290021_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Adak
Division of Water ResourcNervation
Facility Number - O Division of Soil and Water IDam
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation p Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency p Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: q ll� Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:DULM
Farm Name: [X�S arm LLG Owner Email:
�,4d SrY\A-t ki ( 6prari�, es1
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �,,Q,t s nnl4k Title:
Onsite Representative: ,
Certified Operator:
-h-o N
Integrator:
Region; Mp_j�
q
c
Phone:(43 3<- -1- : 5pt
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
_ '! r,
Location of Farm: Latitude:, js rr `t�r Longitude: RL)n
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry, Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
[)ther
Design Current
Dry Poultry CaDscity Pon.
Lavers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Pouets
Qt}i�r
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?
Page I of 3
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf C
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes 1W No ❑ NA ❑ NF
❑ Yes ❑ No [DNA
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
Yes ❑ No
YU
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
DNA ❑NE
[DNA ❑NE
21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection: i
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
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
Structure h
Identifier: Q r
Spillway?: r� 7
Designed Freeboard (in):nl 7
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Ye
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage. etc.)
14
h. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
X No
❑ NA
E 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
S. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
Yes
V,
tiA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits. dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any pan of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
[ `
❑tiA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
T
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
IV) \o
❑ NA
❑ NL
maintenance or improvement'?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
TT No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN 5 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate
Manure'Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
gD'ft
12.CropType(s): (j Q Q � lrg i o ,!
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
❑ 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
Reouired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
J4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box. /047'-1/1b
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? I f yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application Weekly Freeboard WVVaste Analysis Soil Analysis ❑ D§4cather Code
Wainfall [:]Stocking Wrop Yield ❑ l PR'�ionthly and 1 " Rainfall Inspections
NI
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge" ❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
LOIN
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

0 Facili Number: M - Date of Inspection: c'� I
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 Z NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
36. 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 M No ❑ NA 0 NE
❑ Yes ro No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 51 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes E4No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes No
[:]Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑NA ONE
❑ 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).
P Xim ban Kam+ (y\0W ed ? I\e ec�s 1v ber VreAff" , n o Jar >,�, 00J
PWC15 pfMn
`� �Fo.Chafit, � 1ow� nc� 7 d6Gu550d br.,c.KiY4 f in 6F Orr,L�r,S
d IG CL-' n1
V\.� \/ c
P-1
wU P Upda-4{d -� -includt, mew +7o r% �5nzi ,r - 1 Ila��0�141, 7
`a�o fac*1f, tD l� rcti cti 1t� F
�D4 S6 i i i6f5 d u c, 10 c;�o[ `7. mac, ,31i461
jcj
. 601rd SpreoLcLL' +-Nnr- cc,(rc,+fcj It-7
,r v����7 f
1 U h 8 i f- 3 r o� bx n fi-n 5 tb cis 5 I: be:, n� t �4e_ r-cd o-vf-
ciiSCu SScd c�d�n Gsncr�#�- � toc�;hy
QQ•+-�d F ��s I b�Y�C
vaci,A'd m P 1'b W2 sent TMrn Sell er : e is i C'dur Coe y " Ra4A,
Reviewer/Inspector Name: Vibf 0 ( ( ( lr
Reviewer/Inspector S
Page 3 of 3
Phone:,���'
Date: I 9!
1412015

ivision of Water Resouri-
Facility Number ®- Xivision of Soil and Water Conservation d
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: NAoutine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency Q Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:Von
Farm Name: �,� e5 Far b,, LC. e, Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
e'� a 5o 3-
Facility Contact: (� Sr�n Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: b6wi
(2,4P
Integrator:
Region:
L
►n , NC� a 7 �
' >i�- -gas - - 7a1 j
Phone: A- 3 S -7 ` 3st o
Certification Number:
Is
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
0
Location of Farm: Latitude:15 �Longitude: 7a- J�
5 wy Sa- n c_-'ood ley. (*6 To o f ra wp `l7
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
t.a�er
\rt�-Lai �r
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Layers
Non-L
Pullets
Other
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 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 pots adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
1-3
Dry Cow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ \A ❑ NE
❑ N A ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
02rYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 1/412014 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: a -
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) Iess than adequate? ❑ Yes N 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
y`7 Identifier: u pbn� we-e—
Spillway?: � t
Designed Freeboard (in): h10
Observed Freeboard (in): � L
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes �lClo ❑ NA �] N E
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) '�T[
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes JNINo ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered ves, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes J�SNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required b the rmif? �+ ❑ Yes N�No [3NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks) O 15 lyVil
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes [jXo DNA ONE
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?
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
tffNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
eNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
'J A
❑ NE
[:]Yes �No
[:]Yes Qr�o
❑ Yes 4!j"No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ WUP ❑Checklists []Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21 Does record keeping need pravement?•4iye,..+ Yes No ❑ ❑ NE
Waste Applic 'on need'
Freebo Waste Analysis Soil Analysis �Yaste Transfers Weather Code
Rainfall St eking Crop Yield a 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22, Did the facility�so install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes J'h10 ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No P;�NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: G
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the pen -nit? ❑ Yes J)O"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ 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 0 NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No �W<A ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes RfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit'? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes bfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [k/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ,fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes eNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
34, Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or and other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional paces as necessarv).
N e-w b �,rt..tr`v) d- S wua 1. I rdt.i r `� � e- r OA 15 h +) Up o r 1:�i r� o
d
1ALAa�L4C�l ct 1a wt t n t� S +1~ er4. M_ 2 No +
Solt s re �r l br«aC-Pd ,n aols? Li ULd t*P Ue- ,2017,
5bt I te5f Ju�.01
� 7,
- a J42
G aA a -
-W�1,04 6t -AV 4"tAk
�
A A— A. +f- -1 _ A
N
ame: t41 LA Qi i 1 `7 5 k- V—v `a_h r
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
V •
Phone:
Date: b
Page 3 of 3 21412014

Division of Water ResourcMF
Facility Number - 0 Division of Sol] and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Fype of Visit: & Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:-211=t(5 krrival Time: l ® Departure Time: ! ID
Farm Name: kr e S �w /�'l G 4c/ Owner Emali: i
Owner Name:
Mailing Address
Physical Address:
Facility Contact
County: va 0
tyqRegion:
1-t1
Phone:
2SO cJr DfJ� #o-"Wit �QoI Ztx,�3 �V't /Yc- 2729Z
41 JrMi irlL title: Phone: W- M-SS 7- 59-OV
Onsite Representative: J
Certified Operator: doV;�kLt).51vr/
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
Certification Number: �� i1 ee/3
Certification Number:
Latitude: 3 5 `I5 3 0
Longitude: S�9 17 41
5 �N way tX ;,,e ` r"'yo W NL #AIY 1 L �� U
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er I I :::::]
Non -La er
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
i3��ar
Other
Other
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets;
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
DischaEges 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 Cou
5lO
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes C,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes ❑No 0 \ % ❑\17.
❑ Yes ❑ No \ 1 ❑ N E
Yes [:]No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412014 Continued

Faciili Number: 9 - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes f&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: Zoww_
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):TG
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes CK 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 to 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 §4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ELNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks) v,wead '4 rVaX
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes JR No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
CK No
❑ NA
\ i
maintenance or improvement?
I I . Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
J&No
❑ NA
i
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > l0% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved
Area
12. Crop Type(s): G iYh .
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ff No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
,g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No
3E2_TiA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
JZ 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
.g No
❑ NA
❑ NF
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
fi&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP El Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps [:]Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
y
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
[—]Yes
EkNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
iR NA
0 NE
Page 2 of 3
214120I4 Continued

[Facility Number:dy - jDate of Inspection: Zo!
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 N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes E, 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:
❑ Ycs r No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Z?S.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[-]Yes Dg_No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes _Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes JKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
14. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes M 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).
If. W VF � tJ' }i(14 ��� � �� 7���iti Alt ! i 'R� � S•i � �p! 1 � r H y�/� �l IMfr A ��� �1 •
Al 5. 7. � �1 toy, Za 1 �1 —
/ �; pp wtc.ti� � «. (. � rr�.�••'' - /�%l1 %a S fc.�
2y. ��plitw!'fr�l � I d
7�W0
per. �- e F S �>�� ,,,�► .
ti-has ,ii•��8'�' SyL
Reviewer/inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
IV"
Phone: 39- / X-
Date: 7-14-- Z­ a/s
21412014

90 Division of Water Quality
Facility Number - O Division V Soil and Water ervation Ia . 30
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review p Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: � Routine O Complaint O Follow' -up O Referral O Emergency O Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: 4rrival Time: Departure Time: County: nRegion:
Farm Name ge..d Ajowe5 Fl-kr m , L L C' Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address: A 1(O 3
L'_-6 Q—G
Ir. order Home " Ley, inq+dn.NC'-7a9 a--
`J
Physical Address: a5� fir• Qrde� �oRIB Rd L eXi fo v� NC- a 7 a g
— —
Facility Contact: P_EIWLI+ig Title: Phone: iN 35 7 40
Onsite Representative: V Integrator:
Certified Operator: (>Ly 1 t1 9 L �1d ) j inl `f �j Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ,35- Lt S 30 Longitude: SO (-7 -) /
us 5.2 3 Ta Lin e 5ct T L w.t +&P o r �- u-)Y 7, L Jr
brace' Home- P-A.
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -Laver
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
,Turkey Poults
Other
Discharees 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
,7
Q
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑Yes XNo ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes (g No
❑ Yes FdNo
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ONE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

FaciliNumber: Z q-a jDate of Ins ection: 1 I 1 L t
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 6No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: U rpof L4 L02.t_
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'' ❑ Yes WNo ❑ 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 DeNo [DNA ❑ 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? ❑ Yes1No ❑ NA ❑ NE
S. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? Y ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks) p VCC Q re" t 5 �Y-
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes P(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [2(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 Outsid3,of�#pprovcd Area
12. Crop Type(sy
I3. Soil Type(s): U
I—
`"
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
)5 Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
&No
❑ NA
❑ `N' F
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ N F'
the appropriate box.
]�
❑ WUP ❑Checklists [:]Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑ o dicr:
�aste21. oes record keeping need ' provement, prepriatri�a�t-i3a
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Application Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis
PP
ers
Weather
Code
Rainfall Q StockingQ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and I " Rainfall Inspections
❑-SladgeSuuar�
22. Did the facility ta-i1T 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
P(NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412014 Continued

Facility Number: - • Date of Ins ection: II D I
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? IN Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check i❑�' Yes [:]No CR44A ❑ 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 r5610 ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes JoNo ❑ N£
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
X No
❑ NA
NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
�(No
❑ NA
NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
Di"No
❑ NA
❑ NF
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAW -MP?
j� Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ 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).
l 5 MOL l l
6 es V- Q. % n �}- t i l l cry t t> c� '► S [� r u P ? 1 DSO .
`J n'l�
Soil , 5�' nab due uv,4= 1 oto1 o. HIv-0 r-3 cor4le+ed
�-� ► 1J ra-�'lo v� ? _2 a I -L r-40 ;101 3 7 N o a� No N D L7
-21. A[ l N 5o urce-s 50 �r C� 5 Yl �G r• s .
�r�s h wr�ex o u-t
�4 15 Ctrfo
%
�X� r
Do no-� need +0
deal v�� -�ro n2 n ay-+ M'P_
Reviewer/inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature
Page 3 of 3
Phone: � ? tia U ` I
Date: I / id 0-017
21412014

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number ®- O Division of Soil and Water Ca nervation
Q Other Agency
Fype of Visit: qFcompliance 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: 5 p Arrival Time: Departure Time: ® County: na V o n
Farm Name: Crr-5 FA- rm L L� ' Owner Email:
Owner Name:/ Phone:
Mailing Addr 02 02 to 3 Sr - O rd e�r e. Le'j>n o on
Physical Address: o-k ,-A 5 O
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: hQ v l o) _5m l
Bach -up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
L 2y�:'I ►�
Integrator:
Region: (,y$ P-Q
ICE a7 A91.?--
-rC,aa5- 7 a 1 to
Phone: B_ 3S-7 — 3800
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude: _� S g S 3 O Longitude: g0 1 -7 a I
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Nan -Laver
Design Current
Dry Poultry Cannei" Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes xNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes OrNo
❑ Yes VNo
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
Page 2 of 3
[Faciyq Number: - 02 . Date of Inspection: S o
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ,J�rNo ❑ 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: Lp w R-i—
L'L Spillway?:
Designed Preebbard (in):
Observed -Freeboard (in): �L `
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 JN�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes L) o ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks) B 0*0rvt 011, rr�e_n = ma-y- -
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes J� No [] NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste App_tication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes g)3No [DNA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes WNo ❑ 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?
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?
Reuuired 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.
Oyes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No 35g,'KA ❑ NE
❑ YesV No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes EyNo ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes
�SfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other.
21 oes record keeping need ' provement? P ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
aste Applic on eekly Freeboar �Wastenalysis Soil Analysis r1 `17^^*� T'" " : ❑Weather Code
R infall Stockin Crop Yield 20 Minute Inspections Monthly and l" Rainfall Inspections �' '� �w�-
22. Did the facility fail install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ; No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Pf NA ❑ NE
21412011 Continued
[:]Yes [:]No

Facili Number: - ;2 1
01 Date of Inspection: SI Qd11110 of
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? XYes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check Yes ❑ No [(NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? [:]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes P 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:
0 Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �!(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes bNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes D!(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
U Usejp"ngs of facility to better explain situations (use additional eages as necessary).
Fcii�h wuP� Q-
1 S ► na.1 r4i Y-� C. o v e-w a AAeA i-o LL) u P (L,d- r'CA2t-2�.. L° ie�p r r 36
seI CnLAL J - aQ e, u, zn, P , �- PH la -ad -
a 6 L ;L0-a f I b ra 6� on
W-M
1
1 4 1alo-LOf3
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of
L&-Y� Jn'4-� rAL'k_ -
& 5 6 = 7.13 1 bs . N//000 ct,,. /.
Phone: "7 / r sa gC)
Date: Ufa o/ a o 13
21412011
AtI

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number l _LJ - 0 Division of Soil and Water Coervation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 4outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: q i Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: County: U 1 O!� Region: ) � Q
Farm Name: F7A r m Owner Email:
Owner Name: R p (A Pw— re% r-a-- - ny I L. Z C Phone:
Mailing Address: 3(0 3 Sr • o r*d e_ - H n m e_ L 2X ► 114 410 n
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
2a sn J- r - o rd-P-y LIC we Pj
Title:
Onsite Representative: LAC 1
�' J ,�
Certified Operator: 2� I Q 1
Back-up Operator:
49L-7 1�q ;x__
Phone: 'A a — 01
H 3 57— 38Q
Integrator:
Certification Number: n
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 1 n Longitude: d 1.7 -ZJ
U S S a- 5. +1D G n w '21C 1 t
� r rakl�e— P—+, onto NG Hu- 47, 1e_-4'4 6tito Tunioil' rdpx
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
'A'ean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Ro-.irs
Other
Other
Non-L.
Pullets
Other
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)?
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. T7
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes `- No ❑ NA ❑ NE -
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes ;S�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page l of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - • Date of Inspection: JAWO
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes DdNo ❑ 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: Lp
wgx-
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 [DNA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement'? ❑ Yes �No [3 NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks) $ p wpm��,y 0�� %reRX
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the Idle s�truct��e§ require ❑ Yes WNo ❑ 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 0 PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window
- �J , ❑. _Evid/ence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
PA-UkJ
12. Crop Type(s): r)�C �,�ff' L_ n2oia l1 �'�L Ct►'I �iL11/X��f �l .l �1 ,
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
tYYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
es C"o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No J 'NA ❑ NE
0 Yes Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes �5No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes jN, No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. goes record keeping need improvement? ,gyp � YesXNo IAA ❑ NE
RjJV,/ aste Applicati n 1,�]d,%weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Ana�ysis Waste Transfers [1�Weather Code
ainfall tocking ❑Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections onthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections11-7
22. Did the facility ta}IIttto install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes I!fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

[FaciNty Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applica on 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 WA ❑ 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? 3 ! + 300 r
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
PfNo
0 NA
❑ tiE
0 Yes
Dj-go
D NA
NE
[g No
DNA
❑ NE
[:]Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [N No ❑ NIA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes ONO ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes L)kiQo ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA 0 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).
�Il ■ 1
dtL.l.�I fn•. �. ---
r%
3111abtI = q
Reviewer/lnspector Name:
ReviewerAnspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
``
r f f al ao l I_ q , 7
t( I t5f1;?b t) = �..q1 3/5/,201a- = IS,S
rock
n
8131�01 z = -2. l 7
Phone:
Date:
2141201;

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 290021 Facility Status: Active Permit: 6WC290021 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Qg-moiia_nce Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Comoiaint County: pa_yidgon Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 03/11/2011 Entry Time:09 30 AM Exit Time: 19:30 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Red Acres Farm Owner Email:
Owner: I3edAcfes Farm LLC Phone: [phone]
Physical Address: 2250 J Ord§r bome
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: W45'30" Longitude:
South out of Lexington on Hwy # 8 At intersection of Hwy 6 and Hwy 47 - go west on Hwy 47 2 miles, farm on right.
Question Areas:
0 Waste Application
Certified Operator: David Reid Smith
Secondary OIC(s):
9 Records and Documents
Operator Certification Number: 24831
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Reid Smith Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Reid Smith Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melissa Rosebrock Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

0 i
Permit: AWC290021 Owner - Facility: Red Acres Farm LLC Facility Number : 290021
Inspection Date: 03/11/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit: Complaint
Inspection Summary:
Today's inspection was the resuq of a complaint received from the Davidson County health Dept regarding a complaint they received
from a Mr, Talbert. Per the County Health Dept., on March B, 2011 Mr. Talbert brought what was purported to be a sample of his well
water into their office. The sample was reportedly black in color and Mr. Talbert alleged that his well had been contaminated by the
recent application of municipal sludge onto the field next to his property.
Through follow-up conversations between APS-WSRO staff and Mr. Talbert, our office was told by Mr. Talbert that the waste was,
reportedly, animal waste from a nearby cattle farm. Upon further investigation, staff discovered that the application field is owned by
David Leon Phillips, Jr and received an application of dairy waste from Red Acres Farm, LLC on March 5, 2010. The application field
in question is Tract-3070 Field-1 and is listed in the farm's Waste Utilization Plan (WUP)
10. Per the operators records, approximately 164,000 gal of slurry waste was applied onto 23 21 acres of land to be planted irs corn
within 30 days Since the agronomic rate is 197 lbs. N/acre and the waste was applied at only 70 lbs. N/acre (based on a waste
analysis of 9.9 lbs. N11000 gal ), there was no overapplication of nitrogen The field is currently covered in soybean stubble.
Additionally. no run-off of waste from the field was observed. There is a wooded buffer between the field and Mr. Talbert's property
and the waste was applied at least 20 feet away from the property line. The application field was not frozen or wet at the time of
application. however, it did receive 1 3 inches of rain in the 24 hours post -application. All of the operator's waste application records
appeared to be complete and in order
DWQ did document, however, that the animal waste was applied approximately 90 feet from Mr. Talbert's well. The farm's WUP states
that waste shall not be applied any closer than 100 feet to wells. It should be noted that Mr Talbert's concrete well cover was
observed to be askew and nor properly placed over the well opening Although no animal waste was detected on Mr Talbert's
property, the operator of the cattle farm was cautioned about application set -backs in the future.
Page: 2

L_J
•
Permit: AWC290021
Inspection Date: 03/1112011
Owner - Facility: Red Acres Farm LLC
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 290021
Reason for Visit: Complaint
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
aste Pond LOWER STAGE 12/19/07
asle Pond UPPER STAGE 18 00
Page: 3

Permit: AWC290021 Owner - Facility: Red Acres Farm LLC
Inspection Date: 03/11 /2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 290021
Reason for Visit: Complaint
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks. or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
■ n n n
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ■ ❑ Q
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 Ibs.?
❑
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
Cam (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Solt 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?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 4

0
0
Permit: AWC290021 owner - Facility: Red Acres Farm LLC
Facility Number :
290021
Inspection Date: 03/11/2011 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Complaint
Waste Application
Yes No
NA
NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
determination? ❑ ❑
■
❑
17 Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■
❑
❑
18 Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No
NA
SE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ ❑
❑
■
20 Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
WU P? ❑
Checklists? n
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ E ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
n
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?
Cl ❑ ❑ ■
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑ Cl ■ Cl
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ ❑ ❑ E
Page:5

• 0
Permit: AWC290021 Owner - Facility: Red Acres Farm LLC Facility Number : 290021
Inspection Date: 03/11/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Complaint
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
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?
0 0 m D
❑■n❑
Page. 6

NCDARCS Agronomic Division Phone: [phone] Web site: www.ncogr.pv/agronomi/
Report: W06258
�• „` "" ,,.,
(;rouser:
Red Acres Farm
C/o David Alltdd Smith
Copies to:
-
+ c
2263 Jr Order Home Rd
Letdnitton, NC, 27292
wasteAnalysis RAqhort
Fann:
Received: 03/0812011
Completed: 03109/2011 links to Helpful Information
Davidson Countv
sample Information
Laboratory Results (parts per million unless otherwise meted)
Sample ID:
1'
P _A _ Cry M8 S
Fe Abe be
Cu B Mo c.7 C
T0161 2747
3411L
_IM 12;4 557 294
it56 201 17.7
4.55 3IN
Waste Code:
•AW4
--
LSD
-h103
Na Ai rd 115 A/
se It PH
ss C:N DNS CCE% ALE
;Ha
6.74
Descrtptioee.•
OR -IV
Dairy Mg. Slurry
C rrea
Recommendations:
Nutrients Available for First Crop
16s/1000 auons
other 8leaeab 1000
Applimoon Method
N P205 .R20 Ca Afg S Fe Mn A Cu
B Afo 0
Na AN Cd 16 At Se U
Broadcast
9.9 7.3 17.6 7.3 33 1.7 0.97 0.12 0.12 0.03
0.02
4.13
The waste contains it large amount of nitrogen. To protect the environment, be careful to apply the waste only al rates needed to meet crop nitrogen requirement.
The waste product contains a large amount of sodium. This element can accumulate In soils where It replaces calcium and c„alributes to excess soluble salts. Sodium may also damage the foliage of sensitive plants
where the waste is a liquid and applied In overhead irrigation systems. Monitor sodium accumulation in the sod where the waste Is routinely Applied.
40
North Carolina Reprogramming of the laboratory -information -management system that makes this report possible is being funded
r
through a grant from the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission.
Thank you for using agrononuc .services to nonage nutrients and safeguard environnienlal yua/ity.
lobacco I rust F and Cotnmi ssion -.Steve Troxler, L'omndssioner of Agriculture

CJ
�1
L_J
Tract 3070 Field 0
Size 23.21 Soil McB2
Farm Owner David A Smith
2365 Jr Order Home Rd
Lexington NC 27292
Home [phone]
Crop Type Icorn
Spreader Operator
PAN 197
Home
Mobile
D. Reid Smith
2263 Jr Order Home Rd
Lexington NC 27292
[phone]
[phone]
Volume Waste PAN Nitrogen
Date # Loads Volume Total per Acre Analysis Applied Balance
3/5/2011
41
4000
164000
7065.92
9.9
69.95261
127.0474
PAN Total 169.952611

Rainfall 2011
1/1/11 0.2
1l11l11 0.2
2l1/11 0.3
2/4/11 0.6
2/24/11 0.1
2128/11 0.8 G
3/6/11 1.3
3/9/11 0.5 J
3l10/11 0.3

•
Lagoon Level 2010 (Stage 2)
1 /4/2011
>36
7/5/2011
1 /11 /2011
>36
7/12/2011
1 /18/2011
>36
7/19/2011
1 /25/2011
>36
7/26/2011
2/1 /2011
>36
8/2/2011
2/8/2011
>36
8/9/2011
2/15/2011
>36
8/16/2011
2/22/2011
>36
8/23/2011
3/1 /2011
>36
8/30/2011
3/8/2011
>36
9/6/2011
3/15/2011
9/13/2011
3/22/2011
9/20/2011
3/29/2011
9/27/2011
4/5/2 011
10/4/2 011
4/12/2011
10/11 /2011
4/19/2011
10/18/2011
4/26/2011
10/25/2011
5/3/2011
11 /1 /2011
5/10/2011
11 /8/2011
5/17/2011
11 /15/2011
5/24/2011
11 /22/2011
5/31 /2011
11 /29/2011
6/7/2011
12/6/2011
6/14/2011
12/13/2011
6/21 /2011
12/20/2011
6/28/2011
12/27/2011

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number o2 a2 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0.��Q �y
—� t /1
,0'ther Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit $ Routine O Complaint O Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1 Arrival Time: V d
Departure Time: a O County: blavlaao
n
Region: U36KQ
Farm Name: _
ue
Far rYi . L L C
Owner Email:
caner Name: _.4i11QPhone:
Mailing Address: 2 2 0 3
Tr ' 0 (A Er
�O Le�A V14+0 VN , NC
-7 9 �
Physical Address: d'Z a SD
Sr ' O ra e-c
(C���
_14 � e '�-f! ' L�'� n Q
jdr1 , ��
a 7 � -,
T
Facility Contact: P_,e,
1111L1
Title: Phone No:
1
OnsiteRepresentative: 2 e.1(lt
lYVi l lYl
Integrator:
Certified Operator: DaS L i`-'� + ` Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
o t
Location of Farm: Latitude:MfoEITL--.�DLongitude: 155 a�-
u S 5 tm G n to op e_ I t - 1 u rn JP_ Roo ' rakv.�
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ 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
Dry Poultry
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges & Stream impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any pan 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
5
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cowl
I
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 tential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes x No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 1�qo ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued
46

Facility Number: oZ — a . Date of Inspection 1 I
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? Cl Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: �
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ yes X'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 P(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ;KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ yes XN. ❑ 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 t] Yes /No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need El Yes wNo ElNA ❑ 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 Windo=wn El Evidence of Wind Drift El Application
s Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) ,/MAV (tT [J�,( j •{.C.�-f' �,�D 1
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 A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes jrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre detennination ? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes C�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):
Ju� - y w
_ _
d
eviewer/Inspector Name r— Phone:
[Reviewer/Inspector
Signature. Date:
Page 2 of 3 V_ v , v 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: a —p2 Sof Inspection 0
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 6tNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Do record keeping need i ' rovement?-Ifyes t-i W. ❑ Yes [�Io ❑ NA ❑ NE
aste ApYstocking
tion7`rloypYield
Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil alysis �aste Transfers
�yRainfall 120 Minute Inspections LYMonthly and 1" Rain Inspections DWeather Code
ID AW
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes )eNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ 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 WA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes _WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes _No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes X"'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 ,fNo ❑ 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 WNo ❑ 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 NfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes )No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Ad ' ' nal Comments and/or Drawings:
Uq 4& (ff dA-q- 020
It
o
. U
! �P bkk'o'
b `
o
n

1U
�Fa-ctlt`ty?Number' 'Z
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: 67 Arrival Time: Departure Time: / _�� County:bajdsdh Region: kSIQ.O
Farm Name: B Ed 1�G�Ll T---rtAA . Owner Email:
Owner Name: - Po%�2-2-6-3V' c M ►_! h _ _ Phone:
Z
Mailing Address: 2-2-6-3Qrder�' 2
Physical Address: AA 46 %Z1G
Facility Contact: Reid Sm.A Title: Phone No* ; 35-% z r90
Re-, � � � Integrator:
Onsite Representative: g
a p �
Certified Operator: A."/ Lid SA'' Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
LocationofFarm: e}! Latitude: 0 0 R ' ©Q Longitude: $d OE; "
U S > y----�52 Soy. f �e L�1cJpppd iC�T-- m KJ �.1 6` tfC F�
04d X ML na R i f .1,
Design - Current Design Current ,D;i
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cii"le Ca
❑ Wean to Finish ❑ Layer
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Non -Layer
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean f
❑ Farrow to Feeder
El Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other's ..
❑ Other
-,Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
ElNon-La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ TurkeyPoults
❑ 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?
Dai Cow
Z�
773-
❑
DaiEZ Calf
❑
Dat Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
3
N'timber,of�Structures,�,
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of 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?
t
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

0 Facility Number: 2 — 2 Date of Inspection 07 P
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: { S Lower t,IS
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �� 0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes Ao
❑ 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
T 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 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
❑ Yes )<No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes jt�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 fof Area
12. Crop type(s) C�,t � fm v// �f� try S,r�e , 1eLit,, &,4fS �j cae_. L,
13.
Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes ❑ No
% NA
❑ NE
IT
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes 'J2�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes Wo
❑ 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 I Y� -r��G� l� j � Phone: 33ta - 771 �-52y.s—
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �e Date: �b 117
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Z — Z fe of Inspection 07
Required
Records & Documents
19.
Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes )S�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 ElOther
21.
Doesrecordkeeping need improvement?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
,�,�
LJ waste Applicatio L�f Weekly Freeboard D aste Analysis oil
Rainfall Stocking ER Crop YieldEl Monthly and I" Rain Inspectio
Wea[her Code
DOV_
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
P(NA ❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes _KNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes [:]No
�*NA ❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes )�(No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA ❑ 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 XNo
❑ 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 >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 '�<No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes >No
❑ NA Cl NE
(Additional Comments and/or Drawings: I
200 1 w/Y j I kI le- Ja,711,� 1 ejt,1171.
wp_ M-T 6 ,J4 7�r 410 / f
` - e try,T
JvM-9-AtJAYfXF'
cn/19/i o = f Z
• Jul Ja,M 4��rhb�,�i^ed,l���� yet
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number a Division of Soil and Water Conservation / a
Q Other Agency
(Type of Visit 9kCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit 4Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1 I — Arrival Time: d O S Departure Time: County:bwidaonRegion: W �Q
Farm Name: �ed A crP� ��r�q . L�-� „!,_ Owner Email: r�d�--Q'Jeor 4z— le C6Cr\'%T\
Owner Name: �t I''' ,�]� Phone:
Mailing Address: d a (e 3 �� r_ O rde.r How- PJ • j l-X o n q-t6r)
Physical Address: a T{ . O rd ear }-i o mL �o NL a ���
Facility Contact: IC C t N1 I[j Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: 1` e 101 5m 1 Integrator:
Certified Operator: �(lN1U {�IC��t l Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ls�[° H91 IliaLongitude: ®°Fill
u S S.)- 5 . -6 L i n U30CA e>�' r+ * +L3 r ]n to �'+ , � 1,A 6n+6 0 0t., c n t.000c
U e 4 0 n-fo o rd er No me- Rd . Fo�.v-nn OrN 1 e
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Laver
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turke Points
❑ Other
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
19
Dairy Cow
El
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifei
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: EKI
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 adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

Facility Number- ;Z— 0 Date of Inspection 0 �
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. LC6P t 01ofox �
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yeti No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Nat 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 [a Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below, ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
11 Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
qNo
❑ 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):
Reviewer[Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu
Phone: ,1
Date:

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Reciuired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have 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 VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does cord keeping need --improvement? rbe+&w ❑Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Applicati L`7 Wee Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis s
Ij� Rainfall Stockin Crop Yield Monthly and i" Rain Inspections Weather Code
3J �-}`? X
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 O(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 LiA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes P(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ElNA ❑ 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 No ElNA ElNE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) IV
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes �Y,/No [I NA ❑ NE
ElL�
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Addit:nal Commentsand/or Drawings:
Ah • r
y
1, ka�, * I I i �� J r • ` (a
L / �• l: +�Lf 1 N c
�,� J r� � � Jf �, � 1 � '�iy f r � I s ✓r t l �r
Page 3 of 3 12128104

xDtv1s1on4f R'ater4Q»alt � f - O
actlity�Number v
oZ Dri'sion oSoil and' Watcr ( onservatton
y - 0' Other Agency .
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint Q Follow up 0 Referral Q Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: p Arrival Time: � Departure Time: U:� County: Nvrd56n Region:
ee �ed ����54rm LLC
Farm Manic: �j 1 Owner Email:
Owner Name: OofiU A " Sal 1 Phone:
Hailing Address: aim S+-• O rder t4omt Pd ew n q bn a 7.2
Physical Address: aaSO .�r� ' Ora tp—c p6me-. 1�" ' 0C a g �"
�z
Facility Contact: � �� (,�.�5 m Title: Phone No: 9S- tf f0
Onsite Representative: Integrator: '
Certified Operator: Ua��t f�1 mr Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: MI lar ®" Longitude: ®o u ,
US Sal S nO4-� Li n woor 6Xrf 4- turn i h� onto D 1
L i h WOLA PA Z e- -F4 a r,+o Ton for d rd� 06Xh- Rod . Fo-cm o I�
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Laver
11 JE1 Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turke Poults
ElOther
Discharges & Stream Impacts
t. 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
Capacity Population
29 Do iry Cow
d0
LJ_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: FZ
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation.)
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge'?
❑ Yes
*o.
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes x No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — o Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
U �P� Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
/ Identifier: W 5 P
<< L),5 P
Spillway?: U
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): iqq
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes A. No El NA ❑ NE
El Yes A.
❑ 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 4o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) i a r L a
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
KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
,,j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
L No ❑ NA ❑ NE
1KNo ❑ 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):
6
�1-5
n r t
� c_ t M u m- �' �ec� {� I a�0e1 �.. � ®n. rnQ a
Reviewer/Inspector Name I �' CLY'teD(� I Phone: S a�
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu:reDate:
Page 2 of 1212LY104 Continued

Facility Number: 9110 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents J
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & P
ernk readily available? ❑ Yes t�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record/tceeping need imprcyrement? If yes, check the appropriate box bel / ❑Yes No El NA ❑ NE
El Waste Application El Weekly Freeboard El Waste Analysis ElSol Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfa Y ❑ StocVg ❑ Crgp Yield ❑ s ❑'4onthly and 1 " Rain Inspections ❑�eatberCode
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 O(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
2(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
�6o
❑ 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
ONo
❑ 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
E 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
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
*XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
b rQ--+- on to b� co4 le.+mod � � ocio 6ec i r aoo�� "
14
e-- awAPSIS -7plty IA5. Nll wo
U vo
Page 3 of 3 12128104

0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 290021 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC290021 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Qgrnoliance trisp%lion Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Davidson Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 0113112QQ7 . Entry Time:Q9:35 AM Exit Time: 11:00 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
;J�T��FZ►1f7;2�f b�is7l
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Phone
Latitude:35°45'a0" — Longitude:8Q°17'21"
South out of Lexington on Hwy. # 8. At intersection of Hwy. 8 and Hwy. 47 - go west on Hwy. 47 2 miles, farm on right.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: David Reid Smith
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 24831
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Reid Smith Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Reid Smith
Primary Inspector: Me' sa Rosi
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Physical address is: 2250 Jr. Order Home Rd., Lexington, NC, 27292
3. Leachate appears to be greatly reduced. Creek looks clear. Good work!
7, Continue efforts to control and repair burrow holes.
14. & 28. T-1220 F-5 Need to add rye grass to WUP.
21. 112107 WSP sand=0.91 lbs. NITon
Phone: [phone]
Phone:
Date: 1 3 1 1 1
Page: 1

•
•
Permit: AWC290021 Owner - Facility: David Reld Smith II
Facility Number. 290021
Inspection Date: 01/31/2007 inspection Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Q Cattle - Milk Cow 250 214
Total Design Capacity: 250
Total SSLW: 350,000
Waste Structures
Type IdentiFler Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
k1ste Pond
WSP
18,00
102,00
Page: 2

F, )
10
�j
Permit: AWC290021 Owner • Facility: David Reid Smith Il Facility Number: 290021
Inspection Date: 01/31/2007 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
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
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Led large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
■
❑
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWC290021 Owner -Facility: David Reid Smith tl
Facility Number: 290021
Inspection Date: 01131=07 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
is PAN ? 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
Q
Crop Type 1
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 2
Winter Annual
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, noes 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
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.
WIIP?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC290021 Owner - Facility: David Reid Smith II Facility Number : 290021
Inspection Date: 01131/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25, Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
Cl
■
❑
❑
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 propedy'dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑
■
Cl
❑
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

O
0
Permit: AWC290021 Owner - Facility: David Reid Smith II
Facility Number: 290021
Inspection Date: 01/31/2007 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?
Q
■
Q
❑
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
Q
■
0
0
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Q
■
Page: 6

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number 2 op Division of Soil and Water onservation
- - — - O Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit YRoutine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1 ,3/� djj-] Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:A50 Region: w 51�.J
E tee- Q r--
Farm Name: r�l CrP� � L� ►_Yinl L'UC Owner Email: }
Owner Name: 8 l Phone: lJ 3 S -7 0
Mailing Address: a alp ?] } r . nrd~✓r Home- Q_ . J LexingToo i �]nC�� a� a9 a
Physical Address: ��r d Q�me C. j i
SFacility Contact: el �1 1'1�` Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: e'l� Integrator:
Certified Operator: IJt�V Operator Certification Number: r - 31
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
V 5 s a 560-
L elk on+o
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Other
❑ Other
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: I Jf ®� Ed Longitude: E?3 °
+o Llnwoo eft q- +Ur-n h+- on+o Old Uinvoo'
.Tu n't o r- Q rd e- l+o m e I6'z-CAA . a, le--4- .
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -La er
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharzes & 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
o O
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: al
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 1 of 3
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: a2j . Date of inspection f I f -0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
XN. ❑ NA
❑ NE
r a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
El Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
�j Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 Structure 6
I h Identifier: VU�
IC) Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): Q y
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
Vo ❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
9No ❑ 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?
Xyes
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Vo ❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
El Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
WNo ❑ 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 [:IPAN > 10% or ] 0 ]bs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Apjlication Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No
[X NA
❑ NE
IT Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
[]Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
3 LeQc'hQ+e- 7 M
�, - • 1 c
I a s- A d.d � � rat s S
as F � �
��° • !� ��i�
e •
,�
pew
ReviewerA nspector Name
_�-
Rhone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu
Date: I O
Page 2 of 3 ► YI#„1 . _ ' jy�� +� 12/28/04- Continued
i+Jna,PS !

Facility Number: — -.2- 1 Wate of Inspection 1 O
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Pen -nit readily available? ❑ Yes �No
YNo
❑ NA El NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check El Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
` ❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Doe record keeping need i rovement? ❑ Yes D(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
'aste Application Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis soil alysis I�iu,�to �n^� �rtifcatian
Rainfall �tocking ❑ Crop Yield ' '^ " '-- - Monthly and V Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes t�"'o
o [INA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ElYes VNA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ✓/G'- ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No [ONA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes VY No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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?
al Comments and/or Drawings:
❑ Yes ❑ No ((NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes i6o
❑ Yes 0<No
❑ Yes _ ,No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes tNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA El NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
I�
9/s/ 0(o = z 7 ! � n�/i000 �P
161- "4kAW " t-
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 290021 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC290021 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ _ County: Davidson Region: )Mn§jQn-SaIjrn
Late of Visit: 10/11/2006 Entry Time:0$:20 AM Exit Time: •10 45 Aim Incident t1:
Farm Name: David A. Smith Owner Email:
Owner: David Reid Smith - _ _ Phone: [phone]Q
Mailing Address: 2263 Jr Order Home!id _Lexington NC 27292
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 354530" _ Longitude: 80°17'21"
South out of Lexington on Hwy. # 8. At intersection of Hwy. 8 and Hwy. 47 - go west on Hwy. 47 2 miles, farm on right.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: David Reid Smith
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site RepreSentative(s): Name
On -site representative Reid Smith
24 hour contact name Reid Smith
Primary Inspector: VA441AY!
sebrock
Inspector Signature
lu
Secondary Inspector(s):
Operator Certification Number: 24831
Title
Phone
Phone: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Phone:
Date: a a
Inspection Summary:
3. & 9.Evidence of leachate into creek. Silage leachate needs to be contained or excluded from surface waters.To be addressed within
30 days.
7. Continue efforts to control broadleaf weeds on WSP embankment.
21. Records took great.
24. Completed. Not due again till Oct. 1, 2008,
8/28/06 = 7.7 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC290021 Owner- Faciltty: David Reid Smith Fatuity Number: 290021
Inspection Date: 10/11/20D6 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
O Cattle - Milk Cow 250 178
Total Design Capacity: 250
Total SSLW: 350,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
'aste Pond WSP 18.00 84.0
Page: 2

•
•
Permit: AWC290021 Owner - Facility: David Reid Smith Facility Number: 290021
Inspection Date: 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
■
0
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
Q
■
Q
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management Q
■
❑
❑
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
■
[1
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessi,re Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
Q
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

•
e
Permit: AWC290021 Owner - Facility: David Reid Smith
Inspection Date: 10/11/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Waste Application
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
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Facility Number: 290021
Reason for Visit: Routine
n
n
n
n
n
Q
Corn (Silage)
Soybeans
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
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
Q
■
n
n
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
Q
■
Q
Q
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
Q
Cl
■
Q
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
Q
■
Q
Q
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Q
■
Q
Q
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
Q
Q
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the GAWMP readily available?
Q
■
Q
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
Page: 4

Permit: AWC290021 Owner- Facility: David Reid Smith Facility Number: 290021
Inspection Date: 10/11/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
D
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
Cl
■
❑
❑
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■
Q
❑
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?
❑
■
❑
❑
2T 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
❑
■
[1
❑
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: AWC290021 Owner - Facility: David Reid Smith
Inspection Date: 10/11/2006 Inspection Typo: Compliance Inspection
Other Issues
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number : 290021
Reason for Visit: Routine
Page: 6

I%
Division of Water Quality
Facility Number���Z70� pivision of Soil and Water Conservation q j 0116:OD
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 ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit; 0(0 1 Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: County: D"'`v�d_-Ion Region: ILD5 A-o_
Farm Name: 40- d aC-CeS
�j j� C Owner Email: Q
Owner Name; I)QV I A A • S rn l I r ] _ . Phone:
Mailing Address: `? alp �• od r I,6 ,x!
Physical Address: V
Facility ContiO: vela 5_L1C1 I Title: Phone N aaS °T C�
Onsite Representative: P—Pit to sm l h
Certified Operator:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: MI o Longitude: ®° ®g
Sb uih -&() F�W y y 1 , 6n+6 wy 43. Foxni 15 am 11es on P
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
0 Non -La er
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
PS
DairV Cow
OD
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
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 4'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
�Yes
] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: a —
0 Date of Inspection to D
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: P
L/ Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 'b
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
$,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(iel large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
El yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
�
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental
threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
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
1'es
❑ No El El NI,
maintenance or improvement?
j
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
IbI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
( No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
'
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
t4. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes 'SNo ❑ NA El 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 fNo ❑ 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
Reviewer/Inspector Signature.
of 3
r O CV-- I Phone:
Date:
&AA� d A
�� fI
f I
uvxq'A�0�01

Facility Nurnben_al— a Ote of Inspection t 0
RecLuired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ElNE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ElYes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists I ` ❑ Design El Maps El Other XNo
21. Does ecord keeping need im ovement? iFpvs;'ett� ❑Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
�aste Applic on Weekly Freeboard aste Analysis Soil�onthlly
is ainfall Stocking [I Crop Yield and 1" Rain Inspections Uather 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
Of NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
t� NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ULOL"'
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
�fNA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
El NA
El NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
El NA
❑ NE
m and report the mortality rates that were higher than noral?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
ElNA
ElNE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
ElNE
General Permit? (iel 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
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
r� /
Page 3 of 3 12/28/04
I�-r�Z MAT—�o �-NI . � � Miti.Q� ir�..r �� � - - . 1

•
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 290021 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC290021 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Davidson Region:Winston-Sgiern
Date of Visit: 11/02,12005 Entry Time:]g:05 AM_ Exit Time: 12:00 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: David Smith Owner Email:
r
Owner: David -Rgid Smith
Mailing Address: 2263 Jr Order Home Rd _ „_ Lexington NC 27292
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Phone: [phone]
Location of Farm: Latitude: 3 4a'30" Longitude: 82 1"
South out of Lexington on Hwy. # 8_ At intersection of Hwy. 8 and Hwy. 47 - go west on Hwy. 47 2 miles. farm on right.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment jj Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: David Reid Smith Operator Certification Number: 24831
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Reid Smith Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Reid Smith Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector Melissa Rosebrock Phone: [phone]
Ext.383
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
3. Fencing along the creek and the buffer look great!
8. Tempory marker has been installed to replace the one broken during sand clean -out. Permanent marker to be installed by next
week.
21. Operator is waiting on waste sample results from Oct. 2005 applications to calculate PAN balance. Check next visit. Operator is
also waiting on sand waste sample results.
28. Could not locate days of storage in WUP. See tech spec.
28. T-1220 F-5 needs to have 'corn" added to WUP. This is a new field per operator.
6/31/05 waste analysis=6.0 lbs. N11000 gal.
Page: 1

r:
CJ
Permit: AWC290021 Owner - Facility: David Reid Smith Facility Number: 290021
Inspectlon Date: 11/02/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle - Milk Cow 250 156
Total Design Capacity: 250
Total SSLW: 350,000
Type identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
rite Pond WSP 18.00 108.00
Page: 2

• e
Permit: AWC290021 Owner- Facility: David Reid Smith Facility Number: 290021
Inspection Date: 11/0212005 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 (LeJ large trees, severe erosion,
❑"j
■
❑ ❑
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
n
■
❑ ❑
closure plan?
7, Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry
❑
■
❑ ❑
stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance altematives that need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑ ❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 Ibs.?
❑
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,
Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Cover
Crop Type 3
Other
Crop Type 4
Page: 3

U
Permit: AWC290021 Owner - Facility: David Reid Smith
Facility Number: 290021
Inspection Date: 11102/2005 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 applicatlon site need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
1 B. Is there a lack of property operating waste application equipment?
Cl
■
❑
❑
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?
Cl
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after ? 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
Cl
■
❑ ❑
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. [lid the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑ ❑
Page: 4

1
d
Permit: AWC290021 Owner - Facility: David Reid Smith Facility Number: 290021
Inspection Date: 11/02/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
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 property 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.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewAnspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ Cl ❑
Page: 5

Division of Water Quality
,Facal�ty .Number a q I Division of Soil and VF'ater Colrvation
i
Q Other Agency 1614
Type of Visit
Compliance Inspection
O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation
O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
Routine O Complaint
O Follow up O Referral O Emergency
O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of N'Isit: n a.. 0 Arrival Time: Departure Time: I l� County: Q D Region: W S R d
Farm ,Name: d ���5 �Q1' rY1 L L C.• Owner Email:
Owner Name; V. Phone: ?)g c�s�
Iliailing Address: t` rp_jr V�orn& IZA.L.eX I hQ_+O n ► NCB —7 a
Physical Address: 11
Facility Contact: i lU i'Y11 n Title: Phone No: l' a
e—
Onsite Representative: I Integrator: z
Certified Operator:- (A __J:�ej) —Operator Certification Number: J
Back-up Operator -
B
ack -up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [M 0 F
soa r,. +0 4WV Ik) auto HL"`i 4 7 .
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Longitude: MO©, W «
Farm
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
�� ❑ Non-Lavet
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other . .... ---
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (I f yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
3�a
Daia Calf
❑ Daia Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non-Dai
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: F 7/k
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes *No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: aq— 0 Date of Inspection off- 4
Waste Collection & Treatment J
4. Is storage Capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
�e Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: W 7
U
❑ Yes Y6 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
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
4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
)�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
1% No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
XNo
ElNA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need [] Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? fffff
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, cheek the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes qNo ❑ 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) l -I9t'k/11�� t t A10,& w4+—f ..{1�1 - JL' �(' J C.A[4J -f 01h W-,j . jLtV ,
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? Yes
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determinations❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
f10
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ No
YNA
❑ NE
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
%No
❑ NA
❑ NE
IComments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or.any other comments. ,
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
i � r
Reviewer/Inspector Name I jyje,uS<,0_17 - Phone: fI
Reviewer/Inspector 5ignatur Date: f b�

Facility Number: — a D.0. Inspection o2 0
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 CA WMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [i No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping neeWee
rovement'? If do, Zaste
the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application
ly Freeboard Analysis IS, Soil Analysis
E Rainfall LvJ Stockin Yield E3 �'vlonthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
DH�
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
X No
ElNA
ElNE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
UNA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit'.16(J,.NO
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b�A
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
VNA
❑ NE
Other Issues
(1i
28.
Were any additional problems Hated which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
Yes
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
[] Yes
XNo
❑ 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
XN10
❑ 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
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional imments and/or Drawings:
t�
o�
r
A
12128104

T ' ivision of Water Quality
[vision 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 () Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Z9 2t Date of visit: 3/18/2004 Tirne: 1115
O Not O erational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted 0 Certified 13 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: _ __ __ _.
Farm Name: R.ed.Aucs.farm.LING .................................................... Count -NI: DAYA.Sa..............................-. W'SR.O.....
Owner Name:?;1�id�9�.---- -..._ --- -h---..._._-- - ----- --- - - Phone No: --------
Mailing Address: z4 ..,[xr..4r.�l r..H.vm► . iQ.ad ........................................................... Lt•xAngtala... NC. .......... ........................ ............. Z72,92 ..........
Facility Contact: RiPid.SMjtb................................—.......Title: ............................................... Phone No: W1.33.6.,225,7216...........
Onsite Representative: R�iciutuh.- - ------ - - - - --- - - - --- - - - Integrator:.--- - - - - - - - - --- ---------- - -._..
Certified Operator:DaxAd..Rc.ilk.......................... 'Smith.aX.............. ..................... __..... Operator Certification Number:2.4831..................... ........
Location of Farm:
South out of Lexington on Hwy. 4 8. At intersection of Hwy. 8 and Hwy. 47 - go west on Hwy. 47 2 miles, farm on right. +
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 45 14 F 30744 Longitude F 80 • 17 2I
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of lagoons 0
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Laver ® Dairy 300 178
❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSLW 420,000
Discharges & Stream Im_ tracts
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 ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ 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 09 No
Structure i Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:._._Wasta.P=A .... ............. .............. ..._.....__.--•--•--•--• .. ............
Freeboard (inches): 36
12112103 SUJ 7Continued
�9 �--�

Facility Number: 29--21 Date of Inspection 3/18/2004 _
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tr , 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 [I Yes ®No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes ® No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑Yes ®No
❑ Excessive Ponding [:]PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Soybeans 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
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 jK No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes ® No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. _
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): :❑ Field Copy ® Final Notesmm
3. Operator has submitted application for financial assistance with Davidson Co. SWCD for fencing the cattle from the creek and for
+
installing a drinker in the heifer pasture (group 10).
13. In some years, the operator applies waste to small grain cover. Need to specify allowable PAN amount in the WUP.
l . May 1, 2003 COC and permit were not with records. DWQ to send copy.
3. Operator applied 10 lbs. on barley cover that is to be burnt down. Will deduct N from the allowable PAN in the spring com crop.
3. 2004 soil test results are back and look ok.
1
3. Records look real good.
12/8/03 waste analysis=5.5 lbs. N/1000 gal.
T
Reviewer/Inspector Name .Melis a Rosebrock
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: Q
1211210.3 1 Continued

Facility Number: 29-21 of Inspection 3/I8I2004
Required
Records & Documents
2 L
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 reviewlinspection 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
N`PDES 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 V Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
12112103

r #1Division of Water Quality
ivision of Soil and'Watei� Conservation
ther Agency
L�XCo�u�nc�e
F
of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
n for Visit V Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other 0 Denied Access
Facility Number I Date of Visit: L11 l Ol (j. ' Time: I 1 1'
.., ..,, �O Not Time:
O Below Threshold
Permitted [3 Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3
Registt�ered Date Last Operated or Above 'Threshold
Farm Name: ... .� .....A........ .iX1j %� County:....a Q.Qn....................................
'�/�3f_ 35-7- c2sgo
OwnerName:... 1ilnrS .... .........�. rn_L..I.I�.I......................................................(� one y('..:.........................................1.......................
:Mailing Address:.......... `y� ....
2 !�3 ..-fir. 60 ......t.. b.rnc....... ...... �xie rn.......IU. ..... a...7.. .
Facility Contact: 14 � ........ , .f.YNI.�........................... Title: Phone No �.�..,.,3✓�P.,r c si
Onsite Representative: ...� ,,,,,,,5�-r]� 1 ................................................... Integrator: ......................
Certified Operator:... .{ ...... ...e...j .........5.��(�„� ...'... .......... Operator Certification Number:.. ....... ..... I .3 .........
a
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • ®1 ®&° Longitude ®0 ©4 m69
;. Design_ Current
Swine 7, . - Capacity. Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Discharges 8 Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes r �lo
Discharge originated at: [ILagoon [3 Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
d_ Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes A'!K[o
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? kyes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Apillway ❑ Yes >Fo
Stru tur'r.Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identificr: �r ............................................................'.......................................... ................................ ......................................
Freeboard (inches): 310
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: a — Date of inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to Agrity of any of the structures observed? (ic// trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes XNO
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 maintenancelimprovement?
Cl Yes *o
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes *o
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes �(No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
�XNNo
❑ Yes �40
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
`
,ts,4'
12. Crop type a, Al"u-) 4 2AdA& 4
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in a Certified Animal W Management Plan AWMP)?
❑ Y14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yb)
Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yc)
This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Y15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Y*N(o
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ YesOdor
Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below —r-T
ve. -rM *r
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.
Coihrnents.{cefer,to.question#j:_.ExpLai n any YES answers-and/or,any recdImi mehdations or,any'other comments. --
<Use dr'awEngs`of facility to better explatn,situabons. {use:addidanal pag)('1
es as=necessary} Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
--
Reviewer/Inspector Name;,76
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: oq
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: — r,2� to of Inspection
Required Records & Document.
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 o
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No
❑Waste Application ❑Freeboard aste 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
yNNo
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
o
JNo
27.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
0
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
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 I " Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
dditional Carrimints and/or`Drawings
.
Mr. S1A14)
k015
belw roveJ for L°oS+ �u�4a`2
-Punk � ��ce
`
6 o `
6�
5-k-ea m (VI
V�G�4��tcelcmj��. L°�dR';tso�et ,aooFl
a3 6200 4aldtV�l�tu-P�.�imtk.�—Pe6�-mP
S.slks n;h000
� �p"'r r—MeA �°�� �
12112103 Lk) u
P.

nical Assistance Site Visit Rep
DivTiion of Soil and Water Conservation'
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number
29 - 21
Date: 8112103
Time: 10:20
Time On Farm: 90 WSRO
Farm Name
David A. Smith
County Davidson
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 2263 Jr. Order Horne Road
Onsite
Representative Reid Smith
Type Of Visit
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
Lexington NC 27292
Integrator
Purpose Of Visit
O Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
p Response to DSWCISWCD referral
p Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
Q Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
El Boars
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
300
150
❑ 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 [Dyes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5• Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier WSP
Level (Inches) 12
CROP TYPES Corn, Silage lfalfa Fescue -graze Small grain cover Soybeans
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES CcD DaB MeB
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 29 - 21 Date:
8/12/03
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
El
10. Level in structural freeboard
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
[112. Waste structure integrity compromised
28• Forms Need (list in comment section)
El
El
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
30. 2H.0200
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
re -certification
❑ 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.Organizelcomputerization 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
❑
❑
❑ Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46, Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5.
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 29 - 21 Date: 1 8/12/03
COMMENTS:
Waste analysis: 2-10-03 LSD 5.8 Lbs.N/1000 gals. B, 4-09-03 LSD 5.8 Lbs.N11000 gals. B,
$-12-03 LSD 7.8 " "
Mr. Smith has applied for cost -share funds to fence cattle out of the stream in the heifer pasture noted by the DWQ
inspection.
Suggest having the technical specialist adjust the windows of application on the fescue.
Facility and records look good overall.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham IF
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 8/12/03
Entered By: lRocky Durham
J
3 03/10/03

►, 5.� ` Guision of Water Quality
Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
(Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit O Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 29 21 Date of Visit: 03/05/2003 Time: o911S
O Not O erational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified Q Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ..............
Farm Name:?aE7id.A,.S.TUlfflt.................... County: AXAds.Rrx.................. !�'S13A
......................................................................
0,wner Name: David.A..................................SnAtt,........................................ ................ Phone No: 33.G-3,57.-259.Q............._....................... ...................
Mailing Address: Z 6.at..Atdvir-Rome.Rud........................................................... Luingtn.n... K...................... .............. -................ Z.LZ 2..............
Facility Contact:)Zdd.Sn0.ith......................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No., cell. 3.36.225.721.6 ...............
Onsite Representative: Reid.,Smilb................
Integrator:
Certified Operator;Ra.Y.id.leid........................... SXWt 11........................................... Operator Certification Number:2,4$.3.1..............................
Location of Farm:
South out of Lexington on Hwy. # 8. At intersection of Hwy. 8 and Hwy. 47 - go west on Hwy. 47 2 miles, farm on right.
j] Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle [_-]Horse Latitude F 35 • 45 f 30 Longitude 80 • l7 21
Design Current
Swine Cauacit►° 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 a I ® Dairy 300 1170
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 300
Total SSLW 420,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps I 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharp-es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. 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 _> Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ...... W."c.pond..... ................................... .................................... .... .............................. ......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 18
05103/0I �/` 3 % Continued

Facility Number: 29-21 is Date of Inspection 03/Q512QQ3 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
® No
12.
Crop type Fescue (Hay) Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain Overseed Soybeans
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a -wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑/Yes
® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
7. Vegetation looks great.
8. Strongly suggest fencing along creek in heifer pasture.
9. Suggest contacting SWCD for info. regarding inches above "red" until overflow (12" or 18"?).
19. 2002 soil results ok but you may want to keep track of the zinc levels for tract 2241 fields 13-15 since the index is around 900. Waste
sample for Nov. 2002 applications was a couple of weeks outside of the 60-day window. New waste sample has since been taken.
2/10/03 waste analysis = 5.8 lbs. N/1000 gal.
19. Don't forget to deduct PAN applied in Fall 2002 from corn in 2003 if crop is not harvested.
Reviewerllnspector Name Me[' sa Rosebrock
Reviewer/]nspector Sig nature:-/MDate:
05103101 L j V 'Continued

.Facility. Number: 29-21 Dol' Inspection 03145l2003
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
0 No
2&
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/ow—Drawings:
05103101

7 "' i
41DIvision ofMater Quality
Division of Soil: and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit ..e(Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit C Ooutine Q Complaint Q Follow up 0 Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Permitted Certified Conditiooalh Certified
rm Name:
Owner Dame: _
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
EWAVAMttMA1411
Date of Visit: Time:
ro-Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
[] Registered Date Last Operated or AboA5010
Threshold:
County-
Phone No: ' 3 S ? . a-SS90
Title: Ij Phone No: 33ir . aaS, 721
_ Integrator:
i Operator Certification Number:
�_Ou Y q 7. W e5f C4 7 . rarrvi on I e •
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry 4Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude r u Longitude ' © -
Design Current Design Current Design Current
swine t a achy Po ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Boars
Poultry CapacityPopulation atte_ Cspacitv Povul
ation O
❑ Layer i Dairvy I
❑ Non -Laver Non -Dairy 1�"`—
❑ Otber
Total Design Capacity µif
'Total SSLW 3!
d
Number of Lagoons I JLJ Subsurface Drains Present ILJ Lagoon Area jU Spray Field Area I:
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps L�LJ� ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System:
Dise_haraes R Stream Impacts
I - Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is obsen•ed, 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 ves, 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?
Wage Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? rs],illway
,iSaruc re I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: YV 4)rj
Freeboard (inches):
❑ Yes -No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes Flo
❑ Yes>�Io
❑ Yes -Y"No
Structure 6
05103101
Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
io
seepage, etc.)
I ,
6_ Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure
❑ Yes
No
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
.EYNo
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
'es
❑ No
9. Do any stuetures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑Yes
o
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
/
No
11. Is there evidence of ov r application? Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
X No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving c ps differ with those de " ate t the C rtified Animal Waste Manag n P ' ?
❑ 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
Xo
Re uired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
A<O
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
�
A o
waste analysis & Xil reports)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation,echa
❑ Yes
To
, sample
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
[ No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
El Yes
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
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
o
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AR'MP?
❑ Yes
JXNo
10 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 her cantments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations..(tise additional pages as necessary): Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
a t 1
Y f
1a l
�MA
eviewer/Inspecto Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
05103101 m e 1 I Continued

Facility lumber: — � Date of Inspectinn
dnr 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? (Le. 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?
Additional Comments
t7Cc o� + 01 �� I�S
19 -t- goo
rA a/<d/a 3 /v= S. � /�s�iQoo
�o acba �z
� aoo3;mac
❑ Yes a
❑ Yes Ao

of Water Quality4)*ion
ion of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
f Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
(Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
l acility Number 29 Z1 ,ate of Visit; 8l22120D2 'Time: t 1:00
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ...........
Farm Name: DAYM.A...S.Mixh.................... '.......................................................................... County: I?,aYzds.R[t.......................................... NA.S.RiQ........
OwnerName: DArid..tAm ................................ smift .......................................................... ('hone No: 33...................................................
Mailing Address: 12 3.sir.,.S3 dex.I r e.�� d........................................................... Uxilat tort...NK._.............................------.----........... 2..7292..............
}Facility Contact: .Fitle. ................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: Rgid.,SAtfth................................................................................... Integrator:.................................... ....
Certified Operator:VAy1.d.RCld........................... S'alith.11 .................................. .. Operator Certification Ntimber. 24.a3,1........ ._...................
Location of Farm: _
South out of Lexington on Hwy. # 8. At intersection of Hwy. 8 and Hwy. 47 - go west on Hwy. 47 2 miles, farm on right.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry N Cattle ❑ - Horse Latitude • 45 30 Longitude 80 • 17 21
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer N Dairy 125 150
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 125
Total SSLW 175,000
Number of Lagoons I JEI Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds !Solid Traps 1 I ❑ No Liquid Waste Management Svstent
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon [I Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes [] No
b. If discharge is obsen>ed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in "al/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 N 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 Stricture 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ................ ............. ....... ... ............. ................... ......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 72
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 29--21 Date of Inspection 8/22/2002
5. Are there any immediate threats to the0grity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tre�S, 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
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
NN"aste.Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ®No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Corn (Silage & Grain) 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 M No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? 0 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
13.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WiJP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
El Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21 _
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[K No
22_
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
0 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 and records are in compliance.
* Remember to get the 2002 soil samples before the end of the year.
acility has a COC and certification for 300 cattle.
aciliry is constructing a new milk parlor and expects to be using it within a couple of weeks.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103107 Continued

Facility Number: 29-21 llatnspettion 8/22/2002
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
2& Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue an 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?
ante analysis: 3-5-02 LSD 7.0 lbs. N.11000 gals. B
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
05103101
J

0 ftion of Water Quality
Oion of Soil and Water Conservation 40
O Other Agency
r
ype of Visit OO Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
eason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Fallow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 29 2l Date of Visit: 3/il/2002 Time: t33{)
O Not O erational O i3eio%v Threshold
Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Iaat'1d..r.Sr>ulli....................................... Cbutzt. T1,�xAdSctR...................... .................... !4'. lt..........
....................................................
OwnerName: Aa!'Ad.t.................................Smi-01............. .............................................. Phone No: .G-...7.-2SQQ...........................................................
MailingAddress: ........................._......................... Uxiii9ton... NK...................................... I .... I.......... 2.729.2 ..............
Facility Contact: DA-vid.{&M-Smith ..................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No: 335.22.5,7.2.16...........
OnsiteRepresentative. ReidSUAth................................................................................... Integrator:.........................................................................
Certified opera tor:01I.A4,Reid ........................... 5XWth,,U ........................................... Operator Certification Number:2.48.31 .............................
Location of Farm:
'soulh out of Lexington on Hwy. # 8. At intersection of Hwy. 8 and Hwy. 47 - go west on Hwy. 47 2 mules, farm on right. +
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude =
• 45 30 14 Longitude 80 • 17 ' 21 44
Swine
Design Current
Capacitv Population
Poultry
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
® Dairy 1 125 157
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW 175,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ID Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharaes & 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? (tf yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gat/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 G
Identifier: ......Wasxe.Pozd................................................................................................................................................... ...... ...................
Freeboard (inches): 120
05103101 ?� Continued

racility Number: 29-21 Date of Inspection 31l 1/2002
is
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (te/ trees, severe erosion, Yes N No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan`? ❑Yes ®No
(If airy 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 N No
Waste ADDlieation
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
ONO
11,
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
ONO
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
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
N No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?-
❑ Yes
N No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ONO
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
N No
I S.
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 OQneral-Permit.
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑Yes
N No
23,
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
N No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25, Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
Q No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question 0): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): l❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
7. Continue efforts to revegetate WSP dam now that cattle have been fenced out of the area. Still need to cut woody vegetation.
19. Some soil analyses already obtained for 2002. Look good. CAWMP lists corn as 124 lbs. animal waste PAN. Operator wants to ask
technical specialist about increasing this.
25. Operator applied some waste to newly graded new silo area to help establish vegetation. Did not appear to have been overapplied.
25, Some waste was applied (in February) about two weeks outside of the application window for corn (March) stated in CAWMP.
Operator to call Davidson SWCD or WSRO DWQ prior to deviating from CAWMP.
27. Burial of dead calves is greater than 300 feet from flowing waters-
Reviewer/Inspector Name Meli a Rosebrork
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: .)
05103101
Continued

,Facility Number: 29-21 Da t Inspection 3/11/2002
Odor Issues
26, Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of property 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 [9 No
Cl Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional Comments and/orDrawings:
05103101

J �i��oPim
Division of Water Qaality
O Divisio' i60 Soil and Water Conservation.
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit VRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
E: Facility Number Date of Visit:
0 Permitted CCertifiedj ©%Conditionally Certified 0 Registered
I"Z_• Farm Name: ! 1Q �j ail A -
Owner Name: ��I A • Sm
Mailing Address: s. 6r-J l ome F—
Facility Contact: Lay I L I�l 1 `l % ei e
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: 1 i�
Location of Farm:
Time:
Date Last Operated or Abo a Threshold:
County: ZaVlt-l`�On
Phone No: 33 (a,,.1 =E Z u 7-ElQ
Lex i to a -%n , N C- a -7;�9 C-r)-
Phone No: 3 36' a a !T• 70Z)/6
Integrator: �—
Operator Certification Number:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry
Cattle
❑ Horse Latitude 4
u Longitude ®' ®' ®"
Design
Current Design
Current Design Current
Swine
Capacity
Population Poultry Capacity
Po ulation Cattle Ca acih Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ La er
Dai
❑ Feeder to Finishh
10 Non -Layer
PNon-Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars-
-
--Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oon Area ❑ Spray Field Arc,
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps
10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (frecboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? [Spillway
Struc rep Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: 1, r�
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
❑ Yes 9No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
ElYes
No
0
❑ Yes
No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection l 0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ict 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? El Yes No
(!f any of questions 4-6 was answered }'es, 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 bdNo
1. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes No
. \ °.
/r;,�l,].1,�!►furl//��tJ
13_ Do the receiving crops differ with tKose designated in the Ceti
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?
fied Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes No
[IYes fNo
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes 0 No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Reauired Records & Documents
INNo
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.) �� /
El Yes
'Yes
kNo
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, ftcebaard, waste analysis & soilsamplesample reports)
El
V 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
&No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie%discharge,.freeboard.problcros,-over-application) ❑Yes— No
23. Did Reviewer/lnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes 'NfNo
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes *o
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes XNo
10 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 an • other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): I J Field Cony ❑ Final Notes
! T
� B
Reviewer/inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 6 Z
05103101 Continued

0 i
Facility Number. Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
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?
i5Te—s o
❑ Yes KNO
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes XNo
P P-N
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
a)V dare d,61id; #an ?
�-3 0o .
';yc�/Ja-)0
aoa
L rod
Aso
u
O5103101

0ision of Water Quality
-ision Q of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection a Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit © Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification 0 Other p Denied Access
Facilityatc of \�isit: to/1G/2t)01 Time: L215 Printed gm: 10/16/2001
29 Z1
t)
Number O Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified (3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ..............
Farm Name: Ravitd.An.S WIh.......--.................................................................................. County: Myidwrk— ....................................... !SRO........
Owner Name: ftayid A ...............................Smith........................................................... Phone No: 33.f-3S7:2520........... ................................................
Mailing Address: 22b�.d.r...Airde�..�Qime.pia;ad..........................
Facility Contact: Vaxiid..Meitd).Smitth..................................... Title:
Uxingtot1...N.0...................................................... 2.7.292 .............
Phone No: b, 25. 7.2,16.......................
Onsite Representative: Reid.Siutith..................................................................................Integrator:
Certified Operator:OaYid.,Keid........................... &hill Ok............. ... Operator Certification Number:2 1..................... -•
Location of Farm:
South out of Lexington on Hwy. # 8. At intersection of Hwy. 8 and Hwy. 47 - go west on Hwy. 47 2 miles, farm on right. +
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 45 ° 304, Longitude F 80 • 17 i 21 .[
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer PEI
Dairy 125 136
❑ Non -Layer Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity F 125
- — ��� -- _ -- -------- Total ssLw 175,00=0
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ I.at;uon Area ❑ spray Field Area
,Holding Ponds/ Solid Traps I ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System m
Dischart=es $ Strgani 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 dischargo
e is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (Ifyes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in aalhnin?
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 Collegtion K Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
iden t i i i e r: ...... aste. Portd................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 96
05/03/01 � � Continued

Facility Number: 29--21 . Date of laspection 10/16/21101 0 Printed on:
5. Are there any immediate threats to the legrity 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 thereat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
10/16/2001 ' - r'
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 ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® 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 ® 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?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
® Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewerllnspector 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�Notes.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. {use additiona! pages as necessary}: ❑ Field Copy ® Fin
5. Continue efforts to control woody vegetation on dam.
_
7. Cattle continue to wear paths on dam. Need to move fencing down to toe of dam.
17. Father and son own operation (will send change of ownership form). Copy of permit was not available. DWQ-WSRO will send
copy.
25. WUP needs to be revised to include several new fields and many updated acreages. Operator's records use 144 lbs. PAN for barley
while WUP states 120. Operator has not overapplied even with discrepancy. Contact SWCD for assistance. Operator expressed
interest in expanding cattle numbers to 500 in the future. Facility is currently permitted for 300.
Otherwise, records looked great.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melissa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 a, Lit—v, / v v Continued

Facility Number: 29-21 1 DO' Inspeclion 10/16/2001 0 Printed on: 10/16/2001
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
Additiobid UjiffithCM9 aff dr- rawtngs:

1�u
I
.an vfWates Qualih',
1?ivision of Soil and Water Conservation
- --
O Uther.Agency
of Visit Q%Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit JORoutine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other 0 Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: a Time:
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted Certified [] Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operratteed,ofr Above Threshold:
Farm Name: .ti ��..... ..'................................. ..... ........................... County; ..`l.}�v JT i....................................
� ........ _....
Owner Name:. I !`'..lf h.... .............................................................. Phone No: 33.E ` 3 S-7 . -Z S...d. ..............._..:.
Facility Contact: . .��.?_....... J r.:.. r .. Q. ................................... Phone N i. Vie.. ��1.3 �.:...� a 5.:..
Mailing Address........... L�' �.V
...�Q)'�1..�...1 �— ................... .0-2................................................ ... I......................
.......................................
cc t� f�,
Onsite Representative :............. �..... m.....1...1.......................................... Integrator:.....................................................................I..
Certified Operator:lj� ... .......� �.i ,(,Q.h ' .. Operator Certification Number: �.........................
..-... ; ...... .............. `� 3
Location of Farm:
Somas ors wy % from xI myl-on a WJ25F on Fran 457. Fay w ah
r
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry )1 Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 13S I • [ 11 3()" Longitude I <An e l ) 7 JI I a ] I"
�iSwine
Design Current Design Current
Poultry
Design, Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW I---- - --
Number of lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagvnn Ares ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacks
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes *o
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/rain?
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 Structurc 2 Structure 3 - Structure 4 Structure S Structure 6
Identifier: .................................................................................................... .... .................................... ....................... I ............
Freeboard (inches): b
5100 Continued on bark

Facility'Number: QJGJ — jL1 Date of Inspection I WWI
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ treestere erosion, ❑yes No
seepage, etc.)
b. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? 1 ❑ Yes 'gNo
(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 struct res require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maxim m and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?` ❑ Yes No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/iniprovement? ,�❑ Yes No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes o
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those ignated in the Certified Animal Waste Man genie t Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes j�$'No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes KNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes 9�0
o
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes X'No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? Yes ❑ No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
No J�
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes , `
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effecrat the time of design? ❑ Yes No
-21-Did,the-facility-fail-to-have.a-actively_certified.operator in charge? ❑ Yes No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? Yes ❑ No
yioia�iQris'or 00f ckhpies •wire iiQted• ft i$g #bjs:visit; • Y;op ;Will-recgiye 0 0 f thor
icorrespotidence. ahout. this visit. ........ .
Comments. (refer to question #); Explain any. YES answers and/or "i
Use drawings of facihty.to better exphd' '§ituatio'_ {use_additiotiai j
'
11
..
Reviewer/Impector Name
Reviewer/Inspector 5ignatut
Date:
5100

Facility Number p2 — loof Inspection
Odor IsSues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes XNo
2& Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application'? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, Cl Yes XNO
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? 43-3 n-f3-Na
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or EX
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) El Yes No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? -9y-�
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? -.9 *,,, r-1.JPi
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
17,
rr00
OIn. N
i✓�LP r��uP-�tit�e /a6145
i�da �dmiL �d�
Nod /S 200/
5100

Division of Water Quality
ivision of Soil and Water Conservation
ther Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 5/9/2001 1'iuu: 14:00 Printed on: 10/2/2001
Facility Number 29 21
FO Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Puld..&S.Mi1th.......................................... County: R,�xid.5otx................ IhSRQ.....
................................................... . .................... ...
OwnerName: Dayad.tax................................ Smith ........................................................... Phone No: 6:3 7.:2,59..Q...........................................................
Mailing Address: ��� ..�s,.QtdeX. R1t11�.�iP.Od........................................................... Uxintoil)... N.C...................................................... 2729.2 ..............
FacilityContact:..............................................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: Reid..Smith............................................................
Certified Operator:%ky1ld...................................... SJiwth..........................
Location of Farm:
Integrator: ...............................................................
Operator Certification Number.,Z001..............,
iouth out of Lexington on Hwy. # 8. At intersection of Hwy. 8 and Hwy. 47 - go west on Hwy. 47 2 miles, farm on right. +
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 3S • 45 30 °� Longitude 80 • 17 4 2144
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I ® Dairy 125 160
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 125
Total SSLW 1 175M00
Number of Lagoons 1 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ t.agoon Area ID Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 JE1 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharecs & 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 porn -made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (]f yes, notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in galhnin?
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): 55
05103101
Continued

Facility Number: 29-21 Bate of Inspection 5/9/2001 Printed on: 10/2/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed`? (ie/ tre0evere 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?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Corn (Silage & Grain)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
-_-b)-Does the facility need -a wettable acre determination'? - --
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (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
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ 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
Records and facility looked good.
_
Waste analysis: 10/13/00 LSD 9.2 lbs.N/1000 gals. B, SSD 12.0 Ibs.N/ton
Facility is permitted for 300 head.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
0510310I Continued

Fac, Iity Number: 29-21 D-Itc of Inspect inn 5/9/2Q01 � I'riiucd on: 10/2/2001
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?
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:
05103/O1

ision of Water Quality
ision of Soil and Water Conservation •
O Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit (E) Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date or visit: f011$1240D "Time: 4900 Printed on: 10/19/2000
29 21
(} Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified (3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold : ........................
Farm Name: 13 xxd.An.SiXukh............................................................................................. County: lhtxdsant.......................................... WSRQ ........
Owner,Name: Vxdd..A.................................. SMAh ........................................................... Phone No: 33.6-3.5.7-2.S9,Q................. ................... .......................
Facility Contact: Kdd..Stailltl............................................-........Title:................................................................ Phone No: lYttt�ittK. 316.z2Sa7. 15.......
Mailing Address: ����..�LC�.�JCSIe�.�Qd17�.�aa.tl............................................................ Willg1an... NK......... ............................................. 2.7.292 ..............
Onsite Representative: Mold.,5jWtb................................................... ................... Integrator:........
Certified Operator: PAA. RPid.51i[I]ilb.......................................................................... Operator Certification Number:2.483X..............................
Location of Farm: _
South out of Lexington on Hwy. # 8. At intersection of Hwy. 8 and Hwy. 47 - go west on Hwy. 47 2 miles, farm on right.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry 0 Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 4S 30 �� Longitude 80 ' 17 21 «
Design Current
Swine Canacity 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 Po ulation
❑ Layer I I If& Dairy 125 1123
❑ Non -Layer I I E 10 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 125
Total SSLW 175,000
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagvvn Area JC1 Spray Field ,area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 ❑ NTo Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ 0ther
a. lfdischarge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection &Treatment
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:•---...Wastakonid.........................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 81
5100 �f '� Cnrrtiirued on hack

0
Facility Number: 29--21 Date ol'Inspcetion 10/18/2000 Printed on: 10/19/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the i ity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ treevere erosion, [] Yes N No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes R 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? N Yes ❑ No
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes N No
12. Crop type Soybeans 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 ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?- -- — -- ❑'Yes R 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 & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
N 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
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
®No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
N No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
_ No•violations_or def Cien:cies rvere:noted ;duringthis, visit. ;You will 'receiventi-ftirther; ; •
correspondence abauf 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):
7. Need to remove small trees from dam.
). Top red line of marker is the bottom of the spillway.
17. Operator needs COC for his records.
13. Contact SWCD about adding vetch to plan.
19. Provide "key" for tracts/fields for waste application and soil analysis.
T
Reviewer/Inspector Name .Mel'ssa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu Date: Wo 5100

Facet y Number: 29--- 21 Da f Inspection 10/18/2000 Printed on: 1011912000
Odor Issues.9
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
ngs:
.&i
/00
J

tvision of Water Quality
ivision of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit tX Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up Q Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Numberer
Date of visit: D t� Time: ® Printed on: 7/21/2000
Q Not O erational Q Below Threshold
PermittedX
Certified (3 Conditionally Certified (] Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: . .i .... .'.........1[...1........................................ County• a. 'a.,
.5on..................... ............ ...........
...
Owner Name:. .....
I'a... ........ .. -1. J...............,...................................... ..............................Phone Nn:.... 354� 35.�... "., -5 q D................
Facility Contact: . ... J . . ,F .....................Title PhoneN+1,. ozo S...............................
�, �Q
Mailing Address: .D �3 Sf• �rz�l?,r- �M� �, x, C a 9
...................................................................................................,� l.(a{ri.}./� 7
Onstte Representative.. ..... (,j..... i! ' . Integrator:
Certified Operator:.......... Vl.. ..............I........�................................. Operator Certification \umber: ,,,;.7.....I----...
Location of Farm:
turn, xi rn1a o,$L46 on 010y 8. Oo IJYY,7. Fa►-rm lsar)
I --to k4- .2 rn i _4 �•
❑ Swine ❑Poultry Cattle Horse Latitude [ on etude of
Swine
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I ==:] Dairy
❑ Non -Layer p
Non-Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity�(j
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ I ag^,�n Area ❑ Spray- Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges cC Stream Imuacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'? ❑ Yes y No
Disc•hargc originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Ficid ❑ Other
discharge is observed, was the conveyance; man-made?
h. if discharge is ohserved. did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. II' discharge is observed. what is the cstiin;ilt'd Pow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (II' yes, nouify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
1 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
Struc:ture I Structure 2
Identifier:....�Ja5.19,...Qmt4 ..........................
Freeboard (inches): $ 1
SIMClUrc : Structurc 4
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes XNo
Structure 5 Structure 6
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: a — aDate of Inspection Printed on: 7/21/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the 11�tlr,rity of any of the structures observed'? (ic/ tre3severe erosion,
seepage. etc.)
b. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application'? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops d fer with the : e designated v m 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 & Documcnt_s
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`?
(ic/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ 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?
(ic/ discharge, Freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did ReviewerAnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25, Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
0; No'Vialatioris oi•• deltEcienc{es were Hated d rrirtg phis:visit; Yoir wig! receive Rio ]rui-t er: ;
correspondence. about. this .visit.' -
Yes _„ioO--
❑ Yes NNo
❑ Yes )(No
❑ Yes ,I'No
❑ Yes A-M-0
❑ Yes No
ElYes11No
No
❑ YesNo
El Yes
❑ Yes 'E 1�0
❑ Yes _o
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes I
AML*1 o
❑ Yes _kko
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes . No
❑ Yess-N
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):
N eeci %ta, norm w v A,
., FYI
Reviewer/Inspector Name IVLO r
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu Date: 5100

Facility Number- 'Wf Inspection printed on. 7/21/2000
Odor Issues I -ow
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge ;tJor helow
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation'? Qm )7�-J OQ c)
27_ Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours'' C� ❑ 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 5pplication 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? ❑ Yes No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover'! 014
IUone I n dam
0
5/00

ision of Water Quality
ision of Soil and Water Conservation
O,Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit © Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other [] Denied Access
Facility Number
1,)ate 10:34 of Visit: 5/34/2000 'rime: Printed on: 10/17/2000
29 21
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
13Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or.Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: L? !'Ad..A 1111kh............................................................................................. County: DatAds i.......................................... WsRa........
Owner Name: David,& ................................ SiAlitla..................... .......... I .............. :........... I Phone No: 33.6:.3,5
.........................................
FacilityContact; ..............................................................................•1'itte:..................................................... ........... Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: 22.6 .,[.r.,.Qxdet.]E�Qxne.l;,Qad........................................................... L,94luZOIJ . K...............................................:...... 2.7.292..............
Onsite Representative: lRf:tia. lillXtrh................................................................................... Integrator:.................................... ................
Certified Operator: ................................................... ............................. ................................ Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
south out of Lexington on Hwy. # 8. At intersection of Hwy. 8 and Hwy. 47 - go west on Hwy. 47 2 miles, farm on right.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 45 3(1 Longitude SI] • i 7 2144
Design Current
Swine Canacity 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 125 130
❑ Non -Layer I I JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 125
Total SSLW 175,000
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JE1 Spray Meld Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps I I ❑ 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: .......................... .......... ....... I ........... I...........
Freeboard (inches): 40
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: 29-21 Date of Inspection 5/30/2000 Printed on: 10/17/2000 <•
5. Are there any immediate threats to the i6ity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tre� vere erosion, ❑ Yes N No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ 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? ❑ Yes N 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 N No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pending ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes N No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Graze) 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 ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
No,violations:or deficiencies•were"noted duting•this:visit."Ytiu'Will receiveoo•fu:rther-;.
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):
4 7. Need to mow around holding pond and cut small trees.
1 18. Need to get a copy of the plan certification with WUP and other records.
1 13. Need to make sure correct crop options are in WUP for each field.
121. There wasn't anybody designated on the database as operator in charge. Left designation form to be sent in.
]on't forget to document commercial fertilizer applications to waste application fields.
4fter talking to George Smith, evidently waste had been applied to cornfield out of the application window (9115199)
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ❑ No
N Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
N Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ® No
M
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5100

Facility Number: 29-21 Df Inspection 5130I200t? Printed on: 101,17/2000
:� �
0
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 corer? ❑ Yes [:]No
Additional Comments and/or Drawings,
5/00

- ; MFutviston ;- ou ana,rrtaxer...Lonservanon:-.�pera�iun ..
DiDiv�sion it and W� ater Conseryatton Compliance, ectian
n
13 6Won o Water Quality -Compliance Inspection
13 Other Agency - Qperatioh Review
14PRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number 29 2l Date of Inspection 3113199
Time of Inspection 13:()(l 24 hr. (hh:rn
❑ Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered 113 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
FarmName: ..................................... ........... ........................... I ................. County: RAyidson.............. ............................ W,SRRQ........
'33 4
Owner Name Phone No:
- D;at�itl.�,,................................ SnnitkFa......................................................-.... .. -�..2SQQ...........................................................
FacilityContact:.............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: 2�.d�,.Q�rde�.nimtn.�aad..............................................
Onsite Representative: IDa.Y.11d.!jm th...................................................................
1,xington...NG...................................................... 2.7292 .............
Integrator:........ ..........................................
Certified Operator:XDa.Y.id.A................................. S1t 1h,.................I.............................. Operator Certification Number:,Z2J,4,.
Location of Farm:
.............. .............. ....... ....................................
:............... .......
................................................... .................................................................................. ........................................
Sa>Atlt..attt.a>C.L.exi fatt.€�n.ki�x #.#.�k.apttexestioa.olf' ....ar�si.D�r ..47.- a.vret.am.11�v....4�.2.oaiies,.iattrx.Qri t�tr............
:I
Latitude 35 ` 45 4 30 [i Longitude 80 ' 17 1 21
Design Current
Swine CanaeltV 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 125 l25
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 125
Total SSLW 175,000
Number of Lagoons I I ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area ID Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 I ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & $ticeam 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. 1f 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 Cg I ction 8 Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes CK No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):.....„..„.,,.4...................
................................. ................................... .......
...
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc,)
3/23/99 Continued on back
Printed on 11/1199

:/.t
Far ility Amber: 29-21 �te of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are t properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
3/8/49
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?
❑ Yes
N No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
N No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
® No
12. Crop type 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
IN No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
IN No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit 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
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
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'?
❑ Yes
N No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
N No
Rio violatioris;or deficienc es' -were s; visit;., :You:" , , , , "i , , , ,they • ;
correspondence: about this :visit.
f 19 District has plan and is working on amending_ffie-pJan to add additional fields and increase the number of animals to be
ertified. ee s to a ance nitrogen on existing records when the plan is co fete:.
17 Has not recieved General Permit yet.
f a contract hauler is going to be used in the future there needs to be a third party applicator agreement.
i
..
Reviewer/Inspector Name lRocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Printed on 11/1/99

x
Facility Number 29 2t Date of Inspection I IlS/99
Time of Inspection 093(1 24 hr. (hh:nun}
13 Permitted ® Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered 113 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Iced.Acxe,S.Fax. ta................................................................. .................. County: Vjaritdsailt..........................................
Owner Name: MAU.tax................................Smith ........ ................................................... Phone No: 33.6r.3.5.7.:Z59.Q.................... ...............
Facility Contact:.............................................................................. Title:
Mailing Address: 26.dx�..Q.��l�� .klu�m�.�ad.........
Onsite Representative: Ravits.5mith.............................................
NYS.R(1........
Phone No: ................................
. Uxiangton..15C...................................................... Z.7.29.2 ..............
Integrator: .............................. ..........
Certified Operator:j!?A.Y.its.Smi,th..................................................................................... Operator Certification Number: ZZ14
............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 35 e 45 ®`• Longitude 8U ' 17 s 21 i[
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pouulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I IN Dairy 125 150
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 125
Total SSLW 175,000
Number of Lagoons 1 I ILI Subsurface Drains Pres!jtjjL1 Lagoon Area JLJ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 1 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & 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) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
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 Collectiog & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches): ................7,............... ........ ............................ .... ............................... .................................... .................. .................. .......
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Yes
® No
Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99
❑ Yes ® No
Continued on back
Printed on 11/8/99
iYrl�

Facility Number: 29-21 of Inspection F 11/8/99
6. Are there structures on -site which are Properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste_ Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
1 t . Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ 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 (CAWMI')? (3 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 Rrcor& & Documents
17. Fait to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available'?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19. Does record keeping: need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection 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
®ideiiige'trngtist-lr*noiNo•volatibris:ortcence,Witenoeddui•vil"e64•uithie •: N
corres• Dildence: abQuti this :visit' : : : : : : : :
.- .- -X
is (re€er to question #} Expl yin any YES�answeis and/or anv recommendations orfany other comments
Use drawings of facility to betterexplam sifiiatio Is. (use:additionalfpages a hecessary)
19 Have not yet received General Permit
i
Design Capacity was recently increased to 250.
Reviewer/Inspector Name [Jennifer Frye
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:7�Date: 1 I
rinted on 11/8/99

Facility Number: 29-21 l�if Inspection 11/8/99
Qd(g Issue 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 timmertts ati or9 ,rawtn s: 7 'I"
Printer! on 11/8199

L..,
fi s❑ DSWC An al Feedlot Operation Review
DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection e'
Routine O Complaint O Follo►v-u p of DNV0 inspection O Follow-up of DSNVC review O Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection : O 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Registered Certified [l Applied for Permit © Permitted. © Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
t
Farm Name: Vnw)d
......... ........ .1..7..� County: .........1,a,.v1.W..5.;t?..................................
�59 _ �5q
(]��nerName: ............ t%.j...Q.f.../�............................. Phone
.................................................
FacilityContact:.............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address ...... �.�Sri'............ .t� ...x...11/ ��f.......t�0.��......... ,�fr •...... �.. �it`.1. a� 1% ...CL..�..�.�YL�..............
mm , L
Onsite Representative. f°..f..... ........... �l,f-•1..7..-h ........ Integrator: ......................................................................................
Certified Operator;...........�.5�.�. . _.1..........I...........I..,.,..._ Operator
........ .- O etstor Certification Number :................................
Location (if Farm:
c.4�(-.o..:.......�F. x.t.r ...c��....,P�t....l..r�r r. g�.......�.ra. i .......1.�:1;t1-H-2. ....1��,-.y.- -.....ter......
....�f.✓n.......+..s.......---. ..................................................................................................................................................................... .
Latitude �• E�M°,
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Longitude EMI• ° <
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer = 1 10 Dairy 1;?,q 1 7 go
❑ Non -Layer I I JE1 Non -Dairy 1'
❑ Other i I_
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons/ Holding Ponds JE1 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ID Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement'?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a, if discharge is observed, was the conveyance mall -made?
b. If discharge is observed. dill it reach Surface Water? (11' yeti. notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in al/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (I€: yes, notify D�VQ)
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 ]a,00nslholding ponds) require
mai ntenanceli mprovement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
T Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes N0
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ffNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ko
❑ Yes '�io
Continued on back ON

• _ / Facility Number: q — aZ
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lapoons,Ilolding Ponds. Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft): .......3. f...............................................
10, Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11, Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes No
Structure 5 Structure 6
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
...... SJj C ..�P.l sr........ ....q.............................................................................. 15. crop type ...caul f...
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the ✓Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
No.violationsor deficiencies..were noted during this" visit. Yon:will n&flirtUer
: corresOfidehce about this:visit:: : : :
...I ...........................
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes KNO
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
P(No
❑ Yes
kNo
❑ Yes
O. qo
❑ Yes
P4,No
Cl Yes
PkNo
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
,Kj\No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes I
wGomments,(refer fo question #) l;xplatn any YES ansers atd/oi a><xyireconintendatton or any`othe camiesats °
Use drawings of factltty to,better explain3ituattons (use additional pages as.necessary} �_` �£
j f j
y
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector \ame
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

e Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-ut of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection 4 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: ❑ Registered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for I hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
M Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection includes travel and processing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated: _............................._..........----......................---------............. .,------ ---- ..............
Farm Name: ........ f.:...Qr.—.5 /., PIZ �*. _ .._!'..�/.. !,
Land Owner Name:...j 61d f. ./VA 0.1--ZT_ !
Facility Conetact:..................................................... Title:
Mailing Address:
Countv:.....
�....... ».
7... �j' .......
Prone No:lll_f..Q...
.....,.. P ne No:....../��.......................
Onsite Representative :................. ......"-,-,....-.-. .......... ._..................
...... Integrator:.......................................................................................
Certified Operator:...... � ��` f.� .N . . � Operator Certification Number:..- .................................. ...
Location of farm:
.... ...... _..... ................. _ ..,.._ ....W .. ................................................... ..... ......... -............ ............. ......... ......... .._... ........... ......... _......
__.... 4
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
LatitudeLongitude
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
-� �. t "., x �; . - i s - _ f —• m ,�- - - +5 awl
Design Curren}; Destgn Cprient� �Destgn Current
$w�nePoultryr . .. Ca :ici Po" u�atioit <:. w Cattle Ca aci o nil fi;''
a Ca art PopulgEion
❑ Wean to Feeder Layer F ® Dairy
Feeder to Finish fl Non -La er �'' ❑ Non-Daint
❑ 1n
El
Farrow to Wean ` J-
Farrow to Feeder TotalDesign Capacity
Farrow to Finish
Total SS
y'.P.?h 3aR ?'•4 ...: Yf® � 53�'M"ti. �.,.: 1:1. 3" '�-.c.�
� q �NumbeFU Lagoons / Hoid g P�it'ds �� ❑ Subsurface Drains Present s
.� ❑Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water`? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenancelimprovement?
4/30/97
❑ Yes [ ' 0
❑ Yes 'QrNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ Yes
;jj"'Vo
[]Yes
P(No
Continued
on back

Facility Number: ...........-- ......... ....
6. Is facility not in compliance with a plicable setback criteria in effect at the time dT';.�esign? ❑ Yes o
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes XNo
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes XNo
Structures Lam ons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes PNo
Freeboard (tt): Str ture j� ..
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
.,..�_._� �.....W__...,__ .................... ....- ------- ........... ....._.............
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes [ No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes �No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes P"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? my ❑ No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes KNo
(If in excess of W , or runoff entering waters of the State notify DWQ)
w
15. Crop type-....., .......,..A ....
................... ...............
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes gNo
17, Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes PrNo
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes "No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ONO
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes Of No
For Certified Facilities Only;
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes ONO
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes )XNo
24. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes ONO
Comments'(refer to'question 9) Explain any YES answers and/or any recoinrm6ndations or atiy. other comments: `
Use drawings of facility, to .better,explain situations: (use additional pages as necessary): .
/off ;,a9
cctor.�'-�.
Reviewer/Insp Name F
n
�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: z
�+�.�
/,�
/� l
Date:
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97