600
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name David Gambill Phone:
On -site representative David Gambill Phone:
Primary Inspector: Patrick Mitchell Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Melissa Rosebrock Phone:
Inspection Summary:
On July 26, 2013 WSRO APS staff along with Soil & Water and NRCS staffs visited the subject facility to review the waste storage
structure and potential corrective actions to maintain adequate freeboard including the potential for converting the facility into a dry
manure storage structure. The waste level in the structure was still slightly over the max level.
On July 29, 2013 the Permittee contact WSRO staff to report 3.75 inches of rainfall over the weekend... reported "The waste pond is
full, but not running over spillway yet.
Page: 1

I
Permit: AWC030001 Owner - Facility: David T Gambill Facility Number : 030001
Inspection Date: 07/26/2013 Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
aste Pond WASTE POND 00
Page: 2

r � �
Permit: AWC030001 Owner -Facility: David T Gambill Facility Number : 030001
Inspection Date: 07/26/2013 Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
■
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
■
❑
❑
0
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than
■
❑
❑
❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
■
n
❑
❑
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?
nay..... �,..,......
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report 0 ❑ ❑ ■
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Air Quality representative immediately.
30, Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge, n ■ rl ❑
freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWC030001 Owner - Facility: David T Gambill
Inspection Date: 07/26/2013 Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation
FacilityNumber : 030001
Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Other Issues
Yes No
NA
NE
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
n ■
❑
n
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
o ■
n
n
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
■ ❑
❑
❑
Page: 4

Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency l--I
Facility Number : 030001 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC030001 Denied Access
Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Emergency County: Alleohany Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 07/03/2013 Entry Time: 10:30 AM Exit Time: 12:00 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Gambill & Gambill Farm Owner Email:
Owner: David T Gambill
Mailing Address: 305 Gambill Rd - Sparta NC 28675
Physical Address: 145 Gambillyd
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant N Not Compliant Integrator:
Sparta NC 28675
Phone: [phone]
Location of Farm: Latitude: 56°33'20" Longitude: 81°10'34"
From Sparta take 21N to 221S, then take 93N to Elk Creek Church. Turn right on Farmers Fish Camp Road. Go about 2 112 miles.
Turn right at Gambill Dairy sign.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Other Issues
Certified Operator: David T Gambill Operator Certification Number: 22600
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name David Gambill Phone:
On -site representative David Gambill Phone:
Primary Inspector: Patrick Mitchell
Inspector Signature: _—
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Date: ZO 13
Page: 1

Permit: AWC030001 Owner - Facility: David T Gambill Facility Number : 030001
Inspection Date: 07/03/2013 Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation Reason for Visit: Emergency
Inspection Summary:
An announced site visit to Gambill & Gambill Farm (03-01) was conducted on July 3, 2013. The purpose of the visit was to review the
waste pond freeboard level. The waste level observed in the waste pond was above the max liquid level mark and estimated to be
approximately 4.5" from overflowing the spillway. There was no notification of exceeding the max level made by the facility, even when
DWQ called to notify the Permittee/ORC that a site visit may be conducted on July 3, 2013.
During the site visit loading and hauling of waste from the waste pond was observed. A subsequent inspection of the land application
site was conducted. Waste was observed being offloaded into the head of a drainageway. The waste flowed downslope greater than
200 yards where it exited the land application field. No waste was observed entering surface waters at the time of inspection. The land
application field was found to be saturated and ponded with water from recent rainfall. The land app. vehicle operator indicated that
they had applied 10 loads that morning to this land app. field_
Upon discovering the unsuitable site conditions and the improper land application, DWQ requested the operator of the application
vehicle to stop land application. DWQ then contacted Mr. David Gambill to discuss. Mr. Gambill was instructed to closely monitoring
the weather & land app. site conditions and to PROPERLY land apply when conditions allow. DWQ also discussed the failure to notify
the RO when the max level was reached. DWQ requested to be updated on freeboard levels until back into compliance.
On 7/05/2013 Mr. David Gambill notified DWQ via phone call that the waste had overflowed the spillway and discharged into the
creek. Mr. Gambill is to update DWQ on waste levels and any continued discharges. Mr. Gambill plans to closely monitor the weather
and site conditions and to land apply waste as condition allow.
Page: 2

•
•
Permit: AWC030001 owrur _ Faellity: David T Gemoill
Inspection Date: 0710312013 inspection Typer Structure Evaluellon
Facility Number : 030001
R.asonfor Vl.k; Emergency
1Haslo Structures
D..Vgnetl oheerved
Type Identifier Closed Oat. Start Data Freeboard Freeb—d
sale Pond WASTE POND 0
Page: 3
Permit: AWC030MI G.—- Facility: David T Gembe
Facility Number; 030001
Inspection Date: 071032010 Inspeeioo Type: Stnictum Eyalualen
Reason for Visit: Emegency
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Msrharge originated at
Structure
■
Application FWd
■
Other
❑
a, Was conveyance man-made?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, natity OWQ)
0 ■ ❑ ❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the Stale (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
2. 1s there evidence Of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
from a discharge?
Wasto Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yea No NA NE
4. Is storage capacity {ass than adequals?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
11 yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
■
5. Are Sham any immediate threats to the integrity of any of [be s"ctures observed (I,el large trees, severe ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
erasion, seepage, etc.)?
fi. Are there structures on -site that are not property addressed andfor managed through a waste management ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
w closure plain?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
R. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permrt? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
dry stacks andlor wet stacks)
9. Does any pan of the waste management system ether than the waste structures require maintenance or
ONO ❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yea No NA HE
10. Are there any required buffers. setbacks, or compliance atternatives that need maintenance or
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
11 yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
■
Hydraulic Overload?
■
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu. Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC030001 Owner - FeGiity: David T Gambill Facility Number ,- 030001
Inspection Date: 071032013 Imi,i ton Type: Shun,, Evaluebon Reasan tar Visa: Emergency
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 11
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare sal?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
IN
Drop Type 1
Fescue (Hey. Peelu m)
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fad to secure and/or operate per the irigaton design or "liable acre determination?
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
17. Does the fadlity Fade adequale acreage Wr lard application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack Of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Other Issues
Yee No NA Ne
28. Did the facility fail to property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours area; document and report
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
nhorta}iry rates that excoed normal rates?
29. Al the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality conr,arn? If yes, contact a regional
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Air Quality representative immediately,
30. Did the facility lad to notify regional (YWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? 10 . discharge,
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
freeti problems, over -application(
Page: 5
Permit: AWC030001 owner - Facility: David T Gambill
inapecllon Date: 07/032013 Inspection Type; Strucb,re Evalualxm
Facility Number; 030001
Reasan for Vism: Emergency
Other lssues
Yet No NA NE
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑ ❑ ❑ in
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon I Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
if Other, please specify
32, Were any additional problems noted which cause non-wrnpfiance of the Permit Or CAVVi.
❑ In ❑ ❑
33, Uid the Reviewerrmpector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on-sile representative?
00130
34, Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
•
•
7

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number 0 Division of Soil and Water Co rvation
- 0 Other Agency - _ /,7
(Type of Visit: Apliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: % l Arrival Time: .{)h Departure Time: D. County: j Region: S,JS R
Farm Name: 6AM b,'r✓` 4- 64,4 A,// /a i^M Owner Email:
Owner Name: D 0.Vij Phone: (tt) 372-- 2411
Mailing Address: (7 q .KYj r A. of o C 2` L
Physical Address: _ S0.v►�
Facility Contact: D o,-V: �,cL.vl r✓ Title: Phone: _57
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Lf "I
3 � 3 3 / Z1:3 / Longitude: �� C 0 / •�
K`7 zr n��, ���y zzi Se, .c Hw93 PJ,, F PJ,, R
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -La er
Non-L,
Pullets
Poults
Design Current
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dai Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
2 a0
2-
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
[:]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ,� No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

e
Facili Number: 3 - C) • Date of Inspection: 7 7
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes �No
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 1 Structure 2
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
B
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan? 9
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 XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks) /�
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ YesXNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes � o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? /�
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus , ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): G c r r S C&—
S NF 1
13. Soil Type(s):
❑ NE
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
Yes [:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes ❑ No
NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes J�fNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes )EI"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes kNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement.
Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[� Waste Application Q Weekly Freeboard aste Analysis Soil AnalysisEa
aste Transfers
Bather Code
Rainfall [ SFocking Cro Yield [ f2_0 Minute Inspections armonthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes ANo
0 NA
❑ NE
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
[:]Yes []No
WNA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412011 Continued

• Facility Number: 6 3 - d 1= jDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes XNo DNA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No WNA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. J
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal? XNo
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or -air quality concern? ❑ Yes ❑NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
WYes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes M"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes �K'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments. I
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
4-6 wuP
Z 3-1,,,�q�re,
Z '1r,, Ifevrkr c 76 lL ` I eu�, 1
1�rz✓f;
2 �f o� ��C ! et✓� l .
z
c
2oPZ �6'� y,"�%`�
1,, A A- M L, {J�3
z /o -11 W17-
Reviewer/Inspector Name: �; rrl�K, Al /" z ( Phone:
ReviewerlInspector Signature: � �� Date: Z 21 2--
Page 3 of 3 21412011

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number -9 Division of Soil and Water tervation �� PM
0 Other Agency -
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: k� Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: I �1�� I_I1 I Arrival Time: Departure Time: �oo� County: 2 g,nytegion:S R,Q
Farm Name: t0� �`}'L b i •I A b-AAL l 11 Owner Email: "` I
Owner Name: �o q �r� c� t]�.tv�_b ; u Phone: 3 -7oZ Z 3 i 9 ()
Mailing Address: 3 ��� C �D of 1 1 L..- gd �� rfi�k ?- Aj C. vi 6_ -7,
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Go (,1;NTitle:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone: 3 (p _3 4 3 5 (cj,
Integrator:
Uu
Certification umber: � 4-
e,e� (IQ) t;xt3l ao'L3
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36 33 c� Q Longitude: g l / Q
14-t�'j • a1 N . J N u5
r
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Other
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
D Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes 1y'Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ONE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Q j • Date of Inspection: -7
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):�
5. Are there any inunediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 14 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes d No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No DNA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? 7�
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, et #
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 tbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s): i
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? Yes ❑ No ❑ 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 ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
No
No
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? es 0 No
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check Yes ❑ No
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. oes record keeping need i provement? Ifpe eelaw
Yste Applicat' n eekly Freeboar Waste Analysis �ontl
ainfall m hocking Crop Yield 20 Min nspections J
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
Yes ❑ Nc
it Analysis Waste Transfers
ly and I" Rainfall Inspections
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
Page 2of3
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ONE
❑ NA ❑ NE
MNO'eeather Code
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection: 7
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No NA NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check [:] Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
[] Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28, Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? if yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes n(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
P<No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[] Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes b No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or ady other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
�-Mo_r �L'eA- S e,t ? � e 5 -H\&t\ I 's ,
1 • a a �� So^I j few ?
�
coV
-�-d wuP ? a c� c�-�� }
�01b e cUY, b ate% o- eaa L-- t 2
Y.
,M�_ I % i •
�91_ �w4e114- � wuP
/j�.�-
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature
Page 3 of /E-1) KWL
PA t)
Phone:
Date:
2/4/2
-?A-A-M *_ao,p] a-L, .

Facility Number 3 l
I
9 Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Connervation /
O Other Agency 1 �r
Type of Visit mpliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit C Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: i( t--` did b Arrival Time: JC) Departure Time: ounty: Q Region: (k)Si
Farm Name: °f` Owner Email:
Owner Name: Gj$-L (tl(�,j(�, (�T Phone: 372L— 02 qi ,1 'L�`"
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facilitv Contact: _ Title:.
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator. —
Back-up Operator:
Phone No: C)
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Sack -up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: o © ® Longitude: ICJ ° ®++
��}}�.� r -U/ So V'M d , y Q3 /t e rA.
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ 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
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation`?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population.
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non-Daity
❑ eef Stocker
eef Feeder
El Beef Brood Cowl
I
Numljer of Structures:
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'?
Page I of 3!
❑ Yes P�Vo ❑ NA FINE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: Q . 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
Structur 1 - S ructure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ��
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or i 0 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window El Evidence of Wind Drift ElApplication Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) V1 0 C'-PJ�, �i 1 Ah AJ
�- r
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
Yes
0 No
❑ 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
VNA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
b�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[Y No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Namevy Phone:
ReviewerlInspector Signatur�WLV�,a� _L l�3FT Date: Q 6
Page 2 of 3 v 4 V 12128104 " Continued

Facility Number: - 1017Inspection
Reauired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Doerecord keeping needimpp ovement? Yes ❑ No El NA El NE
u W'aste Applicat' n Ly 7CropYield
ly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil A lysis EKaste Transfers
Rainfall tocking19/124 Minute Inspectio nt ly and 1" Rain inspections reatherCode*
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
06
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[(NA
❑ 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?
t`] Yes
VN o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
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
YNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
5� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional i
_ a�
�• 1 �•
4 • �
r
� l
� i 1
f
Page 3 of 3 ��Q
0
121

[Facility Number l Q
Dnision of VI'ater Quah�ty ' �
O Division of Soil and Water'Conserv' ation. �' ,
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visitl `(�Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time:
+� Departure Time:I-IQ County: d1whCt Yl� Region:w..0
Farm Name: _ _ l_ N, LOCH, 1,� F0.rh') Owner Email: _
Owner Name: 1 � Phone: 3 -7 a " 2 / L 2dVll
C '+ ,�,�( �
Mailing Address: . � �4��� �� t �� 3�" ��Rttii1>l1i U ��rT�t, �C a�b7-�
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ON L �i "`++u �� i �1 Title:
Onsite Representative: (41,6 1.�
Certified Operator: _ - a I t t ror. .k I -
Phone No: 3 —1 �)
Integrator _i0 nP_P�EII �U aol0
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: L ° 0 ` ®" Longitude: MOMI
C . F ers fps h ..
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
J❑ Laver
i
�I ❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ 1 urkey Puults
❑ Other
Dischardes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design. Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non-DaiEZ
❑ Beef Stocker
eef 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 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 VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes VNo ❑ 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
_Strructure 1 {} Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: UV 06 TO
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes [ 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 XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ;(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) ,��,, f/
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require Yes L`{,lo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? /�`"'
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ElNE
ElExcessive Ponding ElHydraulic Overload ElFrozen Ground ElHeavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
XNo El NA
El NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[6No ❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
rr
No El NA
El NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
El''
Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
'VNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name OA— (` Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ' j A lI A, i j/ r Date:
1

0 •
Facility Humber. pi— Q Date of Inspection �T9
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 r rd keeping neeyim rovement w. ❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
to Applicat'on eekl freeboard Waste Analysis Soil An lysis s nn ton
Rainfall f_]�'Stocking Crop Yield ❑ Monthly and i" Rain Inspections Yweather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes X
No ❑ NA ElNE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No 9NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
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
❑ Yes X,No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
5NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ 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 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?
❑ Yes
No
Xj
❑ NA
❑ NE
ElYes
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[l No
//VNo
El NA
El NE
El Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
eNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
f
12128104

Facility Number LL
rvision of Water Qualit,
Division of Soil and Water
O Other Agency
nservation I d AM
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit s Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral Q Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: �IJD - Departure Time: County: Region ids R.D
Farm Name: 1 I �- (lo j�l.b,l tI F0._m Owner Email: Ili
Owner Name:
3 7 61)
� Cot Phone: � � a g
yo aaVl Ot
Mailing Address: Q C 6 S
Physical Address: Facility Contact: V l nc��hTitle: Phone No: (10
Onsite Representative: _ �QA/I Integrator:
® a a ( OCO
Certified Operator: U Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: M n ®' ® Longitude:
al N, i aal Sock %y q 3
—
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
_ ❑ La er
I❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
o2 3 Q
Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy_Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
3 vri qeAQ
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: U-1
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 *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
X Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 03 ` . Date of Inspection 0`
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:(OSIP
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
e integrity of any of the structures observed? 5. Are there any immedi to th
(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 XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes �Vo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes P(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental t reat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �(No ❑ NA ElNE
(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 El ElNA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Apolication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need El Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XNo ❑ 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)
r
13.
Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
0(Yes
❑ No
❑ 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
X NA
_❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
1°t' No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
X,
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
3 9 S ie_� ICACAI cede-?
" ,�•,�4--
AL
? e +0 + s �) e.d ?
ot.>
r ee4 -[a� ad � sm, l
q rai n C^ LOU P,
Reviewer/Inspector Name 5 t
S rock__ P one: --7 --5 2 8
Reviewer/Inspector Signature
Date: a 0
Page 2 of 3 ' L - 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Q — *Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19_
Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
)(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21.
Does record keepingimprovement'need .
❑ Yes
L10 xo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ Monthly and 1"
Rain Inspections
Weather
Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
El
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakkers o trrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
ElNo
VfNA
ElNE
24.
Did the facility fail to
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
calibrate waste application equipmA?9equidby i perMALI
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
�dNA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? Yes NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours a4or dopment ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal? ©U
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes YNo ❑ 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 OdNo ElNA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? El Yes
Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
Ad • •onal Comments and/or Drawings: 6trqZ, e_
a� • �jh'1a�� r n I% hog-��5 f
I N06,
oil' Frep_bcox-d Bch w _? `
1 �
U
r�Z B e-P opern ,)
11(odl n -- a003. .3000 q- 1200,
a ace -- `JaOCrrz.
,..
- o
1' _
- .�,Ap
Page 3 of 3
/ f,

Facility Number 1 03 H' 4 / 11
Division of Water Qualit3 j
Division of Soil and Water
O Other Agency
servation
Date of Visit: Arrivai Time: 0 ` eparture Time: 3�3�� y,^County: an �l Region:w 5 P 0
Farm Name: , 0/7 Owner Email: q
Owner Name: TOPhone: .3 _7a - ag 1 1
Mailing Address: C�O 02 U I (i OD la 1��f 1 ! � � � � s (Q [�y�r� I I I i2 , 5 �C.'t r T Q 1 toL �,�0 7S'
Physical Address: Facility Contact: .l T
oc\f I a (20L" [ ` Title:
Onsite Representative: A )a V i, 3 " ( )l
Certified Operator: _ Lay %a �JaAv V 4
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
integrator:
Operator Certification Number: C;?°�� oc-)
Q
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ®c 1�3 1 M " Longitude: ®O ® d
4w z I Ni . to i+w I �,) a I So ul� . HiA, � 9 3 m fa c. 11!
C h v rc.h - Pc� . o n is Far m ears P t 5 h C P J.
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Lavers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
1 2 30
Dairy Calf
❑ Dai Fleife,
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures:
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?
15b
(o 0-+- !v D 5-f6c s � A �:151 1,11111IN
❑ Yes ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ No
❑ Yes $4jo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 43 — O� . Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Pd
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: S'f r)
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'?
❑ Yes �No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes �No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?] Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) r
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes �4No ❑ NA ❑ NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [Yes El No El NA ❑ NE
El Excessive Ponding El Hydraulic Overload El Frozen Ground El Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etcc.)_
PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13.
Soil type(s)
(
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
XYcs
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
KNo
ElNA
(INE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?determination?[]Yes
❑No
X NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[)rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
L e, o-c-h Abe n G� e e� �C ? S� i �'� av� pp o f� n +ia_ / , M U s t` l� r-S i V 1
it 5 P b 'v vin�rp of en 0�, 5 t is t
-�-
n to �� an 1� �,,� �-1 �S�a���S ra55 6
��
�a o
F- PG l i> t l R ? a a Ado 5 Mai r, harv,0,6+
I
viewer/Inspector Name D S e-( Phone:
viewer/Inspector Sig natur : ' Date: rI d
12128104 Continued

e of Inspection
Facility Number: 03 — d It
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
0-
Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ yes Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP El Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Doe ecord keeping need im ro Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
ste Applicat' n Week y Freeboard Waste Analysis LZOil—Analysis n
Rainfall Stocking Crop field eetiens Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections eatherCode
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? El Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? El Yes ❑ No I�NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? El Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? El Yes ❑ No � NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge`? [I Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? El Yes ❑ No � NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
Eg
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? J(Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ElNA ElNE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal? /91
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes 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 VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
A,
I . oa -7 5b'1 des + ? of e4 . L� he�c_�L n e`�c �- v t s -14 .
b rA [e e_4 U e_ n
= (0-1 rV/1000 J-
V
a-4k--a
b-pfo�- e_lt_4�
Ind At> v-- v %sue
Dafyon.
N1�ea Chi U�� l V 1'U I rQ `Z e-3 1 �x�i 0 v er- , �8/04
S Ma-k q F-CLA Nr

Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: Q0001 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC030001 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ _ County: Qlleahany Region: Winton -Salem
Date of Visit: 12/1212006 Entry Time:10705 AM Exit Time: 11 �30 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Gambill &_Gaambill Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Jam Gambill
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Phone: [phone]
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36"33'20" Longitude: 81°10'34"
From Sparta take 21 N to 221 S, then take 93N to Elk Creek Church. Turn right on Farmers Fish Camp Road. Go about 2 112 miles.
Turn right at Gambill Dairy sign.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: David T Gambill Operator Certification Number: 22600
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative David Gambill Phone:
24 hour contact name David Gambill Phone:
Primary Inspector: Milispa osebrock Phone:
Inspector Signature' Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
3. and 9. Evidence of too much leachate in creek as documented by fungus, odor, and only 67% oxygen saturation (measured).
Suggest "speed bump" at end of silos to contain strong daily leachate until it can break down. May want to add diversion ditch at top of
silo to exclude freshwater.
9. May want to rotate calf hutches in Summer and Winter to allow grass buffers to establish.
21. One field in 2006 soil test report is reported to be high in copper.
24. Must complete calibration by end of year and send to DWQ.
10/10/06 waste analysis= 18.7 lbs. N11000 gal.
Page: 1

i
Permit: AWC030001 Owner -Facility: Tam Gambill
Inspection Date: 12/12/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
•
Facility Number: 030001
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle - Milk Cow 230 170
Total Design Capacity: 230
Total SSLW: 322.000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
�aste Pond WASTE POND I I 1 1 ]:3400
Page: 2

•
0
Permit: AWC030001 Owner- Facility: Tam Gambill Facility Number: 030001
Inspection Date: 12/12/2006 Inspection Typo: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
■
Cl
❑
❑
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 ❑
■
❑
❑
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
■
❑
❑
Cl
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
D
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

0
Permit: AWC030001 Owner -Facility: Tam Gambill Facility Number : 030001
Inspection Date: 12/12/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
PAN? fl
Is PAN n 10%110 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
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Cover
Crop Type 3
Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
II & Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
n
■
n
Cl
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have. Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
n
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
rl
Page: 4

Permit: AWC030001 Owner -Facility: Tam Gambill Facility Number : 030001
Inspection Date: 12/12/2006 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 sail 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?
n
■
D
n
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?
n
■
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■
n
n
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑
■
n
n
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
❑
■
n
❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

• W
Permit: AWC030001 Owner -Facility: Tam Gambill
Facility Number:
030001
Inspection Date: 12/12/2006 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?
n ■
n
n
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
OECD
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
n ■
n
n
Page: 6

(Facility Number
Division of Water Qualityi
Division of Soil and Water
0 Other Agency
/dJ� h,
Type of Visit P �Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 1N Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: /j`'--1-' --I-� Arrival Time: Departure Time; County: i Region:
Farm Name: d2 hA t -4 d2a'ULA I II f!i r-07 ^� Owner Email:
Owner Name: _ Ta hti Phone:
ff • _
Mailing Address: _ C�t7 �Q_y,l� � { 11, oS 6atn
Physical Address: �f
Facility Contact: La , A I(OAa ld.t Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: �Odwl ! 0,2 Ir �c � i u Integrator:
Certified Operator: ty►n II r'1 & (1!-4 4 J t1l Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ® ° a3 ®Q Longitude: ®° 0 ',
� ar W fa-Ke y`13 N 4 C1 KCre-ek_'_ urch,
-.+. ohm Far 0v_CS �,S h ".
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
—F— ❑ La er
I I'i LI Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
23
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3_ Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes 4ilo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes �Nc, ❑ NA ❑ NE
)KY
Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 6 0 Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a, If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
`'/ } -Sttrruuckre I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
J Identifier: LA— yj
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.)
❑ Yes q(No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
El NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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
�N.
❑ NA
❑ NE
$. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
4. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste ADDlication
maintenance/improvement? A
10, Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ElYesNo El NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
It. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes >(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) %. A Al Aa
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? El Yes pLNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes ❑ No X NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes [&10 ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
I
(A-9 Cv'��} wCe_ o tm wm_h � �ha+Q h c nee- K-&5A�Lwtv�+4
ou-5.j FU u5 odor' -4- 0'/10 0Mr5�'vco+6�,. 5u &5
u xe-
GL o� 'Out) "A Con c � 1
_ t _l _ �Jce'o�i­ o � U coo
v e5
Reviewer/Inspector Name I r ,Phone: 1 ! — S LZ6
Reviewer/Inspector Signature Date: 02
Page 2 of 3 IV V__12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 0 — o *ate of Inspection l07
Reauired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
*es
gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists El Design [I Maps El Other
21. Doe record keeping need ' ovement? If lse-eppra�
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Waste Application We y Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil A lysis
"Rain
Feather
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield Monthly and ]
Inspections
Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
$(NA
❑ NE
t a e�q-u�ir�ed by the permit?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste app c a nn eequFred
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as reqby the pet nit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
kNA
❑ 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
�(NA
ElNE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
II --
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑YesNo
❑ NA
El 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
ElNA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
�<No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
s ► ILA_.Y KP_r— 7 4M&
#
`I 1
TAI
1 i
O�iai t
1 1 _
LIE
r4
Page 3 of 3 12128104 (P

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency _
Facility Number: 0 0001 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC030001 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: -Compliance- Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit. Routine County: Alleghany Region:.Yy'nston�Salem
Date of Visit: 041191205 Entry Time:12:5.0__PM Exit Time: D2:35 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Gambill & Gambill Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Tam Gambill Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: Co. David Gambill 305 Gambill Rd Sparta NC 28675
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36°33'20" Longitude: 81°10'34"
From Sparta take 21N to 221S, then take 93N to Elk Creek Church. Turn right on Farmers Fish Camp Road. Go about 2 1/2 miles
Turn right at Gambill Dairy sign.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment 0 Waste Application
0 Records and Documents 0 Other Issues
Certified Operator: David T Gambill Operator Certification Number: 22600
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name David Gambill Phone:
Primary Inspector: Melissa M Rosebrock Phone: [phone]
Ext.383
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
3. Evidence of organic matter and sludge worms in the creek. Must increase grass buffer around creek below the waste pond.
Remove cow/calf from grassed buffer as soon as possible, also.
3. and 9. Run-off from calf hutches can enter fresh water drain. need to move hutches from drainage areas on south end of new bam.
8. Must install marker by June 1, 2005.
21. 2004 soils were dated 211105.
418105 waste analysis: 9.5 lbs. N11000 gal.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC030001 Owner -Facility: Tam Gambill
Inspection Date: 04/19/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number. 030001
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
O Cattle -Milk Cow 230
Total Design Capacity: 230
Total SSLW: 322,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
aste Pond WASTE POND 24.00
Page: 2

0
•
Permit: AWC030001 Owner -Facility: Tam Gambill Facility Number: 030001
Inspection Date: 04/19/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ moo
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWO) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
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?
0 ❑
Yes No
❑ ❑
NA NF
Waste C ollectinn_ StaragP & 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 (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?
❑
❑ ❑
B. 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
NA NE
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or improvement?
—No
❑ M
❑ ❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below. -
Excessive Pending?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 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
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley,
Oats)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Page: 3

•
r � r
Pennit: AWC030001 Owner -Facility: Tam Gambill
Facility Number: 030001
Inspection Date: 04I1912005 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Crop Type 5
Yes
No NA
NF
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan(CAWMP)? ❑
■ ❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
16, Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
❑ ■
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■ ❑
❑
1 B. Is there a lack of property operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
■ ❑
No NA
❑
NE
RPrords and Dnr_umentc
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?
❑
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?
❑
❑
■ ❑
Page: 4

•
L_�
11
Permit: AWC030001 Owner -Facility-, Tam Gambill Facility Number: 030001
Inspection Date: 04/19/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those mortality ❑ moo
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 ❑ moo
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? M ❑ ❑ ❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ moo
Page: 5

Date of Visit:
Farm Name:
Owner dame
,Mailing Addi
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:) (� Title:
Onsite Representative: T I
Certified Operator: t [ '
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
Boars
Other
❑ Other
County: Can
Owner Email:
Region: �I`-U
i MI. t'
� r
Phone No: .3 — _3 5-1 6
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
fJ ° �4 Longitude:
o ® I 1J
Latitude: �W 3 I�
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Laver
❑Non -Laver
Dry Poultry
❑
Layers
❑
Non -Layers
❑
Pullets
❑
Turkeys
❑
Turkey Poults
❑
Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
battle Capacity Population
El
Dairy Cow
I a.3
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifei
❑
Da Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: M
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (Ifyes, 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 KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
'KNo
❑ NA
[:IN E
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number:— � � Date of Inspectionqfiq r-L-0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
W
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
a
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
XNo ElNA ElNE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
XNo ElNA ElNE
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
KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers a e uired by the permit? lB Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require yes
El ❑ NA ElNE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
P<No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application'? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination'! ❑ Yes
1KNo
❑ No]
NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
[]Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
1.
,.. _✓1 VV _ �
/f •

Facility Number: _07 of Inspection •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
y g Y � Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does ord keeping need improvement? If yes, ;�ste
he appropriate box below. Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Applic�at'jWeekiy Freeboar Analysis �oii Analysis
❑ Rainfa inop Yield Monthly and ]"Rai spections Weather e
DIM 22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ElNo ElNA ex NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes [_1 No 0NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes LJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25, Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No �fNA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes �No ElNA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes 1 No VN A ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any addition 1 roble noted which cause n n-c liane f the pe tAment
CAW Yes
New rye ? i�5�e �'�n °.r
29. Did the facility fail to properly disclose o dead animals within 24 hours and/or ❑ Yes
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
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.7 Yes
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) Ol/� MoLi b lily M o ///
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
El No
[-I NA
❑NE
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
N(Io
[INA
ElNE
6o
❑ NA
❑ NE
CommentsAdditional i 1
UU� � N1 (►' � i � r/ ' � /ram//' r� � L �
I
�L
gtv
t.
12128104
It
_1�1

Yechnical Assistance Site Visit Repor•
• D on of Soil and Water Conservatiorl
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 03 - C� Date: 10/26/04 Time: 10:45 Time On Farm: 75 WSRO
Farm Name Gambill & Gambill Farm
County Alleghany Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address c/o David Gambill Sparta NC 28675
Onsite
Representative David Gambill Integrator
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
OQ Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
0 Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Capacity Population
El Layer
❑ Non -Layer
El
Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
212
HE
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5• is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier WSP
Level (Inches) 1 30
CROP TYPES lCorn, Silage IRye grass (graze} Fescue -graze Fescue -hay
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES CeE Cy HaC TaC WaE
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

f•_J
03 - 1 Date:
10/26/04
FFacilitymber
TER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
El
El 10. Level in structural freeboard
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
[112, Waste structure integrity compromised
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
El13. Waste structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
30. 2H.0200
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
re -certification
[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. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker checklcallbration
®
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation design/installation
El
❑
El Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45.Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
❑
❑
46. Wettable Acre Determination
1 • The waste plan was revised to add 3 Tracts of
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationirecommendations
❑
❑
land.
2• Some rock was added below the waste storage
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
pond to prevent erosion.
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
El
El
5'
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
IR
6.
58. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Fi
0
IFacility Number 03 -—� Date: 1 10/26/04
COMMENTS:
Waste analysis: 10/15/04 LSD 6.4 Ibs.N/1000 gals. B, 4114/04 LSD 9.2 Ibs.N/1000 gals. B
Mr. Gambill has received his new C.O.C. and general waste permit.
# 28. 1 provided Mr. Gambill with some of the new record keeping forms for the new permit requiremen
# 40. The maximum liquid marker, in the waste storage pond, still needs to be secured.
# 57. 1 reviewed some of the new permit requirements with Mr. Gambill.
* Remember to get your 2004 soil samples.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 10/27/04 Entered By: lRocky Durham
3
03/ 10/03

Ovision of Water Quality.
vision of Soil and Water Conservation
_ 0 Other Agency"
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 5119I2004 Time: lOtO
Facility Number 03 O1
0 Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: GaaaWIL.&Gambil< farm .......................................... ....................... County: AlIggliajay ........................................ WSW ........
Owner Name: Tam ......................................... Gambill...................................................... Phone No:(�3Q.3.7.z-2SX.9.Daxld................................ ..........
Mailing Address:lo.i?aYld.GambAll..O.S..Ganab.l>1.Road ...................................... S.Pula... N.0....................................... ...................... 25.6 .5..............
Facility Contact: DaYUGUMbill............................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No: 33.6,3161.4351..M]...............
Onsite Representative: 12a..Y.id.Gambill...................... ... Integrator:.........
Certified Operator: JD V..id.aa................................ Gambill............................................ Operator Certification Number: 2,21Q0.............................
Location of Farm:
From Sparta take 21N to 2215, then take 93N to Elk Creek Church. Turn right on Farmers Fish Camp Road. Go about 2 �
112 miles. Turn right at Gambill Dairy sign. r
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 33 20 Longitude 81 • 10 34 ��
DesignCurrent Design _:Current Design Current
Swore:
Capacity
PopulationPoultry
Populationattle Capacity Population::
- ❑ Layer ® Dairy 230 183
1E] Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 230
"' Total SSLW 322,000
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 0
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-aUmin?
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 t Stnicture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ......Wasle.Poxid ..... ....................................................................... ........ .............................................................................
Freeboard (inche's):. 60
12112103 Continued \

Facility Number: 03—01 • Date of Inspection F 5/19/2004 • ' .. _
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ® No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
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 ❑ Yes ® No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type Fescue (Hay) Rye cover Com (Silage & Grain) Pasture
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
I5. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes ® No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Comments (refer to question #):: Explain"any: YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to=better,explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary) ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
3. and 8. Operator plans to add an 8 foot long berm next to the feed trough to keep manure from entering the freshwater culvert.
3. and 8. The low area between the waste pond and the creek looks better. Still need to add more rock to help contain the sediment and
waste. Scrape the top of the gravel basin (near silo) and add fresh gravel.
9. Need to repair and/or move marker.
11. Cannot determine that overapplication did NOT occur since the waste plan does not list the acreage or allowable PAN for Edna and
Bill Choate properties. Need to add these fields to the field ASAP since waste has already been applied (see DWQ and DSWC 2003
reports, also).
3. Don't forget to obtain 2004 soil test results.
3. Fall `03 records looked pretty good. Don't forget to use the "acres" from the WUP when completing the application forms for the
ay land. Tally PAN balance after applying commercial nitrogen, too.
9. Need to add rye cover and/or small grain cover and corn to T-416 F- 1 cl and 2cl.
9. Operator applied waste onto new land (Bill and Edna Choate properties) last Fall and this Spring. As mentioned during last year's
DWQ and DSWC visits, the WUP still needs to be updated.
4114104 LSD waste analysis = 9.2 lbs. N11000 gal.
Reviewer/Inspector Name �Melis osebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:LICAUIA44 Date:
12112103 ✓ Continued

Facility Number: 03-01 Df Inspection 5/19/2004 .
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ® No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ® Yes ❑ No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
27.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
CO No
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
® Yes
❑ No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
® No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33.
Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
35.
Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form [:]Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 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.
12112103

Quality Water of ;nsion
o i
- vision of Soil and�Water•Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit VRoutine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number } Date of Visit: Time.
I into
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted [3 Certified © Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated Qr Above Threshold: .........................
A�� mCounty:
A )
Farm Name: ...�,i� ...�,.. ' �..�.. � :.. .. .......... l..........��.,r ... ............. County:...J!..f.. e�.h.�:.h..� ....................... -. .
cI .
Owner Name: ........................................... Phone No: ....... .... ... �.a1lkL....��.i.l. .......J.p.. I,� f. g fr...
Mailing Address:... �?5......6aw .t. d. .... 1 mac.
1 ----- --I._ ...... .............•-------....... g� ? 5
Facility Contact: . llu— r1Y 11.1)........... Title: .................. ... Phone No: .0 61.3aL ... 1.4,351
OnsiteRepresentative:...�vij .................................... Integrator: .......... ............................................................................
Certified Operator:. . f1.ly. T v ..L.. .. ........................ Operator Certification Number: able..---.-----...------....
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �• �� ®�� Longitude �• ��°
Design Current Design -" Current - Design ; .Current
Swiize Ca act 1'o ulatiori; Poultry Ca aci Po ulafion- Cattle °'Ca aci :'Po elation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer Dairy Ia
❑ Non -Layer I I JED Non -Dairy I I=
❑ Other I I
Y
TotaLDesign Capacity �
4
:-Niitriber of Lagoons
Discharges & Stream II facts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes VNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If dischar�.e 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 t 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
Strut / `
StructureLl 5 cture 2 Structure _ Structure 4 Structure _ 5
Structure b
Identifier: W.�f7.....
Freeboard (inches): U
12112103 e, Continued
7r..D

Facility Number: 0— Date of Inspection •
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ANo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes
closure plan? )
{If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? e ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes �No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overlo ❑Frozen Ground ❑Copper and/or Zinc
o
12.
Crop type 're
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certifid 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 KNo
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
MAW
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
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
Air Quality representative immediately.
Cb.fnmeh6;(fefer,toaquesti6n`#) ,.Explarn'any YES answersmnd/or any, recvminendatio&,or, any other
.Use.dfawtngs.of facility to better explain situations: (use.additional pages as necessary). -,Field Col
❑ Yes LVo
❑ Yes *0
❑ Yes NIKo
y ❑ Final Notes
and /o r- mo v e-
JJ no+ occu
[ rn C `�t"Y ►�� L� u P nut i St a- o r C l tO t)L� 1r'J t o_
nOL �- �t t i Cho Q 4--� ro per e "S p N�e� `�
O -ad `�U e-5p, `� 0,5 `r6 Lo V � !mac �T P a � J� b U_)(� suJc--
a o0 3 ,r-
V n.�d -� Q-+� e ca max~ (Pr s mall I& MI n f J,. a rk eo,, . � T- `� t 6 F - l
RIO g144 L 51) ; q. o?
Reviewer/InspectorName 35�0.r y ':ram "''-_ ; ' .t'
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu / Date:
I2/12/03 JS �/_ Z / Continued

Fecility Number: —0 l of Inspection _ jzrr'►
Required Records & Documents;
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes VNO
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 �Vo
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.] Yes /❑ No
�j Waste Application ❑reeboard ❑ L'�aste Analysis ❑,Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any appl✓icable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes No
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
Yes No
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes No
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? Xyes ❑ No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35) ❑ Yes XNO
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑Yes ❑ No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? ❑ Yes ❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After I" Rain
❑ 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.
dditidnal Comments and/or Drawings:.
Ile,
a e v- F.W
-6 3 re cc rdS . C oo v_ re.k.� m . tort
Q� r vrory\ LO wV, ft t for r
nrl
pia \an cR€� P �+� 1 C i P R n3
. Lcs� c-rear �D,-{e�1- C1e-eQrD
t4- 0,..Q, ro C_V_
jgkwj rwy,+ ckto �eea
44-o OOP c6
a -,an re- -"yn r\ 0
°?` p Quo r- pl i She_ n`� l to n I3 i l
ba e P rO pa4-4-7 S (� Si� �D� l �- �i i 5 sp r T
12112103 S (Y�P.UI�I-lone Lvr-I n qq 0. t aeYS cDC_+kp WUP Sh i I`deems + be- v A Q-tee

chnical Assistance Site Visit Repo:'
40 DM can of Soil and Water ConservatioRW
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number Date: 10/27/03 Time: L 13:00 Time On Farm: 90 WSRO
Farm Name Gambill & Gambill Farm
Mailing Address c/o David Gambill
County Alleghany Phone: [phone]
Sparta NC 28675
Onsite
Representative David Gambill Integrator
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
pO Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Q 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
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
230
197
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment []yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
IdentifierI WSP
Level (inches) 1 36
CROP TYPES lCorn, Silage IRye grass (Cover) I IFescue-hay
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES CeE Cy HaC TaC WaE
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

a
a
Facility Number 03 - 1 Date:
10/27/03
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
El 10. Level in structural freeboard
5. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
2
®
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
El 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
[114. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30. 21-1.0200 re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Latelmissing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
[121. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation design/installation
El
❑
El Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1 • Mr. Gambill has installed a gravel filter for the
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationfrecommendations
❑
❑
silage leachate.
2.
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
El❑
5'
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6
58. Cropfforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 03 - �_J Date: 1 10/27/03
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST Rocky Durham
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 1115103
Entered By
lRocky Durham
03/10/03

Fusion of Water Quality 11
vtsi6n of Soil and Water Conservation
Q-Other'Agency a
Type of Visit O Compliance inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up Q Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number I'Lle 44, Visit: 07/21/2003 Time: 1005 FO Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold_
Farm Name: GaAabiAl.&..G.aAab lkarloa......................................... County: aeghattx............................... WNW _.....
Owner Name: Tam.- --- - - - - --- - Guakill__•- --- - - --- --- - - - Phone No: ---
MailingAddress: 0Q..l?;►xid..G.Afflbill......................................:........................................ Sparta..Ac............................................................. M.75 ..............
Facility Contact: 1.7aMUGAMbill ................................... Title: ............................................... Phone No: C�1�.336 G3, 351...........
Onsite Representative: Q}7Ytd.Gaoobill-- =---- ---------- --- ---------- Integrator: - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - --- - --- -
Certified Operator: D,axhd..1................................. .GambiA............................................ Operator Certification Number: 22,{QO.................. .........
Location of Farm:
prom Sparta take 21N to 221S, then take 93N to Elk Creek Church. Turn right on Farmers Fish Camp Road. Go about 2 +
./2 miles- Turn right at Gambill Dairy sign.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®• 33 6 20 66 Longitude 81 • 10 6 34 64
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑ 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 1 ® Dairy 230 1 190
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
-- ❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 230
-Total SSLW 322,000
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
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S
Identifier Wfst Pnnr1
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes []No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[]Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
e------------------------------- --•--------•--•--•--•--•----------------------------- .-------------------------- ...........................
Freeboard (inches): 24
05103101 �,,3P Continued

Facility Number: 03—Oi Date of Inspection 07/21/2003
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, 0 Yes N No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes ®No
(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 Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Fescue (Graze) Fescue (Hay) Corn (Silage & Grain)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ 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
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #.}: Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
3. and 8. Need gravel/rip-rap in low spot between waste pond and creek to help control sediment run-off. Also need to add berm on lot
_
near the water tank to contain waste.
8. Guttering has been completed and operator is to complete the concrete berm this Fall.
8. Operator plans to install gravel basin for silage leachate befre the silos are filled this Fall.
9. Operator plans to install permanent marker once the waste pond has been emptied. Temporary marker is ok for now.
w
Reviewer/Inspector Name IMeli a Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature' Date: 7 �L&Q,
05103101 1 Continued

4
[Facility Number: 03-01 1)0fInspection 07/21/2003
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
l9. and 25. Tracts, fields, and acreages in records need to match WUP or revise WUP to match records. Specifically T-480 F-A2,
H1, H2, & H5; T-476 F-RH3; T-846 F-RB1.
Suggest that operator have chart or label records w/ tracts and fields from WUP. Don't forget to use "usable acres" from WUP for
SLUR-2 form calculations.
19. 2002 and 2003 soil tests results checked and ok.
19. Some waste samples were slightly outside of the 60-day window.
Waste analyses:
1116/02 = 8.8 lbs. N/1000 gal.
/22/03 = 5.8 lbs. NI1000 gal.
ons that have been left blank are not applicable to this facility at this time.
u
=J
05103101

v
'Division of Water Quality
Q Division of. Soiland.Water Codservation
�'Ofher agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit outine 0 Complaint 0 Fallow up 0 Emergency Notification .0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ime:
Facility Number
Permitted [3 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified
Farm Name:
Co lI
Owner Name: `
Mailing Address: J( 5L
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
a . -Fro At
1
Registered
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
County: I I
R q
ZZ,
No: 6' + � " 1
7s-
Integrator• �`SI
Operator Certification Number: A
❑ Swine ElPoultry Cattle
❑ Ho,:L titude ' ��4 Longitude
' �� u
Design
Current Design Current
Design Current
Swine Ca selh'
Population Poultry Capacity Population attle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer it ADai!XQ
❑ Feeder to Finish
10. Non -Layer Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder
10Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity3
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
134P-.2 �Q
Number of Lagoons
❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area 10 S rav Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharves & 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 �<o
3. Were there any adverse impacts or ot�ent!2Ladverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? XYes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway ❑ Yes jgNo
Structur Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 Continued

•
Facility Number: M2Z F41 Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion,
seepage.. etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or mana_ed throu,h a waste management or
closure plan? ~
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered ves, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do anv stuctures lack adequate. gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
V1`aste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenanceiimprovement.1
11. Is there evidence of over application? Excessive Pon mg ❑ PA ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type _ .I)J
13. Do the receiving crops differ with thoset&esignated in the Ctftified Animal
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reouired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
Vv'MP)?
I S. Does the facility fail to bare all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ Vl'UP, checklists.. design. maps. etc.) v /
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, fre bo d w s e a lysis & soil sari'rple repo
20. 1s facility not in compliance with any appIicab etbac cnte5rfa�e'ffec<fJ e"trme� oXign#1 "— i00P '
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 probiems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes �Ko
❑ Yes XNo
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes )�No
❑ Yes ,<No
❑ Yes 6�10
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes to
o
El Yeso
❑ Yes
❑ Yes t�No
o
❑ Yes
❑ Yes *o
❑ Yes
)?01yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
>Yes
A<
❑ No
Vo
No
><No
XNo
Wo
❑ No
10 \o violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit
­rl�ommenis;(refer to gbestion .:Eipiai'a:isiiy YES answers'audlor.;any,recomutendations or any o er comuients.�
Use drawings of facility to better explain sittiittous. (use addit,onal Qages as necessan) Freld Copv ❑ Final Notes
�' .,u-�.c>...,�x�uw"� .s-�.. `� ,:.a:_r 0�"al�:�v..a."..a�.i �5:.,?...;.._:,
_.:.ruz. :..,.E..e-s, ..:�-a�'wX�.h� .,::,�--�-:c ••--�•---.`.w--.*+-�,...t rc-�_t-?;
T'`ego A?— Cqd_e_A")
T-�$C)
14 15—
H
V Ici 1
r 5' al &re s
MA,
Reviewer/Inspector Name
/Q
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
continuiv

El
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 at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ 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? es
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.) o==esF&
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? •^—^io
32. Do the Flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?=t3-^
1 Additional Comments and/or Drawings: 1
Nwkey
i
05103101

ivision of Water Quality
t)ivision of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date ut' \ i>i�: l0/t7l20o2 "rims•: 1t:35
Facility Number 03 1
FO Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered pate Last Operated or Above "Threshold;
Farm Name: G.aWbll1.&..G.4Mbitllk'arM..................................................... County: A,IleghanX ............................... )YSKO-.....
Owner Name:Tam-----------G--------------- Phone No:{334137�Z819_------------------..
(flailing Address: do..l ayid..GA>x MU............................................................................... SRaxa..i.C.............................................................. MAU ..............
Facility Contact: ........................................................... Title. ............................................... Phone No:
Onsite Representative: ��Yld.�aWlll<<------------------------------------- Intel;rator:-------------------------------------------�
Certified Operator: D;axid..T................................. Gambill ............................... Operator Certification Number: 2ZGOQ.............................
Location of Farm:
From Sparta take 21N to 221S, then take 93N to Elk Creek Church. Turn right on Farmers Fish Camp Road. Go about 2
1/2 miles. Turn right at Gambill Dairy sign.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle [3 Horse Latitude 3b • 33 20 Longitude S1 • 10 ®..
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Cavacitv Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
® Dairy
230
207
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
_ _
Total Design Capacity
230
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
322,000
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons I 1 10 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps L 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management Systeni
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge oriuinated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If dischan-,e is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (lt'ves. notify DWQ) ❑yes ❑ No
c. If dischairge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d, Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'! (If ycs. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway _ ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: --•--•--•--•--•--•--•-_--• ..--.-----•--•-----•--•--•---•--•---- -•--•-----•-- -•-- •--•-----•--•--•--•- -•-----•--•--•-----• -----•-----•--•-----•--•-----..
Freeboard (inches): 36
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 03-1 0 Dale of lnspeclion 10/17/2002 0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iet 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 t%i)plication
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 Fescue (Hay) Corn (Silage & Grain) Timothy, Orchard. & Rye Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iel 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?
(iel 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
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes []No
[a No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
22. The waste level reached approx. 12 inches above the maximum liquid level, according to Mr. Gambill's freeboard records, after
_
heavy rains in September. I informed Mr. Gambill that his Permit requires him to notify the DWQ regional office of any freeboard
problems.
25. Some fields still need to be added to the waste plan by the technical specialist. Guttering and possibly curbing are planned on the
new roof and surrounding lot area.
The drain at the feed trough has not been moved yet. A temporary graduated marker has been installed. There were no calves in the
creek and buffer at the entrance corner lot. Then had been moved to another location. Informed Mr. Gambill that he needed to get a
waste sample in ASAP to be within 60days2LhisAugustapplications.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 03-1 * (11' Inspection 10/17/2002 0
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28.' Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
aste analysis: 4-10-02 LSD 7.9 Ibs.N/1000 gals. B
iother soil analysis has not been submitted for 2002.
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
►]
05103101
J

- f�ts�on`of��Vater Qualit} > : �'"
i ionlof SoiI�and ANIater Conservation •
iQOther Agency
(Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit 0• Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
"ate of Visit: 4/11l2002 Time: 1000
Facility Number 03 01
0 Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold : .........................
FarmName: ................................................ ................. County: Alftftau ........................................ ) SRO........
OwnerName: Tam ......................................... Gambill,...................................................... Phone No:0.3.61.3.7.2:-2.819........................................... .....
MailingAddress: 395..Gamb.li.RoAd.............................................................................. Sir;s Ia...NC............................................................. 2$6.75....... I.,....
Facility Contact: PAYUGaMb111............................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No: W1.3.36 3.6 A35.1...............
Onsite Representative: Rayid..GAmbilt.......................................................Integrator:
Certified Operator: Daxid..T................................. Galmbill............................................ Operator Certification Number: 2.26.00..............................
Location of Farm:
From Sparta take 21N to 221S, then take 93N to Elk Creek Church. Turn right on Farmers Fish Camp Road. Go about 2 AL
112 miles. Turn right at Gambill Dairy sign.
[]Swine []Poultry ®Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude =1&F 33 Longitude F 34 «
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑ 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 ® Dairy 230 170
❑ Non -Layer I I JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 230
Total SSLW 322,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present In Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps I ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discliar yes & 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 X 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 S Structure 6
Identifier: ...... W. aste.Pond.................................................................................................... .
Freeboard (inches): 48
05103101 / a ' _/ Continued

Facility Number: 03-01 Date of Inspection 4/11/2002 .
5. Are there any immediate threats to the intrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tree . .3evere 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
S. 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 Apnlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pondmg ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
12,
Crop type Fescue (Hay) Fescue (Graze) Corn (Silage & Grain)
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
®No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application eciuipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Renuired Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® 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
w;
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): Field Copy ®Final Notes
8. Operator to move surface drains up from current location by feed trough to in front of upright silo. Suggest curbing to keep lot manure
out (if needed).
8. Grazing lot at toner/end of road has cattle in buffer area due to drinker that is dry. Fence out as soon as possible.
9. Marker to be up by May 1, 2002 per David--NOV if not up.
19. Operator recorded application events events but is waiting on results of waste analysis to complete records for Spring.
19. 2002 soil samples to be taken again. Per tab in Raleigh, samples were accidently destroyed by lab.
25. Field A2 hay needs to be added to CAWMP. Other fields also.
Reviewer/Inspector Name illeI- sa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature Ra zljan__�Date: O
05103101 1 V Continued

Facility Number: 03_01 D1 f Inspection 4/11/2002 •
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanentitemporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional omments and/or rawings:
Waste analysis 8/30/01 = 4.5 lbs. N/1000 gal. id
J
05103101

o
visLin-
ion of water Quality. . t`
a -
'vision of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 9 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: j Time:
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
0 Permitted Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [j Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
�.tn��l.l lrL! %. �... �ry� Coen • ..�..1.19.Jian.-- - .....................
Farm Name: .¢ ..! '• u.Fu.0 F-m............................. ty: ................_ .......................
I 7 o�R l
OwnerName: .... ....j...Q�'1/.�...... �i�.�4..�..I.......................................................... Phone No: ..��.:...... �..............:............./...I.......... »....
Facility Contact:..I...........Q-;..�................... Title:................................................ Phone No: �� �J 3� 31'03 g35"j
^� :...
Mailing Address: :..V-.Qc ":'.1.�........`':]..�..PQ....�Q ..I. rw.......................°�:..�...�.....�............ .........................
Onsite Representative:...., .. .,a�[ I �QL�,LWJ Integrator:
1
..^^.��.yy..........�c
Certified Operator:... Q V !........±..1............................................... Operator Certification Number
Location of Farm:
C3y�
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry
❑ Horse
Longitude? ®'
` Design Current
Design ' Current
. Design Current'::.
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Ca aci Po elation Cattle
Capacity,Po 'elation .
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
VU Dairy
Q
❑ Feeder to Finish
JCI Non -Layer
1
1
1[3 Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
Q
❑Gilts
Total SSLW
5 a�
❑ Boars
I
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present I ❑ Lagoon Area 10 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? ❑ Yes KNo
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. II' discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gai/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? El 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 XNo
l,� 1Structurg}1 Structure 2 Structure 3 ./ Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure b
Identifier: 1�' r . Oi. ......................................................................................................................................
\ Freeboard (inches):
' 5/00 Continued on back

Fncility Number: — 6 Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observe`di?`(ie/ tree�"severe erosion, 13Yes 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 �j 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 ANo
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? XYes ❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes jj,No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ E essive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes �No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crod 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 XNo
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 Anirrial Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) / ❑ Yes No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freebo✓ard, waste aanalysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes 9No
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 XNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? Xyes ❑ No
�Q,001aiid .s:o;r• dt rjependi s -v-'re nQte0. 00 ift �his:visit' • Y;ou writ tree ive Rio #'u> ther
cor'resporidence: a�atuti 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):
19 • Oao QN 0f61
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signai
Date: `'f 11 1 1 d Z 5100

Facility Number: — 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
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? o
34. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes KNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes 9No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
r
0
AZ4'-� - Ciec�
5100
J

vision of Water Quality
�. vision of Soil and Water Conservation
'Q Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit. 10/9/2001 Time: 10:30
Facility slumber 03 1
0 Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ......•••••...
Farm Name: Gambills?:..G.a�nbil�.k rm........................................................ ................ County; AlIgghally ........................................ WSRO........
Owner Name: TAm......................................... GAlubill....................................................... Phone No:0361!.3.7.2:1819........................................................
MailingAddress: 229..G.aMhill.RoAd.............................................................................. S.PArta.-K................. ............................................ 2.8.6.7.5 ..............
Facility Contact:.............................................................................. Title:.............. Phone No:
Onsite Representative: l<2a.Y.id.GatubAll............................................................................ Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:David...................................... G.ambfflj ............................................ Operator Certification Number: 2.26RQ.............................
Location of Farm:
From Sparta take 21N to 221S, then take 93N to Elk Creek Church. Turn right on Farmers Fish Camp Road. Go about 2 A
112 miles. Turn right at Gambill Dairy sign.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude F 20 Longitude 81 OF 10 34 4,
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Poaulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Cl Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons L^
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps C
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ® Dairy 230
❑ Non -Layer I JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 230
Total SSLW 322,000
I❑ Subsurface Drains Present II❑ Lagoon Area I❑ Spray Field Area
❑ 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 1- Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Stricture 6
Identifier: ................................... ..................
Freeboard (inches): 23
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 03-1 Date of Inspection 101912001
'" •
5. Are there any immediate threats to the int�ity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tree ere erosion,
❑Yes
®Na
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
El Yes
N No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify D`VQ)
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?
N Yes
❑ No
Waste Arsplication.
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
N No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Timothy, Orchard, & Rye Fescue (Graze) Fescue (Hay)
13, Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
N No.
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
N No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? M
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
N No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
N No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
N No
21, Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
N No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
N No
23, Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
N No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
N No
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
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): f0 Field Copy ®Final Notes
# 9. As soon as the waste pond is pumped down, Mr. Gambill is planning on installing a graduated marker.
+'
# 19. Need to be keeping a weekly freeboard level on the waste pond, per the general permit requirements.
Waste application records should be completed within one week or as soon as the waste sample comes back.
Mr. Gambill has installed wood curbing in a couple of areas on the lot where waste was leaving the lot. Mr. Gambill has installed a
board and gravel berm beside a drain pipe, where some waste was coming off feed equipment and scrape tractor wheels and entering
the drain during rain events.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
O5103101 Continued

Facility Number: 03_I 16if Inspection 10/9/2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a perrnanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
[]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional omments and/orDrawings:
Waste analysis: 4-12-01 LSD 4.8 lbs.N/1000 gals, B +
8-30-01 LSD 4.5 lbs.N/1000 gals. B
J
05103101

Division of Water Quality
ivision of Soil and Water Conservation .
Other Agency
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 03 O1 Date of Visit: 5/21/2001 Time: 1000 Printed on: 5/25/2001
0 Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted E Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered pate Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: G.ambill.A..G.ambUFatruu.......................................................
Owner Name: JamGaamball...........
.................... ...........................
County: Afthaua......................................... !?E'SRQ........
..... Phone No: (,33.0.3.7-Z8a9......................
Mailing Address: . ajnbW.Road ........................... .. .. Sparta ... N.C............................................................. M.675 ..............
Facility Contact: VAYId,.CiAmbW............................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No: ce,11136,26 .43.51...............
Onsite Representative: �?a.Y.tld.GiattotbAlt.............................................................. ... Integrator: ................................................................................
Certified Operator:Davin...................................... G.atubUl........... ....-.--..-.-.-.............. .... Operator Certification Number:22600.............................
Location of Farm:
From Sparta take 21N to 221S, then take 93N to Elk Creek Church. Turn right on Farmers Fish Camp Road. Go about 2
l/2 miles. Turn right at Gambill Dairy sign..
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 33 . 20 Longitude S1 • 10 ' 34 «
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponnlation
❑ 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
® Dairy
230
175
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
771
Total Design Capacity
230
Total SSLW
322;000
Number of Lagoons 0 10 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Ficld Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 10 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 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ier: ......Wasic.Poiad..........................................
Freeboard (inches): 36
05103101 Continued

7-1
Facility Number: 03-01 . Date of Inspection 5/21/20U1 Printed on.
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ treesVere erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management of
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?
5/25/2001 , ,
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 ADDlication
❑ Yes IS No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
1 l . Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Hay) Timothy, Orchard, & Rye
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required Re or & V_Qcuments
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® 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
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any
or any other comments.ility
kecommendations
to better explas necessary): ❑Field Copy ❑ Fin a=Notes
3. and #8. Curbing near waterbox and holding lot needs to be built up. Existing conditions are allowing waste to enter a freshwater
_
drain that leads to the creek. Operator is to have repairs made by 7/l/01.
Marker needs to he installed by 711/01 since painted mark on the concrete wall is not visable. Need to install a permanent marker.
19. Need to record weekly freeboard per permit. Left form with operator. WUP fields don't match those in operator's records. WUP
may need to be revised to reflect actual fields/acreages used by the operator.
24. DWQ needs to re -check curbing repairs once they have been completed.
Buffer area near sick cow barn looks good. Soil results for 2001 are back. Zinc in some fields is getting high (500 to > 1000).
Phos horous is high on these same fields, too >300 .
w
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melis a Rosebrock
Reviewer/]nspector Signatur Date: Q
05103101 1 r v Continued

Facility Nuhiber: 03-01 •ate of Inspection 5/21/2001 •
Printed oil, 5/25/2001
Odor 1_ssues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
J
05103101

to 4ty)
01
Division of Water. Quality
a,
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit (Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit � Routine Q Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: oZi d j Time: as a
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted 0Certified © Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date bast Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: .t,SJ.i�..lYl�?ti.1.1.... °i'... iQ.Q.11�4r�t.3�.�.�.....�:�.x:�............................ County: Ct17 ...................
Owner Name: ...... .....Lk ]111...C.?,(.l ".i Phone No:K1.R. ... its..............................
lI 3S
Facility Contact: .ba .i �Q Y! !...�.1..... ............ Title Phone No: � 37Z; �
IC 1.......................................................
MailingAddress:...005....010....... .l.�l....�.:.f.......�?.......r.(..Q.�....��.......Rk.1�......................................... ..........................
OnsiteRepresentative:................................................................................................ Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:,,;1;...0.v.i................................................... Operator Certification Nurnb�er:,,,,,,,a, (Q, ,
Location of Farm:
Cw� 7,f- no From 5 r a tuy so d 'Ta1Z� `,3 N -fir '! )�-e E
�cl • cat, oa ya x
❑ Swine [I Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑` arse Latitude ®• ©��� Longitude ®• f O
Design Current
Swine Cauacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
�ja-lo
Design Current Design '.Curretit`':F,
Poultry capacitv PopulationCattle Capacity,: Po ulatfoli, °.,
❑ Layer Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity �3
Total SSLW �OC�
Number of Lagoons 0 1❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made`?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
Spray Field Area
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? [,Spillway
tructure 1 ructurc 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: .. lQ^�ti� ....Pcnj ......................... ....................................
Freeboard (inches):
5100
❑ Yes kNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes IxNo
)'Yes /❑ No
❑ Yes XNo
Structure 6
Continued on back

75�
Facility Number: — Mintegrity
Date of Inspection Printed on: 1/9/2001
NW
5. Are there any immediate threats to 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 are
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
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those desighated in the Certi
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Mana @ ent Plan readi vailable?
(ie/ WUP, checkts, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, free bhard, 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 9410
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes a(No
AYes ❑ No
XYes [:]No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes O(No
❑ Yes
No
*Yes
No
..Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No .
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
k No
❑ Yes
XNo
OYes
❑ No
❑ Yes
o
0:. 1Q yiolatigns or dficiertcies mere noted doririg this:visit;- Y:oo Till -receive do fut�t�er'
cormpinideizce. abotit, this'Visit. . . . . . . . .
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or'any other commenft� #+ i ` ''
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional. pages as necessary)
3 oa
Reviewer/Inspector Name �
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. 4,1 A Date: v alQ S/pp

Facility umber: 7749te of inspection Printed on: 1/9/2001'
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below ❑ Yes kNo
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? /
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes [YNo
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) XNO
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes
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? B Yes E3 No
Nodes 511aje.off Irl-lb eree K
9. MOL-A-levJ
to ma-t ✓w.ambQv e �e.eQl �s �n.da�@o o- Pa^Q,k
2-Q0 /
/ � V
f
�..WMIM
r
1

u
_01ivision of Water Quality
ivisi_on of Soil,and .Water Conservation z ,
ther Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 03 1 'ate of Visit: 11/9/2000 Time: 13:00
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
M Permitted M Certified [] Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ......••••....
Farm Name: ............................... ............ .. ........................... County: Allcghaju ........................................ MR0........
Owner Name: taunt ......................................... .CirMball....................................................... Phone No: 0.3.61,312:28D ........................................................
FacilityContact: .................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: 2Z4..Gamb.illR9;Ad..............................................................................SR;Art4... N.0.......... ................ ... 281i.U.............
................................
OnsiteRepresentative: D rid.G.mbill........................................................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:Da.Y.id...................................... Gambill............................................ Operator Certification Number: 2,26Q0.............................
Location of Farm:
From Sparta take 21N to 221S, then take 93N to Elk Creek Church. Turn right on Farmers Fish Camp Road. Go about 2 •
1/2 miles. Turn right at Gambill Dairy sign.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 ' 33 i 20 i, Longitude S1 • 10 ° 34 b.
Design Current
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 IN Dairy 230
❑ Non -Layer I I I[] Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 230
Total SSLW 322,000
Number of Lagoons I I ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 1 j 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State`? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (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
❑ Yes ® No
❑Yes ❑No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑Yes [I No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes 0 No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ..................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 50
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: 03-1 Date of Inspection 1I19/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the inte tty of any of the structures observed? (ie/ treesoere erosion, C] 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 Rye Corn (Silage & Grain)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
No violatitiris;or deficiencies -were ituted :duri�tg-this, visit;::Y6u:will receive•fi'6'6 rth'er.: :
....
inidence. about this.visit. ... ... ..... .. . ...... :
'# 9. Recommend a gauged marker with 6 inch increments to record weekly waste pond levels. �
# 19. Need to start keeping weekly waste pond levels per General Permit requirements.
aste analysis: 06/01/00 SSD 9.3 lbs. N11000 gals. B
H /06/00 LSD 4.0 lbs. NI1000 gals. B
Recommended reseeding the grass filter below the treated cow lot.
Reviewer/Inspector Name tRocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5100

ti
i
Facility Number: 03-1 oi' InspectionOdor 0
fe
J$sues
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
J
5/00

Division of Water Quality —11
ivision of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 03 01 'late ul Visit: 7/17/2000 Time: 0915 Printed un: 7/20/2000
rO Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: G.amb0J.A..G.a hill.hitm.................................... ........... ................. County: A► eghalty......................................... W.RA........
OwnerName: rj=......................................... Gfflubgl...................................................... Phone No: 03.0.372.-MM ........................................................
FacilityContact: Vxvid..G.amb.911............................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: 224..G,%m ill.Raad .............................. ... S-PaK a...NC................................ 2—75..............
............................................. ..............................
Onsite Representative: I?ayid.and..T.axll Gant WU.......................
Certified Operator:I?a.Yid...................................... Gambill.................
Location of Farm:
.................... Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: 226Q0..................
:.>;axlx.Sp��ta..t�tk.�.2.1.�Y.1tia.221Sa.xhe�..ta1��.93�.>ra.�'.li�.Cr.��1C.�htuXGlk,..:�uu�tt.�igltt.a�a.k'au:aa�xs.�'.islz.G.anau.l�Q�tst...�o.about.�...... �
II2.rxtil�s,...txnt. ' ht.at.Gakill.laai ..s' ra..............................................................................................................................................................................
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 ° 33 20 Longitude
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
JCI Layer
I
IN Dairy
1 230
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
JCI Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
230
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
322,000
❑-Boars
Number of Lagoons 0 1 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Dischart=_es & 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 & Trees
y Field Area
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
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:.........Wasm.prand................................................................................................................................................ . ........................
Freeboard (inches): 18 3 a 5r
Continued on back

Facility Number: 03-01 * Date of Inspection 7/17/2000 Printed on: 7/20/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees;ere 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
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
Re uired R r & 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
No-vio1atiolis. r deficiencies-were;noted :dilritlg-tt i9 visiL N u:will receive-h6 ftfrther : •
correspondence. about this .visit.
estions 10-32 were answered during 6/6/00 inspection. A.
and #8. David has fenced out cows from treated cow lot creating an average of a 50 foot buffer from the stream. He will sow fescue
d in the bare spots and cover area with straw in this buffer to filter potential sediment and waste run-off. He will fill in dirt in
)ression along stock trail by waste pond. He will also bring in gravel and fill galley by silo and make a berm with the gravel to catch
r feed/waste run-off. If this doesn't work he will put in concrete berm.
1W
Reviewer/Inspector Name !Melissa Rosebrock
. %%N1Un1i�/J1TV'W'l.'ll r� 1 .

'' T OiD isior -of Water Quality
Davtston'�of Soil and Water .Conservation
QViher Agency
(Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
(Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
FFacility Number 03 01 ID
air (if Vi%il: 6I6J2o00 Time; 1415
rO Not Operational Q 113e1ow Threshold
A Permitted M Certified E3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .............
Farm Name: .................................................
Owner Name:
Facility Contact: MYx AAt1 ...............................................Title:
County: A►Mcghanti......................................... WS.RQ........
....................... Phone No:.�YIT�.'S..(,?�t. �z-2.....................................
Phone No:
Mailing Address: 4..,[t1b1A.Q�tst .............................
OnsiteRepresentative:........................................................................................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:t)a.Y.td...................................... Gaul NU............................................ Operator Certification Number: ,ZZfQO.............................
Location of Farm:
From Sparta take 21N to 221S, then take 93N to Elk Creek Church. Turn right on Farmers Fish Camp Road. Go about 2
V2 miles. Turn right at Gambill Dairy sign.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 33 20 a Longitude 81 • 10 34 ..
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
10 Layer
® Dairy
1 230
1 181
❑ Feeder to Finish
10 Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
230
❑ Gilts
Total SSL W
322,000
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Pr;;Tnt-110 Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 10 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 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 5
Identifier: ......W.aste,.pond.......................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 44
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: 03-01 7 Date of Inspection 6/6/20U0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the intlPy of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees9re 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 maintenancetimprovement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain)
_ v
-r
t_
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? (-]Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? []Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Requirgd Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel 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?
0: N&*Uations:or:deficiencies•rveee:nbted:dtiting•th:is visit: 'Ydu:will "receive no fiirther-' •:
corres ondehe' a ahoui this:visit.:: ::.: :
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
[]Yes ® No
[]Yes ® No
® Yes []No
❑ Yes ® No
#3. On date of inspection it looked as if run-off from the treated cow lot (approx. 10 cows) may have washed sediment, waste, and
afterbirth onto the bank and into the creek. Streambank was eroded.
#8. Area outside barn (treated cow pen) is very denuded. David will fence out this area this week and sow grass in this area as soon as
possible. Need to keep sediment, waste and afterbirth out of creek. _Feed trough area has small amount of spilled silage that needs to b
cleaned up. The silage is getting into surface drain that eventually leads to creek.
#24. David is to call after this is completed (above) and have me check.
#19. Oct./Nov. 1999 and Jan. 2000 application dates not within 60 days of sampling date. Sent soil samples off for analysis around the
beginning of May.

F.aciity Number: 03--01 t ^te of Inspection 1 6/6/2000
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
Additional Commelfits and/or ravings:
26. and #32. Have been omitted for 2000.
5100

Vivision of Water Quality
ivision of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
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 03 O1 I) -me of Visit: 6/6/2000 Time: 141�Printed on: 6/23/2000
O Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Lase Operated or Above Threshold: .......................
Farm Name: G.ambill.K.G.amblWYAr m.............
County: All mhany........................................ WISEQ........
Owner Name ..... Phone No:.�?a►i'S..G3 )r.7.-Za4..................................
. �ahrx......................................... Gillrntb�ili................................................. ...
1'ia 5 33�s363.y3S�
Facility Contact: Vaxid,.GaMhW...............................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................
Mailing Address: 3D5..r;..aMbi).1.RQAd ...............................
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator;D.a.y-id...
Location of Farm:
Gambill- ...........................
.............. Sparta...NC.............................................................. MAU .............
............... Integrator:.....................................................
Operator Certification Number:ZZ.4.9Q...
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 33 4 2066 Longitude 81 • 10 1 34
Design Current
Swine C'anacity Ponulation
❑ 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 rNDairy 230 1Non-Layer Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 230
Total SSLW 322,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ L goon Area JCI Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 JE1 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? not measurable
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: ........Wasw—p)znd-- -------------------------------------------
Freeboard (inches): 44 ,
Continued on back

Facility Number: 03-01 Date of lnspeclicm 6/6/2000 Printed on
5. Are there any immediate threats to the ii{!!grity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trei— evere erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management of
closure plan?
6/23/2000 7s i.; ,•�'
❑ Yes ® No
❑ 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 Corn (Silage & Grain)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit 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?
0: Novi6latioris.odficiencies were:noted durig-thi;visit..:Ydu:Will-ceive•iio•ftrt,
. ;
corres_pondence about this :visit: � : • : - : • : - :
❑ Yes IS No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
[]Yes ® No
01. and #2. On date of inspection it looked as if run-off from the treated cow lot (approx. 10 cows) may have washed sediment, waste, ;
tnd afterbirth onto the bank and into the creek. Streambank was eroded.
M. Area outside barn (treated cow pen) is very denuded. David will fence out this area this week and sow grass in this area as soon as
)ossible. Need to keep sediment, waste and afterbirth out of creek. Feed trough area has small amount of spilled silage that needs to be
,leaned up. The silage is getting into surface drain that eventually leads to creek.
t24. David is to call after this is completed (above) and have me check.
#19. Oct./Nov. 1999 and Jan. 2000 application dates not within 60 days of sampling date. Sent soil samples off for analysis around the
)eginning of May.
Reviewer/Inspector Name )Melissa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: / A,Q 1_ ICI- , JA h7 Date:

)Facility Number: of Inspection 6/6/2000 printed on: 6/23/2000
Odor Issues 0 0
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
Additional Comments and/orDrawings:
26. and #32. Have been omitted for 2000.
AL

❑ Division o and Water Conservation - Operation Re
13 Division o and Water Conservation - Compliance I etion
�rvision of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
ther Agency - Operation Review
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow -tip of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of inspection go 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted [3Certified (] Conditionally Certified 13 Registered 113 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ta. !.L �.L�.` ...L.1.a. ..�J.,..f.....1... .r .............................. County:...L7I1. .1 }.. ....................
-......................
...!.. Owner Name:.....j�l-ry) ........... .Q� .. ...1.�.... Phone No: .3-3.. ..Q.I.9..... Ci.V..IUIS
Facility Contact: ..NV1A...... t,.it lM.hijj.................. Title: ................................................................ Phone No:....................--..---........................
3('
5ata`r.a`ailing Address.. .............. 6b lgd1�'arf� C a F
Onsite Representative:J VNv.vd......... C.Ok..................................... Intel;rator:.........................................................................-............
Certified Operator:..Qv....F.3.......................................................-..!f'.Q...
... Operator Certification \umber:.-..�.-
Location of Farm:
.. i..1..11/..:.:.Jl...✓.. M-�l...a. .•�....{.1.�1-.1.-.1-f:....1Y. :i..l. �L.Y-. A..
fo-. ..1..-....-C ' -[ ..... .u.r..c-t�l.... ...........Tyr
i..............J.M...f.l�.-1r 1... �-. 1L. ✓.-1+. ...... .l.. %. .--...l..Y..`1.:�.1.........1
... ....f ry. ....fir rm. .... .s.h.........................
Latitude
Longitude • ®� �`= o a �/a m I 5.
Turn �-►
Design Current
Design Current Design
Current
Swine Capacity Population
poultry
Capacity Population Cattle Capacity
Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
I I M Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
1. Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity (�
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area 10 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? XYes [:]No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field IXOtherTf-eA) Low ilk
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes WNo
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) X Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Dues discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (Ifyes, 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? KSpillway
Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure; 5
Identifier: f
km a "' ,(}
Freeboard (inches): ........... +...�................. ........................
........... ............................ ........................................... .............................
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.).
nr47t igm s oLL
Aj Yes ❑ No
4-Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes )!1,No
Structure 6
❑ Yes )No
Continued on back
3/23/99

Facility Number: — Oil 0e of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are rimproperly 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 siuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste ApplicatiO_n_
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type
U01W, I -fill
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This "facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? N,4
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 '4 No
❑ Yes ko
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes A,
No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes 00
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes Pg�No
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes ANO
❑ Yes >do
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes�o
Oyes. ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes 10
❑ Yes /o
*Yes 41mo
��
❑ Yes �o
0: 10 yi9latiOr's;or deficiencies •were noo(l• during this;visit; ;Y:oir will feed- Rio; further . ; :I
:: • corresporidenke: ahatit: this :visit::::: : :::: :
Comments (refer to question4): Explain any'YES. ariswers aud/or;any recommi ertdations ora ty other -comments.
Use drawings of -facility to better;explain situations (use:additiobal pages as necessary).
-� q . A rp-a. outs Ia, bo-m (-frt c4.e 3 d 6 .t
�p h) I s v� /410 L � -0
ou}
lU1 n1S CXJ(_Q_O. 65 Oo
1U e
q re. e` � w r� 0- �� �
0S b 5 i b b• f v 1
6 u CQ
i S 11 r ;tuts, , C �-2 e ra knmf P I `N )'1",e fn4e- 0-11 oO
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �—Iy1'7kl 7 1-1,444-) /�r/f ,lt / Date:

Faeiiity Number: — Q of inspection Q
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage and or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below Quo
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? QM 1 aW
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes 6�No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes j�'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 O(No
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? I J606
or vrawinQs:
•� // J' �t �' 1 .I'
1
*t u � are4 � a5 Ile
_ 5t 1� `�0' P1Eed S
e Ly. -T�O 5ilk e 1-5E4viA
5uC raI J
l�` a,-+ I�L&J5 46 C ee K-
� l999 2,sAjyoo Appl � ca�oh dct,+es
s a.�rn.�pl ; n� date .
3/23/99

R' 0 Division of ` Land Water Conservation - Operation Revic, _
0 Division ofjWnd Water Conservation - Compliance In on
_U
Division of ater Quality - Compliance Inspection
Other Agency - Operation Review
10 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number 03 Ol Date of Inspection 9/24/99
Time of Inspection 10:00 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered 10 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: G.ainbiil..&GAMbitl.fam........................................................................ County: AlIC911 any......................................... W.SR.0........
OwnerName: JgM......................................... GMbA l..........................................---......... Phone No: 33C-3.7.2.:M.9......... ..... .............................................
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: 224..GAmb U.RSA...........................
Onsite Representative: ................................................................ Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:Dayid...................................... Gambiu ............................................ Operator Certification Number;,ZZ.60.0 .............................
Location of Farm:
l;.r.4�.SRatsta..tyke.2.1N.ta.2��.5�.!~heo..t�l�e.�3N.tu_�11�.�.r.��tC. �b�►��:�>x,..:�:urr�.right..Q�t.k'arm�a�s..k:is�t.Ga�anR.�tQ�si.....GQ.aitout..�....._, ;
Latitude 36 ° 33 ' 18 [f Longitude 81 ° 10 { 30 ff
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Pnnulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current
Design Current
Poultry
Capacitv Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
I
I
®Dairy
200
185
❑ Non -Layer
I
1 EA
10 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
17771
Total Design Capacity
200
Total SSLW
1 280,000
Number of Lagoons - ❑-Subsurface-Drains.Present 0-Lagoon Area. . ❑.Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management Svstem
Discharees & 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 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 1
Freeboard (inches): ......... 1.$, inches ......... ..................... ................................... ........................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: 03-01 D^ of Inspection
6, I\re,i�tre structures on -site which are nceoperly addressed and/or managed through a womanagement 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 maintenancelimprovemen t?
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 Rye Wheat Corn (Silage & Grain)
9/Z4/99
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? [:]Yes []No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment`?
Reduired 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?
(iel 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?
®; Nf0-viol'ati6ns;or deficiencies were :noted :during this; visit;- NO'Will reeei:ve•rlo-further•: • ;
corresnondence. about this .visit. •. • :
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No

W-Division of fi tl:and Water_ Conservation - Operation Rev*
t rfbiviAon o and Water Conservation - Compliance In f ion
�`13ivision of �.ater Quality - Compliance Inspection
CrOtfier Agency - OperationReview
10 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number 03 1 Date of Inspection 6/8/99
Time of Inspection 9:54 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered 0 Not Opera Date Last Operated: ..........................
Farm Name: Gambill.&G.ambill.fa<rtla........................................................................
OwnerName: J;Uu......................................... GaMbAl.....................................................
Facility Contact:
Mailing Address: 224..4rumb. ll.Rd.................
Onsite Representative: l?avid.Gatabill........
Certified Operator.Da.Y.itd.... I ..............................
Location of Farm:
............... Title:....
GaEAM......
County: Mcghatay......................................... WSRO........
Phone No: 9..0:17.2.-2819...........................................................
PhoneNo: ...................................................
Sputa...NC.............................................................. 28.6.7.5 ..............
Integrator:.......................................................................
Operator Certification Number:22600 .............................
Latitude 36 • 33 ' 18 " Longitude 81 ' 10 & 30 64
Design Current
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 Capacitv Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ® Dairy 200 190
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 200
Total SSL W 280,000
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110lagoon Area 10 tiprap Field Arc,
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges - Stream Im ac
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'? (It yes, notity 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 ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches) ................ 4.............................. ..................... .......... ......................... ..... ............................... .................................... ....................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: 03-1 D 1 of Inspection
�y Are there structures on -site which are r0operly addressed and/or managed through a +W 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
6/8/99
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue, Orchard, Tim.(hay)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit'?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewernnspector 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?
0; No•viol'ati6nis;oir. deficienciesmere.noted duriug.this; visit::Y6u:wi11 i-ecei've no further
correspondence: about this :visit. : .: ::::: :: :: :: ::: ..: ::
9 Operator is using a mark painted on the concrete wall, that was set by the tech. specialist.
13 Need to have hay added on Tract # 480.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
[:]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No

p Division of Soil an ter Conservation - Operation Review
- p Division of Soil an er Conservation - Compliance Inspection.
Division of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
p Other Agency - Operation Review
I* Koutine p l_onipiautt 0 volmm•-up of u►vy Inspection p rc
Faciiity Number
EIS Registered M Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted
Farm Namc: Gambill.&.GamhiU.Farm ...............................
ow -up of u.7)wk_ review p Vtner
Fite of Inspection
Tillie of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
in 1 'ni peratrona D-me Last Opernied:
............... County: Alleghany WSRO
OwnerNarnc: ,Tarn ......................................... G.aianbi.11...................................................... Phone No: 910-372:.IR19............. ..... ....................... .................
Facility Contact: •..••• ............................................ .. I Isle: ... Phone No:
1'Iniiing Address: 22:4.Gambill.Lid.................................................................................... sparta..Nc .............................................................. 28675,.............
Onsite 12epresennitive:...........................................................
........ I o lei;rator:.......................................................................................
Certified Operator:David................... ..... Gambill................... Operator- Certification Numher:2M.00.................. .............. ......................... ..........
1_ocation of Farm:
1/.2.xnjles....T.uxn.xi tit.at.Gambitl1.Qair...s qs.............................................................................................................................................................................I
g. x..!1;.
Lat1111dC ®�© ® L,onritude ®0®:
Swine Capacity Population Poultry
p can to Feeder
p Feeder to finis
p Farrow to Wean
p Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finis
p Gilts
p Boars
Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
® airy 200 1 E-d
p Non -Dairy
p ayer
p on- Layer
p Other
Total Design Capacity 20=
Total SSLW F 280,000
Number of Lagoons / Holding Ponds 1
10
Subsurface
Drains
Present IagoonArea
p Spray re t rea
p
No
Liquid Waste
Management
System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Dischar,c ori,inatcd at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. Ifdischar�,c is observed. was the conveyance man-ntade''
b. [f dischargc is observed. did it reach SUrfaCC Water? (If ves. nolifv DWQ)
c. It'dischar,c is observed. what is the estimated flow in,al/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a la,00n system? (Ii'ves. 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 p No
p Yes p No
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

acr ity um er: 03_Ol t?a c d ' `�tslaection
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on s hich need to be properly closed? • ❑ Yes ® No
Structures jLac-roons.Holding Ponds. Flush Pits. etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ® No
Structut•c I Structure ? Structure 3 Sn-ucture 4 SWUC(ure 5 Structure 6
Idcluificr: 1
1-rcehoard I:li): .2..feet...........................................................................................................................................................................
........... .................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? p Yes ® No
11. is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? p Yes ® No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? p Yes ® No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? p Yes N No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? p Yes ® No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ........Corn..(Silage.&.G.taro.)....... ... TimQthy...QzchaicL.&..ftye............................................................................
Cra s
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Asnimal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? p Yes N No
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
® No
[ S.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
p Yes
®No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
p Yes
®No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
®No
21.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
®No
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
p Yes
® No
24.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
®No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes
® No
. .:o:vio tions . ord a icrencies-wereaote unngt is visit:. You. will .receive no. further .
ot`restio lenc about this v1s� . • ..
Comments -(refer to'question°#) Explam':any XES answers and/.or anyreco.mmendations or�anyather,comments
:Use drawings of facility to better explain situattogs (use additional pages as necessary)
Reviewer/ lnspector Name
Reviewerllnspector Signature:
Date: y L) ZZ—C(

10-03-1997 11:04AM FROM SPARTA FIELD OFFICE 1 910 372 A64S
P. 2
y��"" .80�:, ya.. +at bar :r ;v: 'Y^'� star �'t" r.'. ryo-c•::. .A � ;:��..•,w^ m :.»'• :��,' :rii, l �y'r µ., f Nok �,00 "+',, �:x": YS`Y?,'a•'�,,, '_�`"�S'`" �' Asa
i"k` { , �P' f ��'...::w.,k'Aw..`�F}';,�,r::;...:".�`':: .t. .. .,ra5X6A•:'x�e'.+...t .,. ..�;, na„:, „?c.e� "�>. aa<.:: `7." .•. ., s.. a k* � k �.
t
�x b'A,MQDSWC Animal Feedlot Operation Review
DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
� uyk �Y � ��e } . vwaxtn"'. � " •r $�%i'Er .;,yaeaeyx �. ry. }y7'a` i �'..y..w.,, ♦� x <t t,p"r r� R � ys,Y,'{4 ��'� �t
;`<,� '.i.�,Y.y�'3,iaiW+�,rt 4t°'��.�.c.: .;a�?sa �r� ',r• .. �'- 3"':'S&.�3e3wr"�'.iK i yam.,•,, :ns�, ritls: �'iP`�i X �,>•• 4 �da�. t�.T.
E•s.. .: Y.3 .,,7. .:�4�:x, � �;�� .. a.,a,.�r^; .an .6�a41. m ..,e-.v:.: .ad.�., f,
10 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of D VQ inspection 0 l ollo-'e'-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility humb4--r D
Farm Status: I@ Registered [I Applied for Permit
Q Certified C{ Permitted
Date of Inspedion
'1 itnr of Inspection c�n"� 24 fir. (hh:mm)
"17otal Time fin fraction of hours
(ex:1.?5 for I hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
or Inspection (includes travel and processing)
0 l ate Last Operated Not U �erait>trtaa i]•............................................................................................................................----................
3 Farriltianle: Qm !� "� a.Xrn._ ?.i..l..� .�.. " f�`1 County Z. .r ........................
Owner------•.................... .... ^?.q ?x.....1.. r f ............ Phone 'hone : of �:......_.._........................_...._............�� �i.�.............
Facility Contact; ... ..�t..ta.i................ Title:. Oj........:.7...f�_t'..`......................... Phone \n: �.��......�..�.i..l-----------
:Mailinv Address:—.,� . ........�� R. ?.. .t....1L.V..:................................... ...............
Onsite Representtzttve:, ?� ,/Cr�.ri'�" t.:.-1r-- r Integrator: ............................................................................... '
Certified Oper:itor:,,,,,,LJ.� (J �_..4�...............•---...., C...,d....�...___..._......_........ Operator Certification \umber:. O..I......4.......
Location of Farm:
Lwifudc �JI 1 }4 t&G LongitudC 2^1-w-]0 6 ::
Type of Operation
Swine
Design . Current Design Current
Capacity .Population Poultry. Capacity Population
❑ Laver
❑ Non -sayer
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Other
Design ' Current
Cattle Capacity Population,,
Dairy Q
❑ Non -Dairy
Total Design Capacity �
Total SSLW
Nurrtber.of•Lagootts'! Iio�ding Ponds £ 10 Subsurface [Drains Present ©C.a�aon Area ❑ Spray Field Area "K�
�; A
Lt: -nerd
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenano-Vimprovement?
2. Is and, discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Dkchnry:e orieinated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray+ Field ❑ Other
at It dil,char,,c is observed. was the conveyance r. art -made•.?
b, Vdischarage is ob crved, slid it reach Surface Watcr? (If ;Ice, notify DWQ)
c. IF dischar,c ii obr•,crved. what is the; estimated flow in gal/mite?
d. Does discharne bypass a la,00n systein'? (if yes, notify lDWQ)
1, Is there evidence ofpasi discharg: from any part of the operation?
sl, lucre there any adverse impact, to the watery of the State other than from a discharg�e:�
�' 1lnr.r �..,-+•+-•r ,.F rl..,..�,�_ r} .,,.,., -..... ,,,, ,,� �,.�r.-,,. /.zr'�,-� vF.nn ln,rnnnc/hnlrtina nnnricl rrt'titiY�
Q Yes O N o
❑ Yes 21 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
© Yes ❑ N`o
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Ycs
No
❑ Yes
No
r Yee
1 I No

10-03-1297 11:O5AM FROM SPARTA FIELD OFFICE 1 910 372 AG45 p.3
Facility Number:— D
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in e;ffeu at the time of design? ❑ Yes ,$� No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes No
S, Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? Q Yes 09 No
S.pructu•5 l.agoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes PK No
Freeboard (ft): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
.............................................................................................................................................-......... .................. -----------.......------------.-------
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
1I. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DNYQ)
13. Do any of the structures luck adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
W. ie Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(if in excess of WISP, or runoff entering eaters of the State, notify�DWQ)
15- Crop type ..14 E111 ,.. ....... a, ..... �.,7..42r�rCa................„....,.............................
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?
1S. 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 Rcvicwer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
Fnr . �r_1 jaed 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 IN NO
❑ Yes O No
❑ Yes ONO
21 Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes ILA No
© Yes 91 No
❑ Yes( No
[� Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Al
J
Revie-wer/;nspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector 5ignat

][31JNWk-. AnlnW eedtot uperatlon Keview is
® DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
Routine p Complaint p o ow -up of 0WQ inspection
Facility Number
Farm Status: E3 Registered p Applied for Permit
p Certified [3 Permitted
ow -up ofDSWC review p Other
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 14:30::] 24 hr. (hh:mm)
otd I true (in Iraction o yours
(ex.1.25 for I Itr 15 min)) Spent on Review ours
or inspection (includes travel and processing)
p Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Gambill & Gambill Farm County: AIli~gha.tty...........................................WSRO........
OwnerName: Tam ......................................... G.aim till...................................................... Phone No: 3.72-28.19 ...................................................................
Facility Contact: same.as.osxner...............................................'Title:............................................................... Phone No:....................................................
MailingAddress: Rt2.l a.281.-P....................................................................................... spar.ta..Nc ............................................................. 28675 ..............
Onsite Representative: la'.m:.W.GazOill............................................................................. Integrator:
, ,rator:............................................
Certified Operator:....c...:.`.....T....�,Q1!V1,b1Gambill .................................................... Operator- Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
.roue. patrla.Lake.21N..to.22.1S,.then.take.93N.rns.right_vn.kaarxrLcrs1.ish..La.mp..Raa.d....Go..abvut.Z..... 1i .'L
112.naiags,:::Tur n.right,a_t,GambiU Airy.sz �:::::::::::::................................................................................................::::::::::::::::1
Latitude ®•©� ®" Longitude ®• ® ®:°
pe of Operation i Design Current Design Current Design Current
Srviae Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
p Wean to ee er
❑ Feeder to inns
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Other
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW 350,000
Number of Lagoons / Holding Ponds ❑Subsurface Drains Present IE3 agoon Area ❑ tjra)Field Area
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. It discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) p 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, not DWQ) ❑Yes p No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? []Yes N No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? I] Yes ® No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes ONO
maintenance/improvement?
4/30/97

f
jP'act.►jy um er: 03-1
6. Is facility not in compliance with any apoable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
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 and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
2 feet
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
p Yes
ig No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
®No
Structure 5
Structure 6
p Yes
® No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ....... Cnrm.(S.ilage.&. Graitt).............................................................................................................................
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 AWNIP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
N Yes ❑ No
p Yes M No
............. I........................
p Yes p No
p Yes M No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes M No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
,Comments (refer-to.questiop #) Explauipany YE:S answers and/or:any recommendations or any other comments.;
Use d'i swings of facility tobettei explain-sittiatiops: (usc additonal'pages as'nccessary)
Questions 16, 20, 21, 22 -- Animal Waste Managment Plan is not completed.
wr
Reviewer/Inspector Name Uenny_Rankin
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:, ��� Date: t-i q q-