290007_INSPECTIONS_20171231

V
Division of Water Resourc
Facility Number - C 0 Division of Suil and Water Co nervation'
0 Other Agency [-10 Y
Type of Visit: iP Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: (A Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: ( j Arrival Time: S Departure Timer County: Region:
Region: �v
Farm Name: Uy [A �--af ms 1 LLG Owner Email:
Owner Name: Clenjb :5 SM,+h Phone: *
Mailing Address: 9-150 ayN Wlr)!a-h" IV G
Physical Address:
V 3�;--1 -TS1 -1 N
Facility Contact: cipmej SMtfh Title: OVAnX �Phone: 3�1 - ",?CAMiln
1 -
Onsite Representative: Pipoyge`,
Certified Operator:y
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:'} (C111 04"� 5 1 F Vi - Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: -7 Longitude: 000_ 14
VS 5a to Uo/V0o4 EXit NLI) �- a i`1rirgrAv�, one a ►d L"mv�iaad 12d .
�,kYm Oh
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 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 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?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
�C
Dairy Calf
Q
X
Dairy Heifer
QD
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes �4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes `A No
❑ Yes tx No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4, Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate'?
❑ Yes
Z] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
}'Structure
Identifier: 0l6 MP
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in).
_
�- Observed Freeboard (in): Q
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'?
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
7N 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 ❑ 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):
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
[5a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
CA 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 N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components orthe CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes IF ` No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
r21. Des record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
ite Applicat' n [�'�Veekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Q'Soil Analysis ❑ Weather Code
in fa Stocking E:�&p Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections �onthly and I" Rainfall Inspections ❑ e£ rt
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge'? ❑ Yes F 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 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application 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.
❑ 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
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No
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?
❑ NA ❑ NE
14NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes K] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [� No
❑ Yes No
❑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 pales as necessarv).
Oew barns 5an4 laws Cornple _e ? ConLp Lzf--r_6% w( new lee:cKciArc
�V� � pigh �,�1c�-es r..� ate• �
Ue,
SGi t� �eS+r'nq Job �oj 8. '�--� a(�3i 1j� � 3j I v
- vJ : � \ l"1Nee K- Offrrx-tt r hovr-s -- Eli• b'} 5rx.+4-1 M ubd bLt 1
13 �q
L4q Cy
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signab
Page 3 of 3
3a1- - 116 - C110
Phone:
Date: q b
21412015

Division of Water Resours
Facility Number ®- 0 Division of Soil and Water onservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: f g County: V4 Region:}
Farm Name: �p j/� jp FQ.L.��. Owner Email: ''11
Owner Name: Phone: 7� — 7g� 3 CG
Mailing Address: 02 7 5-0 T e r5e_y 0-ih U rC_h , 16?Q n 9 [ a n�-
Physical Address: 6EI s- ram) Sou*h.m one- . ~, L eY r n 9 ha 0, NC_ 0 7;Z9c-
.4.
357 -7517 t —
Facility Contact: �p 496 i Q e, S im t +�n Title: Phone: — ar
Onsite Representative: 00 le&rq(J_ Sji�l 1 integrator:
Certified Operator: 4 Certification Number:
Back-up Operator
Location of Farm:
PQ_+r-1 C-- 1 o S 1 Certification Number-
Ij
Latitude: 35 -i 3 5 Longitude:
015 ErA 5 tm Ut n wa 2xl L on r"e-) ©� Lin coo Farm
an (�)
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 -La
Pullets
Turkey Poults
Other
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 DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
❑ Yes 2 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
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes [N No ❑ NA ONE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412014 Continued

Faci I ity Dumber: - 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 I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: fn(
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
eNo
❑ 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
�Vo
❑ 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
EA<o
❑ 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
CNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
,PTNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Yes
�u,Zn,
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Pond- ydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals
( etc.)
PAN PAN > 10% or 0 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): 71 -14 Le 14A79AJ
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
D�`No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
tSrgo
❑ 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
�rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21 oes record keeping need i provement? ❑ Yes CR-Ko
ante Applicati ' ekly Freebo(120
Waste Analysis oil Analysis s
Rainfall tocking Crop Yield Minute Inspections Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facilityTiFfo install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes eNo
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
Page 2 of 3
❑ Yes ❑ No
NA, ❑ NE
Bather Code
❑NA ❑NE
(XNA ❑ NE
21412014 Continuer!

Facilit Number: jDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ 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?
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 J�No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
WNA ❑ NE
[:]Yes (NrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes 2! l4No
❑NA ONE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes Cq'f10 ❑ NA 0 NE
❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �0 ❑ 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).
• F�ie_i 4 5 vPc a�i-ec 'v) t_�uP ?Le/41
N� ba -n5 �4- sand, toaxe5 dAkplerfe- 2 No- - �Q:- —
0&k b lr-"O I/1 due— -)d 17
a,
Sb115 r uirej
0—
• cog 30 lb-5
11/-71,S= 1.79 165 N/tow
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature
Page 3 of 3
Y. -�-8 N/Top1
Phone:
Date: W pZ Q �(
21412014

/N
Division,of.Water. Resour
Facility Number ®- O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: & Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: tD Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up () Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: - ZI-Js Arrival Time: o o Departure Time: f pQ County: //eoiclifl Region: Y v�
Farm Name: Lpt/e � yrK Owner Email:
Owner Name: l7-GoY4'c Si^I -fl Phone: 3 3b — ;Z �O- 7 p 5-3 ` Co,11
Mailing Address: .2760 �P..S-e,, C14
Physical Address: b sls LAI wpAJ—
L�,�►..��.,
1.141vn �C 2 72 9Z
Facility Contact: 6 a !y �jyi►/, Title: Phone: 3M- 35 7- 75J ] — H
3 59- 357— 2729-SA_
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: v Certification Number:
Back-upOperator: rr p clllf r<I �/'!%/ Certification Number:
�
Location of Farm: Latitude: 95 y3 5 7
Longitude: 0 / 9 9
�� Z /,r weo �/r e a,-�ra� L Al CII O/ L.- tjuo 05�.r n Orr? L
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
I E I Non -La er
Pullets
Turkey Poults
Other
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 than -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?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dai Cow
jrOe
CJ
Daia Calf
jj
Daia Heifer
OO
_73--
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes JZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes allo
❑ Yes ONo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: I - 9)7 Date of Inspection:
IS
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
ENo
❑ 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:C p
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): n
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?
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
E No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
fallo
❑ 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
ED No
❑ NA
0 NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. 0 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): 4 ��
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
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
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
AM No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
jj?[NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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 RNo ❑ 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 E�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application [Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis E]J)W-&��s �eather Code
Q Rainfall Q'§t-ocking []'-Crop Yield �20 Minute Inspections �onthly and I" Rainfall inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes O No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No �5 NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

[Facility Number: - • 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?
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)
3 I. 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 M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes JEJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes jo No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 2] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes PLNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes (RI No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes E No
❑ 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).
!• �r�/ra j�rorr to / �•an ue Zo/S, /a /
lostJJS
i
/ rlej)5 T� �cc�(��a•d�o' i+�l (A)LAP-�,s 13, 105`1L12527, 105`(f zr�- 17
G I
IV,. y k s a tAfIC
31?VI S
01,5 l i b
N- 3.7 2 /v_ 5,2
Reviewer/Inspector Name: / ✓ Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �(� Date:
Page 3 of 3 21412014

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number ®- 0 Division of Soil and Water _ervation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: YRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: //�Jt� Arrival Time: ; Departure Time: : 02
ounty:Dwi sO ki Region: U)510�6
Farm Name: o''v�fe'lea_
F m
Owner Email:
Owner Name: eo �"q�-
5 IYl t T41
Phone:
Mailing Address: a 7-T 0
Se V.5 u r c-h
+00 1 IU C- �L 7; 1c-'-'-
Physical Address: Jo _� s
LIT ?I.t��� — St7 U�h
1Y[ D n� t'" d 1 L
L [�97 6P'l f `i C 7 a / �_
Ili�1
}� 3-97 -7s 1 7
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone:
Onsite Representative:
Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator
Location of Farm:
U
Swine
P- Certification Number:
Latitude: 3S 10 5 7 Longitude:
fn I n WOO t L �_5,r-o.l`te. L, n �
a.lrm D n
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
ury rou
Lavers
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)?
1 Y1 Wwd
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
.t
M:--
•
--
❑ Yes [No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: ; - 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 Q Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier. �`�- ` 4 n3
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
(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 DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes J07IJ 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? 06
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes p 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
f
12. Crop Type(s): A4_A i 5 jj_"_A ,. "�i'�i t e.�J g�"LV_4 O �f-
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
C<NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21 oes record keeping need ' provement?, Z
❑Yes No
Raste Applic tion eekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysisrftn
ainfall Stocking Crop Yield D 120 Minute Inspections [I"Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes TT❑�� No
Page 2 of 3
IN ❑ NE
Weather Code
❑ NA ❑ NE
0 � NA ❑ NE
21412014 Continued

. - c a m a PfV)
Facili Number: - Date of Inspection: O
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes A 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. TK
❑ 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 surveyI dicating 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 NX 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:
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes L 'a Vo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes J)2'No [] NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer 0-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).
abia� �013�0�bfalibra��i°n5 ? aot3 ao
Lc Z4- CazJ
=t;
;tT/'� ✓
Rol Cf q , '7- V" -t- C
°'8 - S$'
.00,2= 3.93
Qo ;'--- = 4o v 4 7
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 77 ` ! & -I
Date: p
21412014

Division of Water.Quality. L
Facility Number - Division of Soil and Water'Co nation
O Other Agency ,
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection n Operation Review p Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine O Complaint O Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency O Other 0 Denied Access
— - -Date of Visit:-- $. Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: 1J1 n Region:
1? le-4 �CLr Yyl Owner Email: Farm Name: Loy
Owner Name: d eo r a e. SM,t Phone: W 3 S 7 7 oL G]
Mailing Address: R-7 ,Sh a7 aI;?—
Physical Address
Facility Contact:
lQ 5-1 5 L-I'h \0'j - S U'-� m orct
�PD rY7P M �
Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: -
Back-up Operator:
inc-0n9a2-
Phone: e— aZ 4 o - -7 R "3
Integrator:
Ip S. \1
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35 Longitude: <6_ I K Al r
us H w I Sx S, fo L irl w 4eK 1 +. L �tox a r-ave '49 old L 1, n wood Ad - Fa r�
o n I e_.-4, G 4,%
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -La er
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Non-L,
Pullets
Other
Pouits
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)?
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
Q
O
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes [X"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [Z No
❑ Yes gNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: a - . Date of Inspection:511-liftoti
Waste Collection & Treatment
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 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
-- -- — Identifier_ -
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
❑ Yes
0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
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.)
❑ Yes [VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
[JrNo
❑ 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
[R'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Q;'No
❑ NA
ONE
(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
f5a'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
[:]Yes
CRIINo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Pending ❑ 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): -� M fl 1 k 4 t` F)`% V_1 r n 5 n r a
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
DNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
�WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres detennination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
D6 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 0 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. T
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? #fy n,,-cheek th elOw. Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ W ste Application [Weekly Freeboard i::!Waste Qa Ai Soil Analysis ❑ Weather Code
Rainfall dtocking %Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute nspections Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections Siudge•£frey-
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 1� No ❑ NA ❑ NF
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No pq NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continried

Facilit Number: iR Ll - Q Date of Ins ection: $"
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 C§No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes C�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 reviewtinspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes [No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes N�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �yNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes rNo
❑ Yes PSrNo
❑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).
�. 'LO cal 16 M -1ian 0,0 nti� je+eA 7 C 5LAI,
V
71-r c I e CUX t lc10 0-1— bo is/s
15 wo r K i teck 5 e_ U 0J 1 S t- f-41 'co C-0-We- ar ml
NYP-ol3 = Sal L5 b
ReviewerlInspector Name:
ReviewerlInspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: -71 ] -s a169
Date: .S 1-3 1 rid 13
21412011

J�Mivision of Water Quality
Facility Number - D ^] O Division of Soil and Water Co tirvation 1 yl
O Other Agency t �1
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
_ --Date of Visit _ _Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: gvld �n Region: WS RO
Farm Name: Love -le -a- FGLYI M Owner Email:
Owner Name: E - 5 lwi±ja Phone: W JS 7 - d 7 oZ
Mailing Address: Q -j �Q �� rj-t�� C. h le —a , Le to it
.. e 1 n
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: P d (`[� 5 ` �l/1 Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
e CI neon , d� 017a 4
357--7s17
Phone: C Q 4n
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35- 4 3 5 7 Longitude: $ 0 19 `i d
u5 w s�
bInwocd
EX t 4-�f� Con to H,9-r�c r"e 1 � o nf-o; Q �
L i yl w ood
(S,,j
f �-C�
- I� ca,-X' m
C7 n T e
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.
Layer
Non -La er
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Poo.
Layers
Non -La ers
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)?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
0
Dairy Cow
goo
Dairy Calf
-41
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes [)(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
0 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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes `P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[] Yes 5NO ❑ NA ONE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Q Date of Inspection: 9,1/4P_
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
111. a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
{ J
❑ Yes
YNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: p n
Spillway?: — -- -- ---- -- --- � ..__------- — --_ —__ — _--
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) TTTTTT�j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes [XNo ❑ 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 0�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes P<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? 77��
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
[:]Yes
O(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ 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?
Yes
TTT❑
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
Yes
Q(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
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
IXNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
O(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑Lease Agreements ❑Other:
W21. oes record keeping need i provement? ❑Yes Na ❑ NA ❑ NE
aste Application Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis rs ❑ Weather Code
jainfatl Stocking Vcrop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [�onthly and V 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 XNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: p'Z - Date of Ins ection: 9
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No [DNA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes []No XNA ❑ 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
2$. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes CR o ❑ 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 N<0 ❑ 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 i No ❑ 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
�Vo
❑ 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
�lo
❑ 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).
tv
0)&L f-r,
MAPlJ�
r.�uP,
3 14 1 P 11 to. 93
-31�1,2ql _ �. �C7L5D q�lo�ra.bfl z
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
ZMJM&4r
aaja, _ 7.JV
Phone:V
G - ScZQ
Date: I L JLM I
21412011

Type of Visit q Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit (Routine O Complaint O Follow up 0 Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
-Date of Visit:- -Arrival-Time: -Departure Time: - . 00 County: Region:7,U71SR0
Farm Name: 1-.n V rhn Owner Email:
Owner Name: e- 1 Phone: l W)
_—
Mailing Address: cR -T e�6 hq f6 13 N 2 7 a Q
(O
Physical Address: S is h h VJ60A ` ? Ott � ►7 m nI) "� Le t Y?a hm
/� c a.4o-1�Ss 3
Facility Contact: 6e_0 V_Qe 5vt Title: Phone No:
Ili 7
Onsite Representative: f) Pf)Y`Q to 1 Integrator: ~
Certified Operator: _e ?Tl Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: `o a, �.�
s Longitude: �Q
u S Sa 5. `hi) Unw i+ L Onto �-F � tie onto
0 i �: Zen uu oor� !� . �c�jruvt, ovt le �-i- .
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
,
-
�❑ Other
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -Layer
Dry -Poultry
Design Curreni
Cattle CapacfiS, Pgpulartion9
ai Cow
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
r'rs
J
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'? ❑ Yes 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 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 adverse impacts or potential adver e impacts to Waters of the State ❑Yes No El NA ❑ NE
other than from a discharge? 1�Wt/tljte /[_�6TQ
Page l of 3 1�— ' _ ` �! - _ � � � s P � � 12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: aI — Date of Inspection T I I
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
t y Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
— - --Spillway?.--- - - - —-- - - -- -- - - - — -- -
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): co Ci
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? I `
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 6 To ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ElNA ElNE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) I
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ElNA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes L No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? II
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
s ^' n
12. Crop type(s) Aj1U Al G�l.[!<.L �G[X 1140
AL
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 acre determination ? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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?
Cl Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any VES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
IReviewer/Inspector Name � nn ti � � Phone: { — Sic;k I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 'Q n >1 1 L, J Date: ! a6
Page 2 of 3 ! v 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: a Sof Inspection
Required Records & Documents
t9. 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 ❑Other
21. Doe record keeping nee7�wt
ovement? ❑ Yes �pl No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application ely Freeboard�12
aste Analysis Lld Soil Analysis Waste Transfers(({ 4�3 Annual
Rainfall stocking izc`rop Yield 0 Minute Inspections 19/Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections c6eather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
P(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
ElYes
❑ No
1KNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes t
o ❑ NA ElNE
ElYeso ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
Ip{ No
1ANo
El NA
El NE
El Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
O(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
1XNo
ElNA
ElNE
El[ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
i i Drawings:
-
_ 0
r , I
/ I
Page 3 of 3 12128104

-- yr ir'". .Y 1 'c$
�'a
c,y +!� W '_ ';�� 4 e-, -. "1 . �i`•9�t - F
J Dn*�s�on of&Waterg,Quality��+¢
: �r 401�q.`. � d
h - '.fY Afl v - .-s
a ti _
1.
�-.� L
DDn,on of SoilandV4�ater Conservation,`
��Other Agencv� Mr•�
- �`'r��. "f`� �
,..
_
,x
Factitty Number . � �
Q
Type of Visit Xcompliance
Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
yRoutine O Complaint
O Follow up O Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arriv-1 Time: 12-: Departure Time: County: Da 114111 Region: WSR�
Farm Name: L//D fit; � tM _ _ _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: v Phone: G 7 S % Z7 Zq
Mailing Address: Z O Ui a (_$_1-fin G 2-72-`3 7—
Physical Address: A_w0ot, Mon [ P,1 r[+,1 G Z Z
Facility Contact: 1jel / j f S,M : 7 h Title: Phone No: 6M 3s7— =7
Onsite Representative: S, Integrator:
Certified Operator: 6Pep!!4�F1-t Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: � o ©4 0 Longitude: $0 o / el
, ®,,
U 5 14W) SZ 5. -�o i.r,��oO� Ex qcL yzve_ / "_Pl O/d Z-14a-a Rd. / FerM ,, to c4
Swine
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
F `IlJ Boars
;,Othcr
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current )Q
Capacity Population...'; Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle capac
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
ElNon-Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ TurkeyPoults
El Other
Dischames & 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?
Dai Cow
QQ
❑ Dai Calf
ZS'
1���
❑ Dairy Heifer
ZQ
❑ Dry Cow
r,
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
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?
F;oQtructures .
�. a �t
❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes N
[INA
❑ NE
❑ Yes //o
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 11/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: 2 — ® Date of Inspection 0 7 . 0ID
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: "X4 pert
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 ElNE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes gNo ❑ 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 environmentk
l thhreatnotify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ElNA El NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require El Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes �rNo ❑NA ElNE
maintenance/improvement?y�,,�
IL Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. El Yes J� No []NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 1bs ❑ 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) CO/n � S,•,4/� �'a s�
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes ,EZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No ElNA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ yes ❑ No- NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? [I Yes *o " ❑``NA ❑ NE
18, is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes jjrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name I IVIILA41 I Phone: - 77 / —SZSS
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:Date: 47Z 1f2/L7
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Z — of Inspection
Required Records & DocumentsWN
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? El Yes o❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check El Yes _KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists El Design El Maps El Other Xy
21. Does reord keeping need improvement? es ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application eekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Ana sis
Rainfall Stocking Crop YieldO Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rain Inspection ❑Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑Yes ❑ No NA ElNE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes JKNo El NA El NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? El 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 ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ki,o
❑ 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
kNo
❑ 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
qNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
„WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and_/oL1r- Drawings:
rt
QU �.f 20 l 0,
a
7J
2,3
9i7e?-Lf7
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit
Compliance Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
Routine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: p� .' Departure Time: ; ounty: y Aso n Region: i 015lw
Farm Name: L b Ve,1e0. VQ rM Owner Email:
Owner Name: ontonsclae, 6. 4 TV 1 Phone: \rj 3 s7
Mailing Address: Ch U ray-�,, d• I A Qn L 02 7 Z
Physical Address: � S I � 111 n UDDOA — S6 U ` F' (]� Dd e a
Facility Contact: 6 e_O d'Q t0 15,Ah 'V 1 Title:
Onsite Representative: o Pncqe_J WY1 1
Certified Operator: enU:q 1 1l1
Ij
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
05 Sa j . to Li n
rQ Y' m oc \ ke-+
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Other
❑ Other
V j c-+f`tv —
Phone No: —
Integrator: �—'
Operator Certification Number: Q
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ©1
e-1t Le o n-b 14o-rq rat.Ve
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑Non -La er
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ 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)
tf Longitude: L�611 UZI I
oR C i rl.
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
a,j
❑ Dairy Heifer
aU
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes DCNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
ElNE
ElYes
rNo
❑ 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
r❑`
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Structure 5 Structure 6
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 KNo ❑ 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement`?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 4-No ElNA ❑ NE
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 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
❑ 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 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): }F
Reviewer/Inspector Name] hone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: YDate: .� • S�S
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: ' — *of Inspection I zs •
Required Records & Documents r
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ElYes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes J7,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ W UP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keepin need impr vement'. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ aste Applic ion Weekly Freeboard aste Analysis oil A alysis n �,T..SW T_.,..S f -
LTRainfall Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspectionsonthly and 1" Rain Inspections�eather
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative'?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
9No
ElNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
,K NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
V[No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
�JrNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes )6 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [�dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes �`No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
A. a o I o: c�►.�
a bd � � Ivor u.•�-� ao l I ,
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of Water Quah
Facility Number h 0 Division of Soil and Wate '�nservation
Q Other Agency Qluf
Type of Visit 1,Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistan0 I
Reason for Visit Routine, Q Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Ai rrival Time: Departure Time: 1� County:
Farm Name: L d V+'. ` ea J Q rm Owner Email:
Owner Name: r E Phone:
Mailing Address: aj e—� f C
J •J � r
Physical Address:
Region: LL�S2d
z-1
Facility Contact: Title: Phone��o:
r__ q
Onsite Representative: �` i Integrator: _� a
Certified Operator: h� � — Operator Certification Num er: ��'
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: � �� Longitude: ®o
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
❑ 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
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated au ❑ 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
ELDairy Cow
I L400
EJAC)
Ll Dairy Calf
t
❑ Dairy Heifei
fj
❑ 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: W
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
ElYes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104
Continued

. A
Facility Number: Date of Inspection H.0,10
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
Ia. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
�j'✓ Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
/ Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) /11
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑NA ❑NE
El NA El NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental tjtreat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ��[J No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 4.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) A
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ElYes No ElNA ElNE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes Igo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? 0
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes YNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[-]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or i0 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
m b
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
lK] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑NA El 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):
Cl
Reviewer/Inspector Name (` Phone: a
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 1- 12128104 Continued

0
Facility ]Number: — •Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have 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 [No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WIUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check thh appropriate box below. ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Wmte Application LMV'opYield
Freeboard 0 V1�ste Analysis ❑ it Analysis
E k ainfali ❑ S king Nunthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Veather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
X
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
ElYeso
JNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
ElYes
o
❑ 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?
❑ Yes
No
❑ 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
❑ 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
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, Freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
;_&No
El NA
El NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El Yes
E No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
a GO t�Td�Q
60
@10
Page 3 of 3 12128104

E Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 290007 Facility Status: Active Permit: AVVC290007 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Day dson _ Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 01 /30/2007 Entry Time:10:45 AM Exit Time: 11:20 AM _ Incident #:
Farm Name: Lovelea Farm Owner Email:
Owner: George E. Smith Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 2750 Jersey Church Rd Lexington NC 272928162
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°43'57" Longitude: 80"18'48"
Hwy. 52 south - take the Linwood exit - take a left at onto Hargrove Rd. - then take a right onto Old Linwood Rd which turns into
Linwood - Southmont Rd. for about 4 miles and the farm is on the left before Jersey Church Rd.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: George E. Smith
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 20992
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative George Smith Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name George Smith Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
21. Records look great!
12/12/06 waste analysis=4.2 lbs. N11000 gal.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC290007 Owner - Facility: George E. Smith Facility Number: 290007
Inspection Date: 01/30/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Jil Cattle - Milk Cow 400 225
Total Design Capacity: 400
Total SSLW: 560,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
kaste Pond
WSP
18.00
�7200
9
Page: 2

0 •
Permit: AWC290007 Owner- Facility: George E. Smith Facility
Number:
290007
Inspection Date: 01/30/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
Cl
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑,
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑.
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Ap hp •cation
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application?
Cl
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWC290007 Owner - Facility: George E. Smith Facility Number : 290007
Inspection Date: 01/30/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
PAN? ❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.? ❑
Total P205? ❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil? ❑
Outside of acceptable crop window? ❑
Evidence of wind drift?
Application outside of application area? ❑
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ Cl ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
11
Page: 4

Permit: AWC290007 Owner - Facility: George E. Smith
Facility Number : 290007
Inspection Date: 01/3012007 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?
❑
WOO
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after> 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)? ❑
■
❑ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑ ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑ ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑ ❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■
❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?.
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AWC290007 Owner - Facility: George E. Smith Facility Number: 290007
Inspection Date: 01/30/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ ■
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? Q ■ 0
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 6

Facility Number !.. _.a- H__ _� 1
Division of Water Quality.
Division of Soil and Water
0 Other Agency
ia:36pm
Type of Visit
Compliance Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
Routine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: b O Arrival Time: $ Departure Time:�� County: 1030v10 56YI Region: c��S2Q
Farm Name: Lave, lea f=a.r M owner Email:
Owner Name: t° o r 5 Phone:
Mailing Address: ao _ ii.-e I J C-- 2 �
Physical Address: -5 1 S __. �� lr�u � Sa V 1 trl 1'Yi bl� � /l Le_: �i nQ7—p ) . 1,0C;a 7a90
Facility Contact: P'0BCV_Q P� SM Title: Phone No: 3-s- 7 _ 7S
C ;tqo-1$S3
Onsite Representative: eD r ei Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: w._ pack -up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
SU o U I Vr U
ntx
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Latitude: EO F�Kju Longitude: Wo I/9 M
T,�-lj - c.e4�+ brj-{o H o_v- rove_ . I2�+q hf-
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
I i ❑ Non -Layer
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?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
CKDairy Cow
Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ElNA
[:1NE
ElYesNo
jNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: — Q I* Date of Inspection d I loo
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: 6_3 S P
Spillway?: eA
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes *o
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
El NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ 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 DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes L]IJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes KNo` ElNA ElNE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)X
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require El yes No El NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
WasteApplication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need El �Q No ❑ NA El NE
maintenance/improvement? r `
1 l . 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) l
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ 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 Pjl f 0 r-oe�l�� Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: I 130 (7
Page 2 of 1 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: A I— Q 1 *ate of Inspection O O
Required_ Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes XrNo ❑ 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 El Other
21. Does cord keeping need i provement? If ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
aste Application Weekly Freeboard L'1 Waste Analysis Soil Analysis DAnntlelGertifiention
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield _ [Monthly and V Rain Inspections Rw/eather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
�NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
;4NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
1KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
1�1A
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
�XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
[XNo
❑ 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
XNo
❑ 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
IWNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
14No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of Water Quality
F1 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number . 290007 Facility Status: Active Permit: AW 290007 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Davidson Region: Winston-Salem _
Date of Visit: 10/11/2006 Entry Time:11 Q0 AM Exit Time: 11.35 AM
Farm Name: Lovelea Farm
Owner: George E. Smith _
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone] _
Mailing Address: 2750 Jersey Church Rd _ Lexington NC 272428162
Physical Address:
Facility Status: n Compliant n Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35'43'57" Longitude: 80°1 '48"
Hwy. 52 south - take the Linwood exit - take a left at onto Hargrove Rd. - then take a right onto Old Linwood Rd which turns into
Linwood - Southmont Rd. for about 4 miles and the farm is on the left before Jersey Church Rd.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Certified Operator: George E. Smith
Secondary OIC(s):
Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Otherlssues
Operator Certification Number: 20992
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative George Smith Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name George Smith Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: M ' a R sebrock Phone:
Inspector Signature: tA Date:JU + Qtp
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
3. Silage leachate not a water quality concern today.
24. Calibration complete. Not due again until Oct. 1, 2008.
4/12/06 waste analysis=5.5 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Page: 1

0
•
Permit: AWC290007 Owner- Facility: George E. Smith Facility Number: 290007
Inspection Date: 10111/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle - Milk Cow 400 220
Total Design Capacity: 400
Total SSLW: 560,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Desioned Freeboard Observed Freeboard
�Iste Pond WSP 18.00 38.00
Page: 2

•
Permit: AWC290007 Owner - Facility: George E. Smith Facility Number: 290007
Inspection Data: 10/11/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (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?
n
■
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
Cl
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWC290007 Owner - Facility: George E. Smith
Facility Number : 290007
Inspection Date: 10/11/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste A IiPp catiOft
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
Q
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
0
Total P205?
n
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
rl
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
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
n
■
n
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
n
■
n
n
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
Cl
n
■
n
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
n
■
n
n
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
rl
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
n
■
n
n
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
n
■
n
n
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
rl
Page: 4

Permit: AWC290007 Owner - Facility: George E. Smith Facility Number: 290007
Inspection Date: 10/11/2006 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?
❑
■
❑
Cl
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
Cl
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑
■
❑
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑
■
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
■
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■
❑
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑
■
❑
❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30, At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
❑
■
❑
❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

0 0
Permit: AWC290007 Owner - Facility: George E. Smith Facility Number : 290007
Inspection Date: 10l1112006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Yas Me NO NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 6

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation I
- - 0 Other Agency
Type of Visit
Compliance Inspection
O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation
O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
)6 Routine 0 Complaint
O Follow up O Referral 0 Emergency
O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: hOLV IASon Region: 10,5K
Farm Name: L O V 2 l PA Fc r m Owner Email: q
Owner Name L5 ! +h Phone:
Mailing Address: a Sense U rLh LO I r) o►'? l a
Physical Address: L r\ V"jOD, - Sou`+) rnon+- 12�
Facility Contact: Apo ra p, S m l [' I Title: Phone No: 3 C -7 ` 7 S1
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: VAL m 14 Operator Certification Numb D� 'S3
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
5,;Z- 5o � to
Co n �b old L`I woad
Far VY`l on
In
Back-up Certification Number: 0(0 !.
Latitude: lag O asUj" Longitude: M ° ®' NMI."
wood Gx�4. �e_f% on+a a-r rave IZd.
UJ h icy) f Vrn5 lrLt0 �-� Yll�oed ��d c h man t a
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish 7
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
❑ La er
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
Non -La
Pullets
U Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Design Current
Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
Im
Daia Calf
j
❑
Daia Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non-DaiEZ
❑
Beef Stocker
El
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: ='f
Discharp,es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 4No ❑ 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 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 o ❑ NA [--IN E
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page l of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: � 0 Date of Inspection 0 II •
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: pp
Spillway?: C.5
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3
5_ Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.}
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 4No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes )�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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes I 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 o Area
1 O
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?
Cl Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
1KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No 19 NA ❑ NE
�No ❑NA El NE
�No El 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):
&A_J� "" t ai— LA—)
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: -7
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: I I
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 1 , — �� We of Inspection L 0 is
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes �, oo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check El Yes 1 � o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ wup ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑ Other
21. Does cord keeping need im fovement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Applicati n LwJ Weekl reeboard Waste Analysis L9f Soil An ysis
�ainfall stocking Crop Yield Monthly and I" Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No ;�NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes pq No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No NNA ❑ 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 JJ❑No [)(NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes MON. ❑ 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 QQ 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 [A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
a. amain Qlt ? `
q lk ;L/v(,o - 5 S"
Page 3 of 3 12128104

• i '
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 290007 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC290007 _ ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection _ _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Davidson _ Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 11/02/2005 Entry Time:01:20 PM Exit Time: 02:45 PM _ Incident #:
Farm Name: Lovelea Farm
Owner Email:
Owner:
Phone: 3M-352-2729
Mailing Address: 2750 jprsey QhuMh Road
Lexinaton NC 272928162
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant (—] Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude:
35"4 '57" Longitude: 80°18'48"
Hwy. 52 south - take the Linwood exit - take a left at onto Hargrove Rd. - then take
a right onto Old Linwood Rd which turns into
Linwood - Southmont Rd, for about 4 miles and the farm is on the left before Jersey Church Rd.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment
Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: George E. Smith
Operator Certification Number: 20992
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title
Phone
On -site representative George Smith
Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name George Smith
Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melissa Rosebrock
Phone: [phone]
Ext.383
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
14. T-2518 F-6 is in operator's records as small grain but is listed in the WUP as fescue pasture. See tech specialist for any revisions
or additions.
21. Don't forget to record daily rainfall and initial 1 inch or greater rainfalls.
21. The remaining soil samples are to be pulled this tall. Spring tests were analyzed by Waters and are ok.
24. Calibration was completed 5/20/05.
8/31 /05 Waste analysis:
Liquid=2.1 lbs. N/1000 gal and Slurry=3.6 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC290007 Owner - Facility: George E. Smith Facility Number: 290007
Inspection Date: 11/02/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
O Cattle - Milk Cow 400 200
Total Design Capacity: 400
Total SSLW: 560,000
Type Identifler Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
�Iste Pond WSP
18.00
54 00
Page: 2

Permit: AWC290007 Owner - Facility: George E. Smith
Facility Number: 290007
Inspection Date: 11/02/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges &Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑ ❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑
■
❑ ❑
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑ ❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe erosion,
❑
■
❑ ❑
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed andlor 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?
Wasto A� lip cation
Yes
No
NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑ ❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
Cl
■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Fescue
(Hay)
Crop Type 3
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley,
Oats)
Crop Type 4
Page: 3

n
Permit: AWC290007 Owner - Facility: George E. Smith
Facility Number:
290007
Inspection Date: 1110212005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan(CAWMP)? ■
❑
❑
❑
15, Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adeq uate. acreage for land application?
❑
■
0
❑
1 B. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
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?
Cl
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?
❑
■
Cl
❑
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?
❑
■
❑
Cl
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
Page: 4

•
0
Permit: AWC290007 Owner - Facility: George E. Smith
Inspection Date: 11/02/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 290007
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andlor document and report those
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewerl]nspector fail to discuss reviewlnspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 5

Water Qu Dnision of ality
Factltty Number' Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation (®
Qther Agency,: .
Type of Visit
Compliance Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
4Routine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: , daZ Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Z)aV 6600 Region: NN)5P— b
Farm Name: c)\je-keA VQr m Owner Email:
Owner Name: 62 e QV_f3rn 1 Phone: �a a — d —1 � J
Mailing Address: a 5 d ��X 5'�`� V\UrcC) ZA • L0_KI Vk4on a -7
Physical Address: s S c -
Facility Contact: I'i V1 Title: Phone Rio: 3 S7 ^ 1 S
Onsite Representative: Integrator: Certified Operator: too r J rn,l t ` ' Operator Certification Number: q k Q
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: F47-1 ' Ej Longitude:
w14-�-c1 t-ova{. onfo 0
U � wood Rd w / +u mS 1 n+b C, i V1 v - So �` mo n-1 A rayC m Or)
Ie .
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
❑ Layer
I I ❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Poutts
❑ 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
s
a
El Daia Calf
❑ DaiEy 1-leifei
❑ Da Cow
❑ Non-Dai
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: [11j
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 _jNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes *No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Ir
e Date of Inspection z O_
Facility Number: p( — Q
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes o
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
El Yes l No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
y�
1 Identifier: VVa,<�ke— Lr�
' Spillway?:
Desi (in):
NdFreeboard
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.)
llllTT''
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes �io
❑ 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 JNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes iNo ❑ 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 ElNA ElNE
maintenance/improvement? 1 -
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?
9yes
❑ 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 acre determination,
El Yes
❑ No
VNA
❑ 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
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (r`efer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or'any recommendations or any othercomments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
��3i f aS 5 I{JD_S
5=3.q
LO
Reviewer/Inspector Name l
1 �� Phone: 7 Q -3
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur
Date:
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: L*A 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 appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? w.
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
VNaste Analysis Soil Anal
ste Application eekly Freeboard sis tcTrans.e-
t
Rainfall Stocking ❑ Crop Yield _ Monthly and 1 " Rain Inspe
KKWeather
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
1110
��` No
LEI NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? im SRO
v
❑Yes
X
El NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑l No
NA
❑ NE
26,
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
ElYes
9<No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
El No
[(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?
TT
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
IIII
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
[ f No
El NA
El NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
FT��-o f oS
12128104

t' vision of Water Quality
��Division of Soil and Water Conservation - ` �:
OOther Agency
Type of Visit OO 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 29 'late of Visit: 3/l8l2004 Tine: 0920
FO Not O erational Q Below Threshold
N Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold- - -- -- -- -- -- --
Farm Name:
County: Qa.Yids9n-.--.--.........._
1,urelea.lFaxm.................................... -•--•--•--.... WSKQ--•--•
Owner Name: �`sT�QI',!' - -- - - - - - Smith-- - - - - - - - - - ----- - Phone No: 33(t52_�729---- --- ----------- ---------
Mailing Address: 7.5.0..Jgxsex..Shur.Chj.RQad............................................................... WingtaaAC................... ..................................... ZN92 ..............
Facility Contact: Grorgc.Smitb.....................................Title: ............................................... Phone No: 33b,3S7..7.5.17..................
Onsite Representative: Geor=SJnitlL-._____.____--------------------_-_--• Integrator: ------------------•--------------------_-_-•
Certified Operator:Ggpirgg.1.............................. Smith ................................................. Operator Certification Number:2.Q.9 ...........................
Location of Farm:
4,4y. 52 south - take the Linwood exit - take a left at onto Hargrove Rd. - then take a right onto Old Linwood Rd which turn +
nto Linwood - Southmont Rd. for about 4 miles and the farm is on the left before Jersey Church Rd. r
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 43 57 Longitude 80 • 18 48
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
IN Dairy
445 250
❑ Feeder to Finish
ICI Non -Layer
JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
445
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
623,000
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 0
Discharp_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)
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
2• Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes N No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes N No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:--..lYaste..PojA.... ........................... --•--•--•--•--•--•-----•---..-.....-•--•--•--....--............................. ...........................
Freeboard (inches): 58
11/11/03 // 7 Continued

Facility Number: 29-7 Date of Inspection 3/18/2004
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes N No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes N 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 N No
elevation markings?
Waste Annlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
11. Is there evidence of over application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes N No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Hay) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
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? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes N No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes N No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes N 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 N Final Notes
7. Need to replace missing boards on upper pit to avoid possible deterioration of soil wall in the future. Check next DWQ visit.
15. Receiving crops look great.
3. Records look real good.
ReviewerAnspector Name `Melissa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu
12112103
Date:
Continued

Facility Number: 29-7 of Inspection 3/18/2004
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ® No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
27.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
®No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
® No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33.
Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After l" 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.
Comments and/or Drawings:
ZI
12112103

*Ter
visionof Water Quality
ion of Soil and 'WaterConservation Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit koutine Q Complaint Q Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number EznDate of visit: Time:
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
14"Permitted © Certified © Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold- -------------------------
Lo Vt� G .r.lYl.�.�. County: - ... E. j5-6-e)...........................................
Farm Name: ..-----�----------------- ----------•---------- ------•--•--------------------------......... V L
P
Owner Name:........ Q r.... ..... rn i...� h...................................................... Phone No:........ .s,l ..:...� .r?.. Z...'..... .....° ...........
7
5 e,r ( Le 1�, n`L �?�9...
Marling Address: ................................,�.........�t.,�.. ��.j,1..�.�,.� �............�i..�.'.1...-�:uh.... { �.? ...---....................
Facility Contact: L.S ao �„1. . Title PhoneNo: 3 �p �S 70 75
................ �n.�...................................................................... .............................. 7
Onsite Representative:...[)... �r......rn...i.!..1..................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number: L
Location of Farm:
u S Sa o-% fib t ; r, &x,md e x : Le ' a n+o ro ve P�-� o n-l-oId to �u i t a.r o le , 1=1
0 Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®• �� ®44 Longitude ®• ��44
Design- Current Design Current" Design, ; Z. Current
Swine: Ca ap `.`Po ulation. Poultry _Ca" aci Po ulativn C 1e Ca aci Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer Dairy �( Q
❑ Feeder to Finish 1E1 Non -Layer on -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
[] Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other ,
❑Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
z
❑ Boars TotalSSL'W 2 Z2 oD
Number of Lagoons
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes XNo
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 gallrnin?
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 In Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: .....................� ...�..Jl ................. ............. ........................................................................................... ......
Freeboard (inches): _�_- --- -__ -
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes )R�No
❑ Yes *No
Structure 6
12112103 Continued

FacilityNumber: 2— 1 1 Date of Inspection 173 1 1 g U
4
5. Are there any immediate threats to thefegrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
*0
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑ Yes
XNO
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 maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
�To
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes
>(No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
I0. 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
YO
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen ound ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type �'
13. Do the receiving crops differ ��th those designated i e Certified Ani al t anagement Plan (CAV1rMP)?
El Yes
o
G
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
11N0
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below M
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes �kNo
o
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
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.
Camnients {refer to'giiestion"#) --:Explain ainy YES answers and/or any-recommendatib&,orany other_com ent'
rF
"'Use drawings pf facty to;better explain situateons. {use,addifaonal pages as nopy Final Notes #
AL
a o ti = (!e-s iv o00 _
Reviewer/Impector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur . _ Date:
"nnnuea
r

Facility Number: — to of Inspection �3 j
Reguired Records _&_Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes XNO
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) El 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 k<o
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes XNO
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 o
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes o
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 tRKO
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 Farm ❑ Crop Yield Form [:]Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ I20 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Additional Conim6nts and/or, Draiiiings _
So
Add p
e
l�c i M C v tief
12112103

hnical Assistance Site Visit Repor�
Dive o of Soil and Water Conservation�
❑Wean to Feeder
El Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
Q Other...
Facility Number 29 - Date: 8114103 Time: 1 8:55 Time On Farm: 75 WSRO
Farm Name Lovelea Farm County Davidson Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 2750 Jersey Church Road Lexington NC 27292
Onsite
Representative George Smith Integrator
Type Of Visit
Operation Review
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
Purpose Of Visit
O Routine
Q Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
Q Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
Q Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
CapacityPopulation CapacityPopulation
❑ Layer
El Non -Layer
® Dairy 445 230
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? [:]yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier WSP
Level (Inches) 30
CROP TYPES lCorn, Silage Fescue -graze ISudan Grass (Hay) ISmall grain silage
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES DaB
MeB
IrB
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
Q Other...
Facility Number 29 - Date: 8114103 Time: 1 8:55 Time On Farm: 75 WSRO
Farm Name Lovelea Farm County Davidson Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 2750 Jersey Church Road Lexington NC 27292
Onsite
Representative George Smith Integrator
Type Of Visit
Operation Review
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
Purpose Of Visit
O Routine
Q Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
Q Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
Q Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
CapacityPopulation CapacityPopulation
❑ Layer
El Non -Layer
® Dairy 445 230
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? [:]yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier WSP
Level (Inches) 30
CROP TYPES lCorn, Silage Fescue -graze ISudan Grass (Hay) ISmall grain silage
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES DaB
MeB
IrB
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 29 - 7 Date:
8/14/03
PARAMETER
p 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
❑ 13. Waste
28. Forms Need (list in comment section]
structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
[114. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
30. 21-11.0200
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (POA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation design/installation
El
El
❑ Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements
p g ' p rovements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1 • The Waste plan was updated to add Sudan
47. Evaluate WAD certificationlrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
grass hay.
2- Mr. Smith has replaced a section of curbing on
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
the concrete lot.
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3.
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5.
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6.
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 29 - Date: 1 8/14/03
(COMMENTS:
Waste analysis: 7-24-03 LSD 4.6 lbs.N/1000 gals. B, 3-03-23 LSD 5.9 lbs.N/1000 gals. B, SSD 1.7 Ibs.N/ton B
Last soils report dated 2-03-03 with up to 1.0 tons per acre of lime needed.
Records compliant with permit requirements.
Provided Mr. Smith with some slurry 11 forms.
Suggest having the waste plan amended to apply year round on Fescue. (Can do pen and ink)
Facility looks good overall.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham Pat Hooper
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 8115/03 1 Entered By: lRocky Durham
3 03/10/03

t. {Wision of Water. Quality W
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
(Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation j
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 29 Date of Visit: 03/t212003 'f ime: 1000
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted M Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ...................
Farm Name: IaAXdca.k:arm.................-........................................................... County: Vayidsm .......................................... NYSRQ........
OwnerName. G.eorgjz .................................... Smit3Jt........................................................... Phone No: 33A-3.5Z:-2,7Z9 ...........................................................
Mailing Address: 2.7. 0.,1.�rs�x.G.huxsh. taacl.............................................................. Luington'M ....................................................... 2.7.292 ..............
Facility Contact. Quirge.Smitb.................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: 33.6,35.7,7517 .......................
Onsite Representative:.GtQrgt,.S.IWtht...............
................. Integrator:..................
Certified Opera tor:GgQrgc.E ............................... SIWth................................................. Operator Certification Number:2.09.91 .............................
Location of Farm: _
�Iwy. 52 south - take the Linwood exit - take a left at onto Hargrove Rd. - then take a right onto Old Linwood Rd which turns f
into Linwood - Southmont Rd. for about 4 miles and the farm is on the left before Jersey Church Rd.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 43 57 LongitudeF 80 • 18 48
Design Current
Swine Canacity Pnnnlation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Po ulation Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ® Dairy 445 193
❑ Non -Layer I JE1Non-Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 445
Total SSLW 623,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System 71
DischarLes & 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. ffdischarge 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 & 'rreatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? M Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: ...... Wa sze.Foxid..... .................... ............................
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
M No
❑ Yes
M No
❑ Yes
® No
Structure 6
Freeboard (inches): 37
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 29-7 is Date of Inspection 0311ZIZ003 0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ 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 M No
12. Crop type Fescue (Graze) Fescue (Hay) Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes M No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes M No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑.Yes- M No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes M No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes M No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes M No
Reuuired 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
M 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
M No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
M No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
M 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): ❑ Field Copy M Final Notes
8. Small section of curbing needs to be replaced near dry cow barn.
8. Suggest building up the end of the lot above the wet stack to keep waste from washing down hill. Gravel looks good.
19. 2002 soil analysis ok. 2003 soil results are back. Records look good.
19. Waste analysis is dated 3/3/03 (date printed). Actual sample date was the end of Jan. 2003.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melissa Rosebrock
Reviewerllnspector Signature ` Date: 311210
05103101 ` I Continued

Facilitg Number: 29-7 of inspection 03/12/2003 Is
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?
a
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes Z No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes []No
❑ Yes ❑ No
05103101
J

04 Division of Watti Quality
Division of 5oikand Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit P Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint () Follow up Q Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ime:
Facility Number
--10 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
(Permitted KCertified 0 Conditionally Certified ©Registered Date Last Operategor Abo a Threshold'
Farm Name:
Farm County: U►c S �n
Owner Name: f
Mailing Address: —
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry � Cattle
Design
Swine Ca acit
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boats
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds i Solid Traps
Phone
rim
Phone 1la:-3(o' ✓S- 7' %S i7
ication Number: Z
❑ Horse Latitude ®' [�• '-3 T K Longitude ®"
Current Design Current Design Current
Population : Poultry Capacity Population C the capacity Po ulation
❑ Laver Dairy
❑ Non -Laver ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW 31 b,
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ S ray Field Area ji
❑ No Li uid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. 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? El Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If ves, 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 VNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes�IJNO
R'aste Collection & Treatment X
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway ❑ YesNo
1.r Cy e I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: L L15T
Frceboard (inches): 3
05103101 Continued

0
Facility Number: 02q — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?(ie/ trees, severe erosion.
❑Peso
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
_ `
�1p�^i 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
XNo
8.Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
ElYes
o
k
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ YesX
No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pon ing ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
XNO
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Cktified Animal Waste M ement Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
No
A
14. a) Does the facility tack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
KNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
5kNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
o
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
0
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
kN,0
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/ W-UP, checklists. design. maps, etc.) / / /
El 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
o
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
WNo
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
o
fN
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yeso
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AIANP?
❑ Yes
] No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #j: Explain any YES answers and/or any recommi endations or any other comments.
_P
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): _Field Cony Final Notes
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 rt r f 7 Continued

Facility Number: —
0
Date of Inspection
•
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
2S. 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?
Additional Comments and/or Drawings-
-;�(n . d• • U-%"
) q . c2 ooa_ G
Fj G � I � tl 1 •
l 6s N/ T°N
-200
14 d�s�g, 43000
-r -asps Fli
9mo
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes' P(NO
Yes Na
r
I b-S - tyllw
T
05103101

O ston of Water Quality "
49,1sion of Soil and Water Conservation
O 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 29 7 Date of Visit: 8R9120o2 Time: 13:00
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified (3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold .................
Farm Name: IaA.Y.CICa.>~ax ...................... County: Qa�xxds.an.......................................... !.RQ........
........................................................................
OwnerName: G.rQrg!� .................................... rxtitla........................................................... Phone No: 33.6-352:.2Z7.Z9.........................................-.................
Mailing Address: 2.7..4.,Lers��:.. h.uxsh.R.Q.ad.............................................................. L9XiKtg.(Q.u-N.0 ....................................................... 27292 ..............
Facility Contact: .............................................................................. Title. Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Gc.P.rgP,.S.wjklt.............. ................ Integrator:............................................................................-.....
Certified Opera tor:Gcorgt~.E.............................. Sx17Ufh.................. I .......................... .... Operator Certification Number:2099;�.............................
Location of Farm:
Hwy. 52 south - take the Linwood exit - take a left at onto Hargrove Rd. - then take a right onto old Linwood Rd which turns A-
into Linwood - Southmont Rd. for about 4 miles and the farm is on the left before Jersey Church Rd.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 43 57 r Longitude F 80 F 48
Design Current
Swine C nnacity 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 445
❑ Non -Layer L Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 445
Total SSLW 623,000
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management Svstem
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge'?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus stone storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ID No
❑ Yes ® No
Stnicture 6
Identifier: .................................. .............
Freeboard (inches): 48
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 29-7 Date of Inspection 8I29/2l}02
5. Are there any immediate threats to thegrity of any of the structures observed? Oe/ trdL , severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Annlication
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
N No
12.
Crop type Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Corn (Silage & Grain) 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?
[I. Yes
N No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
N 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 R 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
® 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
® 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
N 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 N Final Notes
Facility and records are in compliance.
+
o waste has been applied since April.
Records figured using Fall waste analysis which was higher than the corresponding waste analysis. No evidence of over -application.
Still needed to get 2002 soil analysis.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 29-7 Da jo Inspection 8/29/2002
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 permanent/temporary cover?
A ditiona omments and/orDrawings:
Waste analysis: 3-22-02 LSD 2.9 lbs.N/1000 gals. B, SSD 4.7 1bs.N/ton B
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes [:]No
05103101
J

Wis
ion of Water Quality...
ion'of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
(Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit © Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 29 7 Date of Visit: Time: 130U
10NotOperati0n2I 0 Below Threshold
■ Permitted E Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered
Farm Name: U.ylrIcaEa1Cm........................................................................................
OwnerName: Gcwm .................................... Smith ...................................................
Mailing Address: 2.7.50.JPrslry.Gblux'sb..RQ.ad......................................................
Facility Contact: G.Cum'smith....
Onsite Representative:('�t�g�.�jX�....................
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
County: DaxitlSant.......................................... WSR.0........
Phone No: 33.6.-if :....�15«* 4.1'�1 ............
Whato.&M ....................................................... 27222..............
..Title: Phone No: 33.6J5.7,.7517 .......................
Certified Operator: Ge.Qrge.E ............................... S.tAutk........................
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
...... Operator Certification Number: 2,JW92.............................
Hwy. 52 south - take the Linwood exit - take a left at onto Hargrove Rd. - then take a right onto old Linwood Rd which turns
into Linwood - Southmont Rd. for about 4 miles and the farm is on the left before Jersey Church Rd.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ` 43 5746 Longitude 80 • 18 48
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer Dairy 445 200
❑ Feeder to Finish 10 Non -Layer I I Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity 445
Gilts
Boars Total SSLW 623,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
UischaE= & 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 I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: .....Waste.P.tand.................................................................................................................................................. ......
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
[]Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
Structure 6
Freeboard (inches): 96
05/03/01 Continued �6

Facility Number: 29-7 Date of Inspection 3/8/2002
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes ®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? [:]Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any. buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
I i . Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Fescue (Hay) Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
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 CMNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes CO No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
r] 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 recommendatior any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages ==Ij❑Field Copy ®Final Notes r
7. Continue efforts to control groundhogs and repair burrow holes.
_
16. Facility can pump waste , but also has Southers assist.
19. Solid and slurry waste samples sent 311/02 per operator. Are not back yet. Records were completed using 10/10/01 sample results.
19. Have technical specialist sign and date any additions to CAWMP.
19. PAN for small grain is to be 96 lbs. per operator. Have technical specialist change this in CAWMP.
19. Some additional field acreages have changed due to clearing and need to be updated in CAWMP.
19. Need to label records to be able to match each waste application field to a soil analysis.
19. 2002 soil analyses are back. Highest Zn is 32 lbs./acre.
ull
Reviewer/Inspector Name Mel's_a Rosebrock r/n n
f
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur r �� I<d� r ) BUY Date: Q a�
05103101 L 1 f Continued

�Facility Number: 29-7 D19f Inspection 3/8/2002 49
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
05103101

tvision of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
(Type of visit 4krcompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint 0 Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit:
Permitted Ce)rtiffi, L
ed O ConditionaClly Certified D Registered
Farm Name: Lnye,Qi. Tn rpn
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Design Current
awme Ua actty Fo ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
L Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
Time:FO
Operational 0 Below Threshold
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
County- G U tiGiSoi�
PhoneNo:
lLexi n %o& ;77a T .-z
Phone No: 336. 35 7 75- 7
Operator Certification Number: a b y b2—
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle CapAcity Population
�Layer I I I LCDairy 1a
❑ Non -Layer I I I Non -Dairy
❑ Other I I
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW 1 % 12--3 1 000
Number of Lagoons ®I ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oon Area JE1 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 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?
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
Struct rc I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:ond
Freeboard (inches):
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
V(No
❑ Yes
x No
❑ Yes
ONo
Structure 6
05103101 Continued

• Facility Numher: —
Date of Inspection $ a
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes [�rNo
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 OeNo
(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? QYes ❑ 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 VNo
Waste Aunlication
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 Ld/ fALAU WAI,s,i , l0
13.
Do the receiving crops differ wib those designated in the Certified Animal 1Nste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ YesS,No
No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
El Yes
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
I&
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
VNo
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)
XYcs
❑ 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?
ElYes
3No
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
*0
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
fNo
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
XNo
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
b
6
Reviewer/Inspector Na e 4Y.211141
Reviewer/inspector SignaturDate:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 01— Q Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below o
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes VNo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes N0
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? arm,
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 OfNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes 0No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? o
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
&xmr V
919 -733, 313
141r
BAN
v

'vision of Water Quality
-Sinn of Soil and Water Conservation ��
O' ther Agency
L
f Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
for Visit (D Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 29 07 ')ate "f Visit; 10/1&2001 1'imc: 1000 Printed on: 10/16/2001
O Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered pate Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: Uyelea.Earn..................................................................................... ........... County: 1?Axldsorn.......................................... 1l'SR0 ........
Owner Name: G oirgg.................................... Smith ........................................................... Phone No: 336-35.2-277.9.............................................
..............
Mailing Address: ..7. U.d.�rs�y. b.u�rcit..R4ad.............................................................. Uximo a. NC....................................................... 27292 ..............
Facility Contact: .................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: 33.6,35.7. 7.5.).a.............I..........
Onsite Representative:. Gg.rg0.mi1h...............
Certified Operator:.Gcom................................... SJmtith.............
Location of Farm:
................. Integrator:
...... Operator Certification Number:Z0Q92
4wy. 52 south - take the Linwood exit - take a left at onto Hargrove Rd. - then take a right onto old Linwood Rd which turns
nto Linwood - Southmont Rd. for about 4 miles and the farm is on the left before Jersey Church Rd. �
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle [I Horse Latitude 3S • 43 57 '� Longitude 80 • 18 48 '�
Design Current
Swine Caoacitv Ponulation
❑ 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 1 ® Dairy 445 200
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 445
Total SSLW 623,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ]t ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges R 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. li'discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. li'discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/rnin?
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? to Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ......Wasl.e.Portd...... ................................... ................... ................ ....... ........................... ......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 72
05103101 ��� Continued

Facility Number: 29-07 Date of Inspection 10/16/2 00 1 Printed on: 10/16/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'? (ie/ trek; 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 maintenancelimprovement? ® Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid 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) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes IN No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
© 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
7. Need to mow/spray vegetation on slope of dam.
16. Southers applied waste one and two weeks ago.
_
25. Need to contact SWCD to revise acreages. May need to check several. Example T-10059 F-7 in WUP is 6.7 acres ....... 4.0 actual?
T-10059 F-I in WUP is 1797 acres ........ 16.0 actual.
Reviewer/Inspector Name iMejism Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur • Date:
05103101 Y v ! Continued

Facility Number: 29-07 Dof Inspection 1[1/16/20U! ® Printed on: 10/16/2001
)dnr 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
AdditWhal Corfimefig'aQ#o"rgfwirigs: i
JL
05103101

ek
4b
ion of Water Qualityr
avision
.A
'
g
of Sod and Water Conservah4rt
Q Other'Agency:
Type of Walt 9k Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation f
Reason for Visit _VRoutine O Complaint O Foflow up O Emergency Notification O Other 1 ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Q Time: OEZD
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted xCertified 13 Conditionally Certified [r Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: Lo tea rm.. ..... county: ...SLxt'Y. ..A'.55o !.
Owner Name:..... .Q. .............. ? M.11Y)..... .. Ph No: �O:. s� a ��.!... ................
I _ 3� • 3s �- 7si
Facility Contact: 1Q.. .Q. f.......r�. .i...!..C.1.................. Title: ............ ............. o.................................... Phone No:........ �A�52,�;-qq
Mailing Address:.............. ...?.� .Se..r�. Church .. l-e . + .... fa �.. .....................................................
--- ....... t.... ...... ..........................
Onsite Representative:ea.lra
UE.O . e.-.--.sm.�............... ............ Integrator:.............................----...---...............................................
. zCertified Operator:.................................................................... Operator Certification Number:.... ....................
Location of Farm:
w y sz 5aA OW oed Ex k-f-aVte + • onio Rarj rove -Rd. F Pa
h+ 6 a t n "
i C +urn into Link: --Soy + T6r � ni;!eS. o e iT e
[]Swine ❑ Poultry td Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ©0 ©44 Longitude ®• ®4 «
Design Current
Design Current
Design - Current'
Swine_ Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity, Population Cattle
Capacity, Po ullation
❑ Wean to Feeder'
❑ Layer
I
JE3 Dairy
437
❑ Feeder to Finish
JE1 Non -Layer
I
I
JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
*77
Gilts
-
!
Total SSLW
000
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons : , ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps, ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts , r
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
XNo
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/ruin?
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
o
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway
❑ Yes
[(No
',Identifier:
tructurc Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure
5
AjC}��f.................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches):
5100
Continued on hack

Fatility�Number: a — Date of Inspection Q Q
5. Are there any immediate threats to the ieggrity 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 XNo,
closure plan? ❑Yes (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 maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes fi(No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes P(No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need mainteyrrance/improvement? ❑Yes No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes XNo
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those esignated in the Certified A&hJI Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes WNo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes (tNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes XNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? El Yes //1,, No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes %No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ANo
_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? VNo
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) / ❑Yes
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes ONo
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes JVNo
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes kNo
22, Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes �Q No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes 19G! No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes 41No
25, Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? 9Yes o
�'Vo viola�it}njs:o�- ftrjcWndL-s •rare hb' ed• 00ift this'visit; Yop wiil reet iye ti f itt�tgr •
corres• oridence. abbot this visit:
Comments (refer to question #) Explain any YF.S`answets andlor.any recnmmendahans arhany othear Comm ^
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations {use adsLt uinail pages as necessary) " ` f 1,
s
7. "Ov
Y57(
JqR7
4.
Reviewer/Inspector Name 5 _ -
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu ` Date:61 J14 16 5100

acility Number: — of Inspection
Odor Issues
26, Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor 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 �'1`i0
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes 1kNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? Cl Yes klqo
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 E160
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes RKO
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes J�No
19
5100

s
ivision of Water Quality
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
Dale ul' 1 i�il: 5/9/2001 I'imc: 1l:Ot) Printed un: 10/2/2001
Facility Number 29 7
t0 Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: LAY.£lt a. 11C1<Il ................... Count}: V
...................... !'Y�S�tQ........
............................................ .........................
OwnerName: G.t;Ajrgl;.................................... Smith........................................................... Phone No:(rJS.Z.:27.2�9...........................................................
Mailing Address: 2.7. O.J.er s x.Gttu�ch..lZoad.............................................................. Wingt.Q.u.N.0 ....................................................... 2.729.2 ..............
FacilityContact:..............................................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: GPolgC.S.Wi11j.............................................................. . ..............Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:.%jmrgc................................... SXW1h.................. ............................... Operator Certification Number:AQ9.92...............
Location of Farm:
-Iwy. 52 south - take the Linwood exit - take a left at onto Hargrove Rd. - then take a right onto old Linwood Rd which turns +
nto Linwood - Southmont Rd. for about 4 miles and the farm is on the left before Jersey Church Rd.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ®Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 43 57 +� Longitude 80 • 18 6 4814
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
® Dairy
445
200
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
445
Total SSLW
623,000
Number of Lagoons I I ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 I.agmin Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Dischar_es R Stream Impacts
I. 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) El Yes ❑ No
c. If dischar+e is observed. what is the estimated flow in +zal/min'?
d. Dees 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 K 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): 56
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 29-7 Date of Inspection 5/9/2001 Printed on:
5. Are there any immediate threats to the Vesrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tre0evere 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?
10/2/2001 '� �►
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?
[]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ 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) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Fescue (Graze) Fescue (Hay)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? []Yes ® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
[:]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
I &
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
Facility has added some new holding barns. Mr. Smith used a custom applicator to apply waste this year. (Southers)
Facility and records look good.
Waste analysis: 3/15101 8.7 lbs.N/1000 gals. B
10/25/00 4.4
6/08/00 5.4
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

llit , Number: 29_7 1) c of Inspection 5/9/20I)1 0
printed on: 10/2/2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt.
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
[]Yes ®No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional Comments an orDrawings:
05103101
05103101

J.Division of Water Quality
ivision of Soil and Water Conservation
ther Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit OO Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 29 07 Date of Visit: 8I28/2000 Time: U830 Printed on: 8/28/2000
rO Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ..................
Farm Name: 1.rAY.dca.f.a1fm.....................................................................
Owner Name. GeQjrgc.................................... Smith ................................
Facility Contact: Gwirge.5m ith................................................. Title:
Mailing Address: Z.75.Q .cnPy..C11uujVhJRQ.4d...................................
Onsite Representative: ....................
............... . County: AatxistsDA .......................................... WSRO ........
................ Phone No: �b . r.7K7.29..�.. MOM L 55g �Qwom
( ) 351-�S1� 3�-
....................................................... Phone o: ..........
Uxi last u..N C....................................................... 2.7.29.2..............
Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:(,.g.rgC.E.............................. SXWJII ................................................ Operator Certification Number:2,09.92....
Location of Farm:
Hwy. 52 south - take the Linwood exit - take a left at onto Hargrove Rd. - then take a right onto old Linwood Rd which turns
Into Linwood - Southmont Rd. for about 4 miles and the farm is on the left before Jersey Church Rd.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry IN Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 43 6 57 46 Longitude 80 • 18 6 4844
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
® Dairy
445
1 180
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Nan -Layer
I
JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
445
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
623,000
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Sprav Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 ❑ 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 6
Identifier:......Wastc.P.atui...... ................................... :...................... ............... .... :................................ .:.............. ............ :....... .......................... ;..........
Freeboard (inches): 30
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: 29-07 Date of Inspection 8/28/2000 Printed on: 8/28/2000 `
5. Are there any immediate threats to the i rity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tre*vere 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 Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
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
t7. 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: No yiolatioriis:or defckni ies•were:n6ted;diikiitg•this visit.:You;rvill _rt6 ve-ih6. rthei••...
correspondence: about this' isit. .. . .... .. . ... ... .. ... :: ... ::: :
Comments (refer 6"il'b6- d6b;�. t any YES'answers and/,or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings oft iity,tabetter i5iplatn gituations. (use additional pages,as necessary):
7. Continue working to cut vegetation on dam.
9. Recommend horizontal markings.
19. 6/15/00 solids application was to fescue. Plan calls for Feb. -April and Sept. -Nov. Plan to be revised.
Monthly freeboard readings need to be weekly.
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
IN Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
qV
Reviewer/Inspector Name 'IMeli Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur � Date: ,-- t 5100

Facility Number: 29-07 D t of Inspection 8/28/2000 Printed on: 8/28/2000
Mor Issues 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:
5100
5100

Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water. Conservation
Other Agency
Type of Visit 10 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ()f Routine 0 Complaint Q Follow up 0 Emergency Notification Q Other
,
❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: M01 rnk! Printed on: 7/21/2000
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
PermittedCertilied Q Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last OperatedorAbove Threshold
1.
Farm Name: �-.0.11-� CIQ.�... �d Count}':` .s.Q.n.....................................
Owner Name :.......1:1.���..�r.....!1�i......................................................... Phone No::33�Ga °.......................
Facility Contact: ......... t ..Qi..... ........ .I'itle:................................................................ r ne�lo:........ :.a..t... .-L..� .. ..d
Ph
Mailing Address: ........�7.�.�........ .. 5..��..�.J.r.�......��'............ � �j..�.....�Q.,�..�.�..�......�.7a9a
- l
OnsiteRepresentative: ...........�.... {.�............................ Integrator: ..................... .................................................................
Certified Operator:...- ,Qr.e......1. ............................. Operator Certification Numher:,,,o? Q dam-
Location of Farm: 1
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®• •+ Longitude • 1 T61
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer I E=-d
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ FarroW to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Po ula 'on
IrVDairy
Non -Dairy
Total Design Capacity
Total SSL W I in 006
Number of Lagoons ❑Subsurface Drains Present JFffGag•+�+n .Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impaclti
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes eNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is ohserved. did it reach Water of the State:' (If yes, notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No
c. li' dischni-Le is observed, what is the estimated liow 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 XNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge`? ❑ Yes jb�To
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'? XSpillway ❑ Yes XNo
Strue'tur- I Structurc'2 Structure, 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ....... b. pd........................... .. ......... .............. I.........................
............... ..........................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 3 o
5100 Continued on back

.F'acility'Number: [X —071 of Inspection Printed on: 7/21/2000
Odor Issues l�
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or h0ow l o
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes VNo
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 VNO
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? ry� a-'1tee�Q No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? / -CT-r ?^0 No
Alp P 1► cr�-t can � i rrdocc]S
�,k
7�\oMO'50n -bQwOAo PMeV
al
5100

Facility Number: aZ — 0-71 Bate of Inspection Printed on: 7/21/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to thwcgrity of any of the structures observed'.' Oe/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings'?
Waste A1212lication
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 W14 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. fr E odd, 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 ernergency 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: o yiofaficjris;or deficiencies mere hotted• ditririg xbis;visit: Yoix ;will receive do further; ;
�corres• orideitce.ab"fthis:visit' ::::•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•, :•:-:•:-:-:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•;
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes )(No
Vyes ❑ No
❑ Yes #No
❑ Yes KNO
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):
Ill �
. tl
t
i I
❑ Yes �J No
❑ Yes
��/��/ `"�`` C(o
❑ Yes 10�No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes o
❑ YesfNo
o
❑ Yes
❑ Yes )] No
[:]Yes KNO
Yes ❑ No
Yes I
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ,No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: To I i ,/i df n It A-Mn A 1. Air h) _ _ Date: 5100

ision of Water Quality
,vision of Soil and Water Conservation 0
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection *Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 29 7 Date of Visit: 5/3o/2U00 Time: 13:15 Printed on: 8/25/2000
O Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .......................
Farm Name: ),Ay.dc7.kh1Cm.............
Owner Name: QcQ7fg.................................... Smith ..........
FacilityContact: ........................................................................
Mailing Address: 2.7.5Qjc.nty..Cjh. r.r,.b.RA d.................
Onsite Representative:,Ggorg:t.Sm11h ...............................
Certified Operator:Gwrae.1max............................. Smith....
Location of Farm:
.......................... County: DavidaQa .....................
Phone No: 33.6-3S.Z.-27.29.....................
Title: ................................................................ Phone No:
...... ........... I.............. Uxi n g(mi.,N.C...............................
...................................... Integrator:
...... W- 15 O ........
.............................................
................ 2.7292 .............
.............................................
Operator Certification Number. Z9992
3wy. 52 south - take the Linwood exit - take a left at onto Hargrove Rd. - then take a right onto old Linwood Rd which turns A
nto Linwood - Southmont Rd. for about 4 miles and the farm is on the left before Jersey Church Rd.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ` 43 < 57 44 Longitude 80 • 1$ 6 48 it
Design Current
Swine CanaCity 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
® Dairy
445
230
❑ Non -Layer
I
1
10 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
445
Total SSLW
623,000
Number of Lagoons I0 Subsurface Drains Present 110 I.agoon Area ❑ Spray Ficld Arca
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 ID 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: .. .................. .. :................:......................:............. .......:.......................................:..............................................................._.....
.
Freeboard (inches): 42
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: 29--•7 � Date of Inspection 5/30/2000 0 Printed on: 8/25/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6.. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Fescue (Graze)
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
Rggords & 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
�: o yiblaa j As or def�ienc es were :noted :duriir�g this, visit.:You:wiii reeeve it Air
correspondence: about this' visit: ' : :: :::: :: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :: ::: ::
Cot tints refer gbiesti6fiV)I Ezplain any, YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use�drawings of�facilit to l etter:ikplatn situations. (use additional pages as necessary).
9. Marker is painted on support for parlor pipe.
19. Need to start keeping weekly holding pond levels per General Permit.
25. Applied to corn in fall out of application windows.
Reviewer/Inspector Name lRocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5/00

Facility Number: 2gL7 DOf Inspection 5/30/200U Printed on: 8/25/2000
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 Comments an or Drawings -
A.
5/00

p Division it and Water Conservation -Operation R
p•Division it and Water Conservation - Compliance; pection
F
Division :of ater Quality - Compliance Inspection
p Other Agency='Operation Review
I* Routine 0 t untplalilt 0 hol]ow-nit nl uwt) Inspection 0 Potlow-up of r»w[_ review 0 t.tlner
hucility INumhcr 0.11V ul tnit)C4'01111
iulr 01 Iml}ectlao ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
p Permitted 0 Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered 10 Not Operattouu [late Last Operntcd:
Farm Name: Loxelt:.a.F.arm................................................................................................. County-: Davidson WSRO
OwnerName: Geurge................................... S.n>.ith........................................................... I'limic rNw 33b-35.7.-.7.51.7...........................................................
hacilily Cottlacl:...............................................................................Title: .. i'honr• INo:
IN-lsulin*t Address: 27-50.Jersey..Charch. Road .............................................................. Lexington.NC ........................................................ Z7292 ..............
011siteRepresenlalive: CieoAg>:. Alltlt............................................................................ Inte<orator:.......................................................................................
Certified Operalm-:G,corge-E.............................. Smith ................................................. Operator (:cr•tit'icatirrn Numbul-:211992 .............................
Location of 1=arnl:
Latitude ©� ® © Long—litude ®•
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Weanto Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to can
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
p Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
p Layer ® Dairy 300
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSLW 420,000
Number of Lagoons JE3 Subsurface Drains PreseRr13 Lagoon Area p .pray Pto rca
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ oLiquid Waste Management System
Dischar� d S-Irenni Inlrrtcts
IV
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
I)ischurV,,c or•i�,inatcd at: ❑Lagoon p Spray Field El Other
a. I f discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made'.1 ❑ Yes ❑ No
h. Iis observed. did it reach Wafer of, the State? (It•yes. nolrl}' DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
C. ICdiscltv,e is observed. what is the estimated Ilow in -allrnin?
d. [does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (I t• ves, notir", MVQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Wnsle Ctlleclion S Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? 0 Spillway ❑ Yes 0 No
Structure I Sh-uctru-e ? Srrucrure 3 Structure a Stniciure 5 SIRICItrl•c ti
Identifier: ................................................................................... .......................— ................................ ......................................................................
Freeboard (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 hack
-4* Id6o vrj,—

a +
Facility Number: 29_7 • �tc++1 tr.�trcclit=n
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes N 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? p Yes M 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 N No
Write Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Fescue (Graze) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
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
N No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
®No
Required Records &_ Diwimients
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)
p Yes
®No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ic/ 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
K - N: ',Viutatiorts-or. -defieiencie's.were-note' d' A ,ring. this "visit_ 1'aru' w�11 �eeeive no. further. .
. • �rtirres�vtidence. aboirf #his:visit: • . • . - . - . - . - ... • .. • . - ..... ..::: .. .: ::
Comments re . T (refer, to gue§lion #):� Explain -any YES answers and/or any recommendation§ or any other°comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
A6
KA
Reviewer/ins ector Name _ - __-
p Jennifer Frye Jenny Rankin
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �( _tea, _ Date: Jam J gq

Facility Number: 29_7 O'e of Inspection
[Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below p Yes ® No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? p Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, p Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? p Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) p Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? p Yes ® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? 13 Yes ® No
AL
J

0 DSWC An I Feedlot Operation Review
ge '0,4,
RDWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DNVO inspection 0 Follow-up of I)S".;('rc%,iew 0 Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
I Time of Inspection DtAE:j 24 hr. (hh:mm)
[3 Registered qCertified 0 Applied for Permit U Permitted 113 Not Operational Date Last Operated . ........... ..............
FarmName: ........ Lovzfe.a .......... .................................................. Counti .. ........... .......... .......................
OwnerName: Geor&e ............. ..................................... Phone No: ...... JE�-2-2-2q ..................................
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Tille: ................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
IN-lailing Address- .. CA �d, ................................... ....
. . ...............
OnsiteRepresentative: ................................................................. ............. ................. Integrator . ......................................................................................
Certified Operator ....... Operator Certification Number. .........................................
I ()Cn!inn of Farm
Latitude �, 41
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
C3 Wean to Feeder
El Feeder to Finish
El Farrow to Wean
El Far -row to Feeder
El Farrow to Finish
El Gilts
[I Boars
------------ - . . ................................................ ..........
Longitude 1=0 =1 E5K111
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
D Layer 12 Dairy I -�
JE1 Non -Laver 10 Non-DairyL
10 Other 1 177--71
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW I L-1.2
Number of Lagoons/ Holding Ponds 4
10 Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area I0 Spray Field �Area
10 No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need iiiaintenarice/iTiiproveiiierit'?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'.'
Discharge originated at: 0 Lagoon El Spray Field 0 Other
a. If discharge is oberved, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach,Surl",we WaLcr" (1l'yes.. notify DWQ)
c. If dischar-e is observed. what is the estimated flow in gab'rnin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (it: yes. notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement'!
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of desi , n?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
El Yes P(No
El Yes ANO
[I Yes [I No
El Yes El No
C3 Yes
0 No
El Yes
0,No
0 Yes
No
E❑I Yes
No
0 Yes
Xyo
El Yes
Continued
sN0
on back
6�

Facility Number: jq — 0 .
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed'? ❑ Yes No
Structures (Lauouns,[folding Ponds, Flush Pits. etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes A\�
0
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
.......... . .
Freeboard
(ft):
10.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures'
❑ Yes
0�,No
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
Cr
❑ Yes
No
12.
Do any of the structures need main tenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
[No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application"
❑ Yes
'\
kNo
(Ifin excess ofWMP. or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type 11V...!°.
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
No
\\No
IT
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application`?
❑ Yes
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
El Yes
1
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
El Yes
No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El Yes
No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
El Yes
No
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
For Certified or Pennitted Facilities Only
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
KNO
24.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncomplimice of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
KNO
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
ElYes
0 0
No.violations or deficiencies. were noted- during this visit. Nou 4ill receive no further
correspondence a out this visit:-_
Cvmments'(refer:to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations' or. -any otherecomments
Use draivings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as;necessarv):
Ak
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name41
c _
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �j J Date: /S

5 ❑ DSWC �al Feedlot Operation Revlev�
[WQ AK
Animal Feedlot Operation ,Si Inspectson
Y .. >
m Routine O Com taint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow -tie of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number I I
Time of Inspection hr. (hh:min)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: ❑ Registered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review �..
(® Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection includes travel and processing)
❑ NotOperationalDate Last Operated: ......_....._.........._......................--_.....................-•--••------- .. .......
Farm Name: ... vdg f&. [S..CI�.......f-��/% County: �..��?��..... ...............................
Land Owner Name:.._. �� ....... ..... Phone No: ... �1.. „��.. .-..
Facility Conctact:..............C...� ..... ........................ .......... ... Title: ............ Phone No: -aT��
r; 7 Q...... �1 �,.� �! ��.. �x�:7 ,(� ,e ........� ..-�.I..f�.....Mailing Address•.._ .........r.......
Onsite Representative:.....��(,e!......................................... Integrator:.................................. -..........
Certified Operator:............................................................................................................ Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
........... ....... 4
.........
Latitude 6 =r4 Longitude ®• ®®•
Tvve of Operation and Design Capacitv
x A
M Design
Current. Design Current l7es�gn Current
Swint E
Poultrattle
Po Y:-NaN Ca nlatton = �� Ca V= Pa ulation`
�.., .... _ .iEa act
ulatioti „-, .._. acity�'Po ,,.".. aci
❑ Wean to r
x.
Layer ® Dairy
I❑
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non-Dairyl
❑Feeder tosh
t Total Design Capaeity.�,
;
Total SLWr
k
Farrow ton
EF
Farrow toer
Farrow tosh��S
_A.. «. ,•r..
❑ Other
Number of Lagoons /Holding Ponds ❑ Subsurface Drains Present
h A Lag ❑ Spray Fie
Lagoon Area rI Id Area
❑ 1
/ �e
x:[
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes �[�No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes /N0
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other /v
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? .
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
S. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoonstholding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes TNo
El Yes � 1 NO
❑ Yes )�JNo
Continued on back
V

Fa ility Number:��- -
6. Is facility not in compliance with any 0able setback criteria in effect at the time of gn?
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?
❑ Yes Afo
❑ Yes ! " o
❑ Yes AND
Structures (I,a000ns and/or Holding Ponds)
9.
Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes o
Freeboard (ft): StruE!3�e j� Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Gl... ............................
Structure 6
10.
.I .-----..................:...
L
Is seepage obed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes j4No
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes /VNo
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes rNo
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
/
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
des
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ No
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes'�To
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the fate, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type ---- ..... ,% .....-.... .. ..—znw....-•.......................... { .....
r�
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes j�No
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
ElYes✓0140
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
jr-
❑ Yes IN No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes P1110
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes KO
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
El Yes dAo
For_Certitied Facilities Onlv
/—
22.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes o
23.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes S*&o
24.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes ft(No
Comments,(refer to question #) Explain any YES,answers'and/or.any recommendationsbr any other.corimments.'
Use drawings of facility to better ex ain situations. (use addrtiorial pages as necessary):' '
Reviewer/Inspector Name t
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
cc. Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

OF"ERgT,I0H BRANCH - WCJ Fa:}1L,10:1tj P. 08/13
Owner, e ti r e 5'n, terra N�lrle; �.
cot;. -IV; _
Agee V Sll" siv r fj c. � yhoner: 0�
c�xrator;°.—� '7 a
On SiteReprmmtsdve. r ��_r_� 1'hoao :?e
` xy �
Typc oroyw3svc. $wine P�Dolfy caw
Dcs,v Cn ,sty = _ N*jn! be cf Ar.i: 8ti cn Pt:
t�i[11tids: 'T '
Type of 1nr,,oetIm; Gn
Ca r-.14 Y�.4 or N'
L aca Sic Arwn;�(WRBt� Lsgne r, h��� r aat fr�=ua �: ; Fc�t + u5 ] �d ; c u 3; 7rm avant
or N o Aduza ir:r. �: T Fc ► �„ frfcY,e�c
:u+".Ztc, uses 11 � r�* •� �'
Par facrtfa r }v1t;t rear !hu a ?�r;r„r, }L'C�LC acfd;*ss :hc c�ti1C� i8'y_ORi' r7ar� GTv; I tote
evirui7e:lit5 SCc:,ors_ .
Waa nrry atmpav f;clr. Cc c ,Yc' �i L I <.;c rcr er..f'ha dRM. '
7s a:1 rqua:a.:rd avagabia nur:s,:ds :i:s1.�j;' urN� .s :agcaL; J.SjQrrib
Fga. to ( 19j 71 -3JJ9 S; raturt arAgimt