760010_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Division of Water Resource -
Facility Number ® � Division of Soil and 'i'4'atet41seryation � 7— Ki
Q Other Agency P
Type of Visit: npliance Inspection Operaliun Review Q Structure Evaluation O Teehnical Assistance
Reason for Visit. CoVRoutine Q Complaint Q Follow-up Q Referral Q Emergeney Q Other Q Denied Access
Date ul' Visit: ] J J^�]� ArrivalTime: Drparturc 'I'imc: 0 '00 1County: g-"l—dLIP h Region: L"�5ko
Farnt Name: o Fa-rOwner Entail: ❑ I
OwnerName:Phone: (1 336 + r 6 3 • `(Q 4 0
Mailing Address: ea M ax I o ro C, b yr L— 9 7S
PhysicalAddress:
Facility Contact: 1 1 n q 'Title:
Onsi(e Representative:
Certified Operator:
t[. ► -5n o h 1
Phone:
Integrator. Purvis
Certification ,Number:
0
Rack -up Operator: Certification Number:
'r t c '
Location of Farm: I.atitude: �S `T ' l.nnt;itude: - q 5 Ja 3aj
S.
Swine
Design Current Design Curren(
Capacity Pup. Wet Poultry Capacity Pup.
Layer
Non -La •er
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
(}
Farrow to Wean
]'arrow to Feeder
1,arrov+ to I inish
Gilts
Roars
Other
Other
U ry t'o
Layers
Non -La
Pullets
Turkevs
Other
Puuets
Design Current
Discharzes and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any pain of the operation`?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters ofthe State? (ll'yes. notil'y DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State {gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the v+aste management system" (lfycs, notify DW)' )
2. is there evidence ol'a past discharge from any part ofthe 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
Dair y lleifcr
Dr • Cov+ --
,Non-Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef feeder
Beef (;rood Cow
❑ Yes 11J1 No
❑ Yeti ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ N1;
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA [] NE
❑iNA ❑NE:
❑NA CD NE
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

FaeiIity Number: - [)ate of Ins ection:
Waste Collection & 'Treatment 11-4 IS
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate" ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. Ifyes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Structure 2 5tructure 3 Structure 4
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the strictures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan.'
Structure 5 Slruclure 6
❑ Yes [A No ❑ NA ❑ N1:
❑ Yeti 14 No ❑ NA ❑ NH
If any of (Iuestions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation polies an immediate public health or environmental threat, notif►• DW R
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 5Q 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 V No ❑ NA El NI;
maintenance or improvement`?
Waste Applicalion
10. Are there any required buf]ers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ N[;
maintenance or improvement?
1 l . is there evidence of incorrect land app]icat ioif? If yes, check the appropriate box be] ow. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ I leavy ,%totals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 ibs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soii
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence c)f' Wind Drifi ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
11 Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes TM No ❑ NA ❑ NE:
15. Does the receiving crop anchor land application site need improvement'? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Dice the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination'? T
17, [)ties the facility lack adequate acreage f'or land application:'
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
1 S. Is shere a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Document%
19. Did the facility ['ail to have the Certificate of'Coverage & Permit readily available'?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Dees the facility fail to have a]I components ol'the CAWMP readily available'? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
0 NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement'? 1F7c�--eh c�le —
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
'4'trste Application 'Veck1Y Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysts [11.8`oil Analysis
❑
leather Code
Q Rainfall &Blocking rop Yiel ❑ 120 Minute Inspections E fCMonthIy and I" Rai titalI Inspections
c
22. Did the facility fail to install an maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
} j No
T❑
❑ NA
❑ NE:
23. If selected, did the facility flail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment'?
❑ Yes
No
`9 NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Ins ection:
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste ap ation equipment as required by the permit" ❑ Yes �SfNo [] NA C] NE
25. 1s the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge" If yes, check ❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ N1;
[tie appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Nan -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?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes• contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately,
30, Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit'? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application field ❑ Lagoott/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 P4"No
❑ Yes ;o
❑NA ❑NE's
❑NA ❑NE"s
❑Yes
No
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
NKNo
❑ NA
❑ NE;
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[]Yes No
[]Yes ` 3 -
❑ Yes N No
❑ NA ❑ NE:
❑NA ❑NE's
❑ NA ❑ NE;
Comments (refer to question #): Fxplain any YES an"vers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pales as necessary).
r 51 vdr- 5 u roe j e-?C �'1 � l nn u N� � i Zl 3 1 a 6 a-0
ou{-1 orn []t'ti3 c t rl coo 1 �
dc)ito Sol I P Ve, 0,oi& • 'Doh-U
Z) X M re. - 5&_ e-A e. , o k e. 5 f-e- di r,e,3 i 1�- W " 4 NJ t �. `1•t o�
'[.�► ,roLier Lv5 ve�r-J �o L��! t - 5c_eded
1 \N0< A? GIYl(l�S1S nc I /f'! -1 +b bt C'.Ke&V__e Gj , vI : �1�+1 Y o� f- o
rt l,c rASt Sw, kCAq tm 9v r
&�k4
lop of 4X4 PO5-f- 15 M4a 1ix-hich i5 21.6 6e_kw 70 17
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatui
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date: j ZD
21412015

f
■ Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
760010 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AVVS760010
Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Randolph Region:
Winston-Salem
Date of Visit:
04/1912016 Entry Time: 09:40 am
Exit Time: 11:15 am Incident 0
Farm Name:
Redding Farm
Owner Email:
Owner:
Christopher Allan Redding
Phone:
336-963-4090
Mailing Address:
2546 Marlboro Church Rd
Sophia NC 27350
Physical Address:
4100 Baker Farm Rd
Sophia NC 27350
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Integrator: N G Purvis Farms Inc
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 35' 49' 4T Longitude:
79' 53' 30"
Farm Location from WSRO: US HWY 311 south to Marlboro Ch. Rd. and turn right. Left onto Baker Farm Road. Go to end of drive
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Chris Allan Redding Operator Certification Number: 998190
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representattve(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Chris Redding Phone : [phone]
On -site representative Chris Redding Phone : [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melissa Rosebrock
Inspector Signature: '
Secondary Inspector(s):
Jeffrey A Robinson
Phone:
Date:
Inspection Summary:
24) 2015 calibration completed, due again in 2017.
21.) Soil tests due 2016.
8.j Marker to be re -set after hay is mowed and waste level lowered.
25.) Sludge survey measurements made on 12/212015. Form completed in April 2010Extension has been granted until
pecember.31, 2020F3
11.) Slight over application on fields in fall 2015 due to excessive rainfall(-4 ibs and 11 Ibs).
"7.]Please continue to spray broadleaf weeds and repair burrow hole. Re -seed in fall.
page: 1

e
Permit: AWS760010 Owner - Facility : Christopher Allan Redd Facility Number: 760010
Inspection date: 04/19/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
® Swine - Feeder to Finish 1,900 1.900
Total Design Capacity: 1,900
Total SSLW: 256,500
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon LAGOON 40.00
page: 2

a
Permit: AWS760010 Owner - Facility : Christopher Allan Redd Facility Number: 760010
Inspection pate: 04/19/16 Inssection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
N❑ 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?
❑
❑ M
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ ❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWO)
❑
❑ ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
M ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural Freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e.l large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
5. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed andior managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
M
❑ ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Nat applicable
M
❑ ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks andlor wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
E Cl
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
0
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

0 0
Permit: AWS760010 Owner - Facility : Christopher Allan Redd Facility Number:
760010
Inspection Date: 04/19/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No Na Ne
Crap Type 1
Fescue [Hay, Pasture]
Crap "type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Sail Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
®❑
❑
16, Did the facility Fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
■ ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
i ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yea
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?
[)
E ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
[]
page: 4

Permit: AWS760010 Owner - Facility : Christopher Allan Redc Facility Number. 760010
Inspection Date. 04/19/16 lnpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
res
No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Surrey
❑
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
❑
❑ a
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
25, Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
M ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na Na
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
M ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
M ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
M ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewerlinspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
M ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Resource
Facility Number ®- a Division of Soil and Water Conservation 10,49 I]
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit: A Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review p Structure Evaluation ❑ Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 4 Follow-up Q Referral a Emergency ❑ Other Q Denied Access
hate of Visit:Arrival Time: CJ Departure Time: County: 124" 1 PV2egion: W5
Farm Name:R�g&; aryn
Owner Email:
OwnerName: r j 1 V1 C4 Phone: .336 • 96 -3 . T 61 0 -K
Iailinl; `Wdr+
CCU (�-y, , r ❑ L n l
Physical Address: `7 1 &d -+r1Q- � K �' L]Q !I 6 4-� ' "�-- 7 39_0
Facility Contact: - /� Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: 0_J r P 5 n Integrator: r ury i f)
Certified Operator: - ? Ch rJS Certification ,dumber:
Hack -up Operator: inCertification Number:
location of Farm: Latitude: 3-5q � `Z ! Longitude: -7J 6_3 30
US 3 LR
t6 e-
5l�V
UUJ��
t&rlbn ro
U re �2 r • -
a ��� rr
Farm_
(Z oC •
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish Q
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
E3oars
Other
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
l.a er
Non -La er
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pot).
La crs
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at; ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other;
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes. notify DWR)
c. What is (lie 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?
Desil;n Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
'Dairy
Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non -Dairy
Bec fStocker
Beef Feeder
Bccf' Brood Cow
❑ Yes oNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ YcsiNo
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of'3 21412014 Cunlinued

Facility hiumher: - 10 Date of Inspection-
«'aste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus stonn storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If ycs, is waste level into the stnictural freeboard'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ ,NA
❑ NE
Stricture 1 Stricture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure G
Identiticr: La Toon
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard On):
Observed Freeboard (in): V
5. Are there any immediate threats to the: integrity of any of the structures observed?
ElYes
No
[] NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
G. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE:
waste management or closure plan?
if any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate puhlic health
or environmental threat, notify DNN'R
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8, Do any of the structure~ lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
r Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, anchor wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Y'esNn
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
kk'astc Apmlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
WN0
❑ 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 Pondirig ❑ l lydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ 1 Icavy Metals
(Cu, !n. etc.)
❑ PAN RrPAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ 'Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to incorporate ,ManurclSludgc into fare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application
Outside of Approved
Area
12. Crop 3 Ype(s) eIg•LA— P'1�0iutoSk DQ fvrp
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAW MP?
❑ Yes
N o
❑ NA
[] NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement:'
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ N1;
16. Did the facility fail to secure anti/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
P<No
❑ NA
❑ NF
acres determination'?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for ]arid application'? ❑ Yes eNo ❑ NA ❑ NJ--,
18. 1s there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ N1:
Reguired Records & Doc_unienis
19. 1)id the facility fail to have the Corti 5catc of Cove ragc & Permit readi I available? ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readi]}• available? I yes. check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NF
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
7 I . )oes record Beeping need i provc1ticnt`?4 d'. —Q Yes No ❑ NA ❑ N1:
rite Aplificati n ekly Frcebn rd Was
te AnSoil Analysis ❑ G'ti'eatl ode
[ tinfall tocking Crop Yield 120 Minute inspections 9onthIy and 1" Rainfall Inspections Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes eNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. 11'selected, did the facility fail to install and iaintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No jg'rNA ❑ NJ"
Page 2 ► f,3 214P-015 Confinned

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:___
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA 0 NE
25. is the facility out ofcompliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes. check ❑ Yes 9No [DNA ❑ 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-compliancc:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the taCility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes [&o ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
[] Yes
� 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
r� 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
(j No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compiisnce of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No [] NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
Wo ❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency'?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question 4). Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to Metter explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Sury 'tor ao15? Nof
"Zo Is, ►�'1
6&1 b ra-0 rl Co fw p
o j"P ja_�
-)dI 7 ,
du8- '.o[!�.
rr WJ. 4, Lo CLs �e✓ I"V,k 15 �
s m a [ were
ei S U rv" &(xt q Q.or 0a� ea orl �i rvv� . 76 e-
CotU �
tJ� I a u-3 c.e_k_�s (at- } joV
5 [ ► ' h•�- a �' °-� l r an i ►� �a� 1 c� �.:1s. }
� u� ��CCe.S 5►vQ f
J o �� e°�' �`'e s '�( firma( ��a Loee►r
\1:U
�op 4 qg.W7c5T- iS�• I,uGtS�-e ie�►�,j5 r. $� be.�ol� �'oQ o-� d ann [rTo
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewerllnspector Signature:
Pine 3 of 3
Phonc' 336 . 7 7 (4,
Date:
21412014

Division of Water Resourcelm� •
Facility Number - Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency '.
Type of Visit: Co ipliance Inspection 0 Operation Review p Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: VRoutine 4 Complaint O Follow-up 0 Referral Q Emergency Q Other Q Denied Access
!late of Visit: Ar iv Time:® Departure Time: pis County: Region:
117Cj
Fsrrm Name: 11 Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone: r b
;lllailiog Address:
N a 733
Physical Address: d� T�jj1 ' •,y ' �] 7 cJ
Facility Contact:
. V
Onsite Representative: I
Certified Operator: gjAA:j
Title:
Phone:
Integrator: P t�2�
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: latitude: •3 Longitude:
u5 311 S 40 lv�kA -I tr ( ,p 311 5 , fig-
L �•
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
barrow to Feeder
Farrow to finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Othcr
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
Design Current
Non-L.
Pullets
Other
Poults
Discharues and Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Ileifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Reef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef' Brood Cow
❑ Yes JVO'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
&"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
21412014 Continued

Facility Number. - (late of Inspection:
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
propriate box(cs) below.
th�Fafiurc
!�
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-compliancc:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge'!
❑ Yes { No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility flail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes lNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
29. Did the facility fait to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
A
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 j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If'yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
7T�`
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)
l�
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow -tip visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
82�
-
�Q S ab 14 ? Nit j�et;ro (e.ee„�ptet-d 6y�(
o year
/hwu) /lw_�o-,J v- Cif
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/hispector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date: Q S
21412014

Facilily Number: jDate of Ins ection:
NN'aste Collection & 'rreatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate'? ❑ Yes 4 No NA NE:
a. l f' yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? 0 Yes ❑ No NA N E
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Stricture 6
Identifier; L
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 Z) No NA NF
waste management or closure plan`?
IF an►' of questions 4-6 we re answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or en►'ironmentaI threat, notify DNN'R
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes No NA 0 NEE
8. Do any ol'the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? Yes ] No NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks) 7�
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require Yes No NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'? 19
NVaste Application
10. Are there any required butlers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need Yes No 0 NA ONE
maintenance or improvement? TT
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? I yes, check the appropriate box below. Yes No ❑ NA NE
Excessive Ponding 0 Hydraulic Overload [:] Frozen Ground ❑ Ileavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
["AN PAN > 10% or 10 lhs. E] Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manurc/Sludge into Bare Soil
Outside of'Acceptabie Crop Windo)v ❑ Evidence of Wind Drill 0 Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s)
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes No 0 NA 0 NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? 0 Yes 9No 0 NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility tail to ticcure and/or operate per ltte irrigation design or wettable Yes P No NA NE
acres determination`?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? Yes YNo NA NE
I& is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? Yes � No [] NA [] NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility tail to have the Certificate ofCoveragc & Permit readily available'? ❑ Yes �fo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWM1' readily available? I yes, cheek Yes JN"'Vo ❑ NA NE
the appropriate box.
WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements Other:
v
ocs record keeping need a p'rovement? Yes ❑ No 6NA
$NE
aste Application Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis ,oil Analysis e
Rainfall tocking F Crop Yield 30 Minute Inspections [34onthly and 1 " Rainfall inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge'? Yes IN No
23. 1rselected. did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? Yes ❑ No X NA 0 NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

0
RECEIVED
N.C. )el,t. ot• t M
'AUG a s 2014
WlrEston Salem
NCD NR R i0nal office
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
August 6, 2014
Christopher Redding
Baker Farm
4126 Baker Farm Rd
Sophia, NC 27350
Subject: Additional Information Request
Application No. AWS760010
Howard Farms - Sow
Randolph County
Dear Christopher Redding:
John E, Skvarla, III
Secretary
The Animal Feeding Operation Branch of the Division of Water Resources (Division) has completed a
preliminary review of your renewal permit application package. Additional infonnation is required
before we may continue our review. Please address and submit the following item(s) within 30 (thirty)
days of receipt of this fetter:
Missing Waste Utilization Plan:
Our record show either a portion of the Waste Utilization plan (WUP) or nutrient management
pi an (NMP) is missing with your permit application. The tables listing the fields with soil type,
total acreage, and irrigated acreage is not included. The nutrient utilization table with crop type,
application windows, and allowable PAN is not included. Please submit the complete WUP.
Please reference the subject application number when providing the requested information. All revised
and/or additional documentation shall be signed, dated and sent to my attention at the address below.
Information can also he submitted electronically at [e-mail].
Please feel free to contact me at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this letter,
Sincerely,
Christine B. Lawson
Animal Feeding Operations Branch
CC'. Winston-Salem Regional Office, Water Quality Regional Operations Section
WQROS Unit Central Files - AWS760010
N G Purvis Farms, Inc
1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1636
Phone:[phone]lInternet, htmJ/www.ncdenr,
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Aetion Employer — Made in pan by recycled paper

Division of Water Quality'
Facility Number - �} PODivisionof Soil and Watei.. iservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: a Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review d Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine Q Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency Q Other p Denied Access
r
Date of Visit: j Q fiiriva I Time: f Departure Time: Count: r. 1, Region: ) I
Farm Name: r1.l��PJ SZ.LJ �tJU4S Owner Email:
Owner Name: ��l/4� Phone
r -
,'Nailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: A j0_
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
I.a er I I —d
Non -La er
Design Current
Dry Poultry Canacitv Pon.
l.a ers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turks S
Turkey Pcults
Other
DiseharQes and 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)
c. What is the estimated volurne 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 pass discharge from any pan of the operation"
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than frorn a discharge'?
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beet'Stockcr
Beef Feeder
Becf Brood Cow
❑Yes K No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NF
❑ NA ❑ NE
Pine I of 3 21412011 Continued
1�

Animal Waste !?Management Emergency Report Form
Hurricane:
*ate call received: (,p 11Q.1 201.3 Time call received:
7j,dai P�
Facility name: ILJLej— FknV, Facility number
Caller's name: Phone number.
Number of lagoons or waste storage ponds overflowing at the facility: -�-
For each waste structure at the facility, fist the number of inches remaining before waste
Gould overflow the dam or discharge through the spillway, and the condition of the embankment:
Structure Inches Does the stricture have is the embankment
a spillway (esMo) structurally sound (Yes/No)
r� 10
3
4
�APerson taking ca

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
!'Waste Collection & Treatment NOW
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NEI
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NI?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Stricture 5 Structure 6
Identifier: � �tT
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 7
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'? ❑ Yes f� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify ❑WQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
R. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes Na ❑ 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 ❑ Ileavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc,)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soii
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside ol'Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): tt
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
9
❑ 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
[ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres detennination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application'?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19, Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
[] NE
20, Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
EfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP []Checklists. ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other;
21. oes record keeping need i tpravement'? If yes, check the appropriate box below; ❑ Yes M No
V
te Applicati n G eekly Freeboard Waste Analysis oil Analysis ❑Waste Transfers
fall v Stocking Crop Yield ❑i/ 120 Minute Inspections [TMontlily and 1" RainftlI Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes `A No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 1�fNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
DWeathcr Code
Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facilit Numlaer: -M I Date of Inspection;
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �Wo ❑ 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. I0
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [] Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structurc(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fuil to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes �] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2T Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ] No ❑ NA ❑ NI ---
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NI?
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?
1 f yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the ftciIity 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 f scility? if yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/storagc Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWM1'?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of'3
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 14 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
T-7I-Salty
21412011

Division of Water Quality
Facility number - Division of Soil and Water CARation 10 A f4
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine p Complaint ❑ Follow-up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit:I q.71 + ' O VArrival Time: Departure Time: Count►•: CZ1 J o l hFegion:
Farm Name: b —A Fa-rm Owner Email:
Owner Name: r I S R e_c�x1 n q Phone: t✓ 33 4� , q 6 3
,Mailing Address:, i� U� � 1` Q i'(1'I �Gf • , ]ls��i !Dom• ,_� a7 �7 L1
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: "I's P43St Title:
Onsite Representative: .1
Certified Operator: }� -RGL iL
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone:
Integrator: PU r J I -5
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude:35- `7 q � 9 Longitude: q -a.3 _30
U S
311
So u`t-k
+6
e ee a-c- S
u &re-
4LY1 J �U r n
�3 us •
1
S o u -rfi .
�--�
- [ a �o t,17C I
O h
Rd .
L ��e� r� ��,� e -
Q
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
:LaLr
JNon-La er
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Q
_,
I.arrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
EBoars
Other
Other
Layers
Non-L
Pullets
Turku
Other
Poults
Design Current
_Discharges and _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 Stater (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Daia Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
0 Yes 1� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes ❑No []NA ❑NE
❑Ycs ❑No ❑NA ❑NE
d, Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N❑ ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Ycs o ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Purge 1 of 3
21412011 Continued

1facili1v Number: - ) hate of Inspection: AL 1-31
!Paste Collection & Treatment 0 W
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
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observcd Freeboard (in):
Structure I Structure 2
[� h
Stnicture 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation prises an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes P. No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
L�
9, Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
-OOF maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes Dd No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �dN❑ ❑ NA ❑ NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below, ❑ Yes tdNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 ]bs. ❑ 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?
lb. 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
PjrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
V
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XN❑
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ WU1' ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21, j)ocs record keeping; nZed'iprovement? ❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
YR,.a
ante Applicationeekly Freeb mr Waste Analysis Soil Analysis 6'Weather Code
infall s tacking �rop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections �"u�y.
22. Did the facility fail to instal] and maintain a rain gauge'? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. 1f'selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Ycs ❑ No ( NA ❑ NE
11age 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applion 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. 0
❑ 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 rk No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes &No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
pennit? (i.e.. discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface file drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes D] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes tZ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes of No
❑ Yes 06 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-corpliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes 19�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative'! ❑ Yes �N No ❑ NA ❑ Nl;
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use dDwings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary),
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
0
31 + 0- o I q
Phone:
Date: 31111p20
21412011

Division of Water Quality'
Facility Number - E* Division of Soil and Water 0-servation J ; no
ONE
a Other Agency i ION11
i'ype of Visit:(71
C❑ pliance Inspection Operation Review p Structure Evaluation O '['ethnical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine ❑ Complaint 0 Follow-up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other 4 Denied Access
Date of Visit: �J
Arrival Time: Departure Time:l
0_?.100 County: p0tildo Region: C)
Farm Name:
ob
j ' "4' Fa_
rm Owner E mail: ((k—is
,f jg�l X044" =_\pM
Owner Dame:
t711
Phone: C CUR'
lailing Address:
aQ + Gl i'
�U • Q
LZ G o-2
�hysical Address:
L�`- 1� (tiLl�-C.+
�C� �' Ak- ILC !
J A� +� t 1 �► 73J O +f.
Facility Contact:
�h r rj�d l
Title:
Phone:
Onsite Representative:
of
Integrator:
P0rUis
Certified Operator:
�6b {} 3 13
Certification Numher:
Back-up Operator -
Certification Number:
a
Location of Farm: latitude: 3S q 9 L! q Longitude: -7 q 5--3 3
[ • Y 311 0 nfo 0&rk bo ro_ _ , h u re -A k4, 1 nrt + 1*e L r Parnc
R•
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
F
er
Non -Layer
Design Current
Dr►• Poultr► conaeity Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
lTurkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed front any part of the operation'!
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach watcrs of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the Slate (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
Dai Calf
Dairy Heifcr
n Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes It No ❑ NA ❑ NE
�] Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes] No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: ❑ � ��
24, I]id the facility fail to calibrate waste apotion equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ,KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes f9No ❑ 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 iagoon
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?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Officc of emergency situations as required by the
pen -nit? (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:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the pennit 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 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes jKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes tWNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[—]Yes J�J_No [3 NA [] NE
[:]Yes [)(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 0qo
❑ Yes �eNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
R'j . Sol lI �es-f For ao [t' tb --&,b-- r
00_1.
..� tA4. o
Reviewer/]nspector Name:OF �j roCIL Phone: a
Reviewer/Inspector Signature; Date: 7 J J�b 1 a—
Page 3 of 3 21412011

Facilit►• tiumher- - 11) !late of Inspection. 1,2jaOa
Waste Collection & Treatment jo 14W
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy niinfull) less than adequate? Yes
a. I f yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
Structure 1 Structure 2
Lm ❑un
Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑No ❑NA ❑NE
Structure 6
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 stntctures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes It No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9, Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
!Paste 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 > I0-Va 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?
❑ Ycs
❑
❑ NA
❑ NE15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yeso
t
❑ NA
❑ NE
10. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
-No
[3 NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
/�'
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18, Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment'?
❑ Yeso
rN,
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Pennit readily available?
❑ Yes
A 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 ❑ I7esign ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other;
21, 1]ocs record keeping need i provement? %,
❑Yes
❑ No
NAB
�Wcather
❑ NE
Vaste Appiic• ion Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis
Stocking
s
Code
infall ❑ Crop Yield l2U Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rainfall
Inspections
sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ Nli
23. Ifselected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbrcakcrs on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
9 NA
❑ Nl"s
Page 2 of 3
21412011 Continued

Division of 1!'ater QuaIit►'
Faciiity Number r7 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
J.
❑ Other A"!ency
Type of Visit OrCCoompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Li Routine 0 Complaint Q Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑Denied Access
Date of VIM(: Arrival Tinte: County: L[ Uegion: W59 0
cI
r-- farm Name: 4L,110afJ"'ke,f rM ff
=I I Lt _ TZ _ l'$t�
Owner Dame:
,flailing e�tis:11
Phvsical Address: —J�' dQ a.Kar
Facilitv Contact: 14kb64LrC 9,Ala _ Title:
Owner Email: �Udy��uL-��flDf�yS7YtrC.
Phone: (R) `Y 3173
Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Co 4J Llor u Integrator: ! u I V r S
CertiAlpj
per:tt I Operator Certification Number:
G -i r�G - L,D 2)
[lack- rate `- 7 � Back-up Certification Number:
Location of farm: iI Latitude: 3S CIL
f4wy 311 sN'lczr1 ora C c ^, f M'.
Swine
❑
Wean to Finish
❑
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Z
Farrow to Wean
❑
Farrow to Feeder
❑
Farrow to Finish
❑
Gilts
❑
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ [.aver ElDairy Cow
❑Non -laver ❑ Dairy Calf
L " Longitude:
13q har r:�r4,t
° � 3b `
FA
Dry Poultry
❑ Lavers
❑ Non -Lavers
❑ I'u Ilets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Potllt5
❑ Other
Discharp_es & 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? ([f ycs, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy I lei ler
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beel' Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: M
d. Does discharge bypass the waste managernent system'? (Ifyes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of tite operation!
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of tite State
ether than Iron a discharge?
❑ Yes , No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
[:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
� No
El NA
❑ NE
❑Ye:+✓✓✓✓X���'No
El NA
El NE
Page I of 3 12/28104 Continued

Facility Number: — (j � Date of Inspection D �
Waste Collection & Treatment XNo
4, is storage capacity (structural plus stormstorage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate'? ElYes ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. 1 f yes. is Xvaste level into the structural freeboard? ElYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NEI
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: /_A
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �
5. Are there arty immediate threats to the integrity of any of'the structures observed? ❑ Yes , j J No ElNA ElNl�
(iel large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Ycs No ❑ NA ❑ NI-
through a waste management or closure plan'?
[f 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 strictures need maintenance or improvement'! ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE;
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the pennit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to rool'ed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) r
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NF
maintenance or improvement?
!Paste Application
10. Are there any required buttors, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ yes No ❑ NA ElNEmaintenance/improvement? X
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application'! If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XN0 ❑ NA ❑ NEI
❑ I?xcessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy ,Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10%% or 10 Ibs ❑'total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to ]ncorpnratc ManurclSludgc into Barc: Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12, Crop type(s) �C'Jr�4e✓
13. Sail type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
No
❑ Yes *11
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑Yes {]d No
El NA
El NE
16•
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
ElYes No
El NA
❑ NE
17.
[does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
o
❑ Yes to
El NA
ElNFs
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment'?
El Yes
❑ 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 Phone: 1
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: — Date:
fuse 2 of 3 12.128104 Continued

+ Facility Number: — Oof Inspection � aV
Required Records & Documents
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes �``No El NA ElNE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check El Yes rNNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps [I Other
21. Does record keeping need impro emen . Yes ❑ No El NA El NH,
Waste Application Weekly Freeboard 'ante Analysis 50i1 Analysis a
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections A
Monthly nd V RainRain Inns Weathcr Code
22. Did the Ficility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge`? Yeti No ❑ NA ❑ N17
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑Yes ❑ NoNA ❑ NE
24, Did the facility frail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the taeility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ Nl:
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27, Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification'?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ N1-4
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes No Cl NA
❑ NJ-,
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes No ❑ NA
❑ NI;
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 tlic facility ftil to notify the regional office ofemci-gency situations as required by
❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (icl discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA
❑ NEi
33.
Does facility require a follow -tip visit by sarne agency?
❑ Yeti XNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
kdditional Comments and/or Drawings:
21. 50`1 a��l5fi� c�r�v24- 201 D
.5A
�kz 514 s4,•
Z-9i /3'a'l'
FV11
: -3, l
1'crge 3 of 3 12128104

Division of !Pater Quality 0
Facility Number 9Division of Soil and Water Conser►ation
Q (ether Agency q ' m
Type of Visit a Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit �O Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up n Referral Q Emergency O Other ❑ denied Access
Slate of ►'isk: CLf t3L 1 f (]] Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: ntv: o 1, Region: � ie
Farm ,'tame: a r- 0.rm Wn er il:
-C
Owner Name: � L] 11��� iL{ �0. �t-t� Phone: �r
Mailing Address: �� C t=+ • , �1>P 1Z 1 GL ► f �-�--� - 7 3 n
Physical Address: bV rqo."" �t � t ] h 1 0"T ��- x SV
facility Contact: 14'-rb bQ-�` Title: Phone No: c 3 _C�6 qq
Onsite Representative: _ _ Ifl ax- A Integrator: _ �� 3 r V S
Certified Operator:�Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
�
L.
Local ion of Farm: Latitude; M Longitude: �o 3
Kuj 1311 5. onto tux! bor6 C,h u rc'� o o he. IYl I �e #-
L,j v-" ke-(4 orr+o Fo-crn PS -
S►+iue
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ i.a er
❑ Nan -Lave:
❑
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Fccder to Finish
0
010
❑
Farrow to Wean
❑
Farrow to Feeder
❑
Farrow to Finish
❑
Gilts
❑
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
Non-
Paults
Discharttes & Stream Impacts its
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of•the operation`?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf'
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non-Dai
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: ET
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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NI'
❑ Yes
[]No
❑ NA
LINE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
,�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104
Continued

facility i\umber: —in0 Date of inspection �Q
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy minfitll) less than adequate?
❑ Yes � No
❑ NA
❑ NEi
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?:
Designees Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in);
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
[--]Yes ;kNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ic/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
0. Are there structures on -site: which are not properly addressed and/or managed
f
❑ Yes �'IVo
❑ NA
❑ NlE
through a waste management or closure plan`?
If and° 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 JN No ❑ NA ❑ NE
A. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes OrNo ❑ NA ❑ NEE
(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 A< ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA El
maintenance/improvement?
1 l . Is there evidence of incorrect application'? If yes, check the appropriate box below, ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive f'onding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
0No
❑ NA
❑ NE3
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
, rNo
❑ NA
❑ N I i
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment'?
❑ Yes
(yNo
❑ NA
❑ NEE
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):
Re►'iener/Inspector Name i C Phone:
Re►•iewer/Inspector Signature. j a 6 A j a 0Date: 110
12128104 Continued

Facilily Number; — e of Inspection 5,
Rec uired 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 ofthe CAWNIP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. /,"L
P ❑Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑ Other
21. Doe record keeping neeement? b❑ Yes i Nn ❑Nei ❑ N13Vaste Applicat'
ly freeboard 'aste Analysis Inc s�tithlv,
lysis 1
Rainfdl Stocking Yield 20 Minute Inspectionsnd V Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the tacility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. Ifselected, did the lacility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively ccilified operator in charge'?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification'?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP'?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of'dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the lime 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 bail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Docs facility require a fUllow-up visit by same agency'?
Additional Comments and/or
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes *)
RIes ❑ No
❑ Yes Pd No
❑ Yes 1XNo
❑ Yes Ati'o
❑ Yes Xn
El Yes r ' o
❑ Yes No
El NA ❑NE
1)�NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ Nl;
❑NA ❑N1;
El NA ❑N'E
❑NA [INC
El NA El NE
❑NA ON
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes %No ❑ NA ❑ NI3
❑ Yes jirNlo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a-olc) No
['altbra�i �0.4. �o�o
u% e- e- i Q &-v) - o o ] o..1n ?
.4—
D- 4 10.
Page.? q f .3 12128104

�Division of Water Quality .
Facility Number I ivision of StAliand Ni'atef Conser►•aliun
E!u Q Other Agency:::
Type of Visit WCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit �V Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
[late of Visit: IvZg{ Arrnal Time: Departure Time: b �_ County: hRei;ion: 1
harm Name: P�-l) {C] {ti�t�Y :ba L?=c ea r m� _ _ O►+ner Email:
Owner ,Name: Phone.
,%IaiIinj,,Addre.%s:_3112J Maid 6-6 C h u rc,6
Physical Address: -[ Q UAL �:QLAC no
_.,�
Facility' Contact: 4 is )aY :C 4 —'rifle: Phone Ni : —
t lnsite Representative: � zk] 1p C3.Ar � , Integrator: ��_V L �_ _
Certified Operator: �? � Y]0-K-6 Operator Certification dumber:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Back-up Certification ,Number:
Lalitude: =o = ❑ Longitude: 0" = 0 =
0fv- 0 Mar1 boro L� d L,tPf o nf� q(�_tr
oil -
Design Current Design - Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Laver
❑ Non -Lave
❑ Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Qq Feeder to Finish
t
El Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow' to Finish
❑ Cil is
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other i
Dry Poultry
❑
Lavers
❑
Non -La ers
❑
Pullets
❑
Turkevs
❑
Turkey Poults
❑
Other
DischarLyes !Sr, 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'' (1f yes, notify DWQ)
Design : Current
Cattle Capacity .Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Cal f
❑ Dairy lleitcr
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -pair
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef l3rood Cow
c. What is the estimated volutne that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: E111.
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 ❑ NEI
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
❑No
[I NA
❑N1"s
❑Yes
El No
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
{ No
❑ NA
❑ N'1:
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE;
12128104
Confinuerl

Facility Number: — in 1 0 Date of Iuspeetion
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus stonn storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 9
No ❑ NA ❑ NI:
a. Il'yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NJ. --
Structure 1 Structure: 2 Stricture 3 Stricture 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 1
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 1� 0-9
5. Are them any immediatte threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes JXNo ❑ NA [:IN' F
(& large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) ��JJ
6, Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed cs [*o ❑ NA ❑ NI'
through a waste management or closure plan?
if any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health ur environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ Nli
8. ❑o any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the pennit`? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NF
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any pan ol'the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ N1'
maintenance or improvement'? 11,,
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NIi
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Iixcessivc Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu. Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate ManurelSludge into I3are Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13.
Sail typc(s) V V
14.
Do the receiving; crops differ from those designated in the: CAWMP?
El Yes
��.,!-
b�No El NA
tti[[[��,"`
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement`?
El Yes
TO ❑ NA
❑ NI
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre detennination ?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NI's
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
Cl Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
18,
Is there a lack ot'properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
lko ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
•, I , IrA l
f � �
Reviewer/Inspector Name TG Phone: -Svz$
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

al
Facility Number: - O fe of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
•
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NL'•
the appropriate box. ,
❑ WLff ❑Checklists ❑Design El Maps ❑ ether
21. Does eCard keeping need i rovement? If yes, chec he appropriate box low. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ Nl?
ante AppiKStock
on ,,,r, y Freeboard Waste `Analysis S;Zonthlyand
lysis
Rainfall in Cro Yield 120 Minute Inspections !" RainIns ections Bather Codc
g P P P
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge'?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA
❑ Nis
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ Nl-
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
No
❑ NA
El NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
o
tN
❑ NA
ElNJ',29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or docurnent
❑ Yeso
❑ 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
ElYes
No
[I NA
❑ NE;
General Permit? (ic/ 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
❑ Nl;
AL
H
12/28104

Facility Number 1 -7
H
Q Division of Water Quali.
Q Division of Soil and Water
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit P Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review ❑ Structure Evaluation ❑ Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit yRoutine Q Complaint Q Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Urr Arrival "Time: Departure Time: d County: Ivj Region:
Farm Name: tb �2zt' 8"�.-- &con Owner Email:
�"� b Owner Name: Hubbo a le-c—r Phone: r 7
,Mailing Address: � [-[- ALir I ho ro �L�! U �� +�� , V 00 h I (:?-I- 0 73 ,s 6
Physical Address: II k�V i l�-++?� L .� lt� - - -- QQ h C•L + OC,
Facility Contact: l} �Title: Phone No:q
C.
Onsite Representative: 44 6 II Integrator: O2. Kur v,15
40 Certified Operator: 17 �Q L Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: �Longitude: ® ,
-3 i� �+ Ong & a o nt? `
Swine
Design Current Design - Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
Non-LayerEl
❑
Wcan to Finish
Wean to Feeder
N.Feeder
to Finish
1000
Farrow to Wean
❑
Farrow to Fceder
❑
Farrow to Finish
❑
cilts
❑
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La •ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkev Puults
❑ 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 ofthe State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Resign - Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf'
❑ Daia I lcifer
❑ Da Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beel' Feedcr
❑ Beef Brood CA
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
_ i.
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (ll'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?
11uge I nj'3
❑ Yes I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes
El No
❑NA
ONE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ N Fs
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: — 0 Date of Inspection 16 1 713 F 164
Waste Collection & 'Treatment
4. is storage c<<pacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. I f yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ElYes tNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 6- oo
Spillway?: rlb
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NEi
(ic/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are (here structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NF
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`? El Yes No El NA El NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes �No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste ADDlieatiOn
Wq Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No [INA [INE
maintenance/improvement`? ��r��f"````
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ NA ElNI'sEl Excessive Ponding ElHydraulic Overload ElFrozen Ground ElIleavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)�No
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptahle Crop Window [:]Evidence of Wind Drill ❑ Applicat ioil (Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) 5t,5r, u e,r T Q
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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
tt000
❑ NA❑
NF
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
0No
El NA
❑NI?
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
i n r on �a-1'1 i'Yl K v (Al � 6 *e l
Reviewer/inspector Name Phone:
ReviewcrAnspector Signatur Date:
Page 2 of 3 7� ' Y 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 1n Date of Inspection i eo,713116
Required Records & Documents
19. [lid the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 4NO ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes WNOa ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ Wl]P El Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑ O[her
21. Doe record keeping need im ovement'. I OfYes❑ No ❑ NA ❑ N1E
ste Application [j�WZrop
Freeboard Wastc Analysis Soil Analysis Z -
Rainfall (� 5tncking Yield 20 Minute Inspections onthly and 1 " Rain Inspections eathcr Cade
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? ❑ Ycs No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit'? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NIE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility lail 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 McNo ❑ 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? El Yes LINO ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative iinrnediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional oftice of emergency situations as required by Cl Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. [aid Reviewer/[nspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes [%No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow -Lip visit by same agency'? ❑ Yes VN o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
�n
1 o 00-7 ago $ So[ 1 des f reSolk 001 - S ct ate-
na*'1e*
10 -
ifGt.r M S ro r nn mot- G 5 ��.+r
�o� r�•e. U^re-d
6, ACA� 00 c"
�0, 5 U >rt + o cam,
A0. Pik O
Page 3 of 3 jy\ 12/2X104

IFacility Number ���I
Division of NVater Qualinr
Division of Soil and Water.
Q Other Agency
1 PM
IType of Visit ❑ Compliance Inspection Q operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine Q Complaint D Follow up D Referral Q Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Bate ofVisit. Mri►al Time: Departure'I'ime: County: Region: _L)5R_6
Farm Name: C' Owner Email: G
Owner Name: Phone: � o ` 5 4 13
,Mailing Address: 3)) 2) born C } 1„� ._ � • 5 4 p h I Q _tom 3 ,<.M,
Phvsical Address:
1 IR a V3 oir . FQ-r- Im d
Facility Contact: i'itle: Phony
Onsite Representative: HUb t �eT Integrator: PU r V l 5 .
Certified Operator: Uo axAl Q Vey- Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ® Longitude:
from Kw a ao +-o_Y e I+w y 31 R nor` • T/ L 00--tO borro `
W u r d- j e d 10 [c �� c� v-
c_-h r m < < T � +rl ear VK
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population NVet Poultr►- Capacity Population
❑ 'aye[
❑ Non -La er
❑
wQaII to f"finish
❑
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
❑
Farrow to Feeder
❑
Farrow to finish
❑
Gilts
❑
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ I.a ers
❑ Non -Lavers
❑ Pt,llets
❑ Turke s
ElTurkey Potdts
❑ Other
DischarZcs & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes. notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heife,
❑
❑ry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Slocket
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: ED
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
El Yes
❑No
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NIi
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104
Continued

Facilit►• Number: Dale of Inspection U
Waste Collection & 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
it. If yes, is waste level init) the structural freeboard? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE's
Structure I Structure: 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Stncture 6
Identifier: LamAmio
Spillway:':
Uesigned Freeboard (in): ri
Observed Freeboard (in): 16
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, ctc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes 6(No ❑ NA ❑ NE;
through a waste management or closure plan?
if any of questions 4-6 were answered ►•es, and the situation poses an immediate puhfic health or environmentaI threat, ntodfy DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE"s
H. Do any (If the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NH
(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 ❑ N E
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ElN1maiiuenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes {'No ❑ NA ❑ NF
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ I leavy Metals (Cu. Zn, etc.)
(91'AN PAN > 10% or 10 ]hs ❑ 'Total Phngphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ l vidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[;5 No
❑ NA
❑ Ni"
15.
Duties the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
Cl NE
16,
[aid the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
[)(No
❑ NA
❑ Ni-
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application'?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NI'
I S.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE:
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):
PAN
A,5 taE
No No �/�_ 6r\
_
Reviewer/ nspector,NameAl
h ( Phone: I ��
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur :
Date: Q
" 1 r t ' " ` — 12128104 Continued

,I 1 0
Facility Number: 10 (bate of Inspection
Required Records fir. Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available'?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAW1v7P readily available? Ifyes, check
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists ❑ Qcsign ❑Maps ❑ Other
21. Doe record keeping neeZirovement? 1 f yes, the the appropriate �bZxclaw. ❑ Yes PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
V4'aste A lication ee Freeboard Waste Analysis .1 nalvsis n "'�:' T���:' �s ❑ on
;i Application Y Y
[3'Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield. 120 ,Minute Inspections pe Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections Weathcr Code
22. Did the facility thil to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment'?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge'?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification'!
Other Issues
29. 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 duality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. [lid the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems. over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency"
❑ Yes INo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
�NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
it Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
�(NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
*o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
KNO
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
P(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
NNo
❑ NA
❑ NI?
lAfti ignal Comments and/or Drawings: �
Fool, Soi IS
S�ud�e ?
�R^'-d
Nov
N.- dw'-pto ,� /K�
;�-a 16ei-
Nlj000
4- - -
111064,
® i
12128104

r
I)ate of Visit; ,'7� Arri►'al l•irne: I)eparlure Time: `ter--------�' County: _RWA�`
.. ....�.. rr .,r ��f..1- ,yk •,s _ - �4j.- �`_ �y.� ;'
:?i%r�'.:.�r a: •.�-`e�.. ,,,�": ! iy.•' .�r.. ��5: -; _ Lti Y 7�• :�i•':'q.a�.!.. �
31V1SIon o
�3y�.. •� ��� w-. ',;, f V4 atcr-Qtiulity .�.:,.�. ,, ., -::
S r 'n..,x
:�. ri'�'.� 93F'.�^i�' >'"T{•.'� .i'i�-• ." :.: .. 9' �� ? `4�L,�'� }.i yir�Y'ry�-Y,�., 7...k+�'.1�. •Yy�. s�.A !�k'�l.
Divisit n of at it W, afer- Canscr�attott
TaciliY ,91Vumhcr ;;r '1 rQ,
,,R, _�..?i'{tik. `['�i. � i..: t ': is L„+i:':.n , S, �+i �'�• ,.r «+ 1 . M.i.: a•.; 'v4:
I [ter V Yt' li .�.s'. ti'iS"'S•4,',=if4p'�'i...r iyNF:...�{v�"�. '��•.;,y, d.. 'egg:
_+t'.;" Vjr?r i,i;-xe..'; os-r—xK=tij..g: ';� ` ""::Y.: :'%-}"i;��'.7.Y:..�.':-i ��•�7�.;d �'•iy',`�'.�IS 3..Fri: ��Y'�'`�* -�a..�trr''
Type of Visit ❑ Compliance inspection 'Operation Review ❑ Structure Evaluation ❑ Technical Assistance
JAN 0 �
Reason for Visit [ outine ❑ Complaint Q Follow up ❑ Referral ❑ Emergency ❑ Other ❑ Denied Access
Red
Region: _vU-,_
!t7
ENR
2007
[Farm Name: �E - Owner iluiai1:
f.]wnerNarne:1t�LLl�[fi'u_�• _ w__----_- Phone :�Qj-"__3��___.-_____.__-- ----
Mailing Address:��--
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 5:��7Ld.L�� `-- _-. �1-it I,: _ v__._______._..._._ ___-._ Phone No:
ilrtsite Representative: Integrator: _ � u� �..:Q.w._....-_...�.....w.-_._-..._.._.._._..--.__.....__._..._..-
Certified Operator: h ,i7�F !�� _ Operator Certification Number:
[lack -up Operator:
Location of Farm:
[lack -up Certification Number: __._•__
Latitude: [00 t �l ® 11 Longitude: i--►a[J o M 1 ©,1
Design'. Current, I)csign Current
`Swine''' : ti Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity. Population
r ❑ Wean to finish ❑ [.:: cr
❑ Wean to feeder ❑ Non -La et
® Feeder to Finish G
ti ❑ Farrow to Wean Dry Poultry
❑ Farrow to E ceder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Other
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Pouets
❑ Other
DischnrLpes tRr Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Uischarge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a, Was the conveyance man-made`?
`Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
❑airy Calf
❑
Dairy lieifel
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
❑
f3cef Stockei
❑
Reef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures
b. Uid the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify ❑WQ)
c, What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons);
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify ❑WQ)
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?
W
❑ Yes El'go ❑ NA ❑ NE;
❑ Yes
❑ No
T NA
❑ NE;
❑ Yes
❑ No
E NA
❑ NE
EI<A
❑ NEi
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
`'o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
E3<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

facility Number: ' — kit Date cif Inspection hQtfu6'Jo
Waste Collection & 'Treatment
4, is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
D<
❑l NA
❑F. N
a. If yes, is waste Ievel into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
El No
,
� Nil
❑ NE.
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed freeboard (in): t-
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
ENo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ic/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Arc there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
,
l•1 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 I)WQ
7, Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
ElYes
ETNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the pertnit?
❑ Yes
2Io
❑ 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
,�
I �l No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
El No
❑ NA
❑;CIE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes La No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Iieavy Metals (C:u, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window El Evidence
Evidence of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Are
12. Crop type(s) �� 3�{�,,� t,_L
13. Soil type(s)
14. Da the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP'r ❑ Yes ,ff No
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? El Yes IJ No
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or op crate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes ,_qo
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes E3 Noo
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes j�"No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA El NE
Reviewer/inspector Name
ReviewerfInspector Signature:
Phone: - A In-( f �I1-10
Date:
12128104 Cvnri►rued

-- sate of Inspection
Facility Number: 'ILI
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[:fNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
0 Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropiratc box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
B<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑
Waste Transfers
❑ Annual
Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I"
Rain Inspections ❑
Weather Code
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
Ek�b
❑ NA .
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No D'A ❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�10
❑ NA
❑ NE
25,
I7id 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
QIo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27,
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?.
❑ Yes
2No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
El Yes
,,---,,��
E?Ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
[] Yes
Elf�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
El Yes
,,,,//
P o
❑ NA
❑ NE
I f 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
E?�o
❑ 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
,,��..,,��
�ltio
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
42Ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

1
]Facility Number: - Date of Inspection
Technical Assistance
Needed
Provided
34. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
35. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
36. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
37. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
38. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
39. 21-1.0200 re -certification
❑
❑
40. rive & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
41. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
42. 0 rganize/com pute riza t i o n of records
❑
❑
43. Sludge EvaluationR
❑
❑
44. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
45. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
46. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
47. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
48. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
49. Marker check/caIibrat ior
❑
❑
% Site evaluation
❑
❑
51. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
52. Irrigation system design/installation
❑
❑
53. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
54. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
55. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
56. Evaluate WAD ccrtification/rechecks
❑
❑
57. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
58, Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
59. Land shaping, subsoiiing, aeration, etc.
❑
❑
60. Runoff control', stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
61. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
62. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
63. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
64. Waste operator education
❑
❑
65. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
66. Record keeping education
❑
❑
67. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
68. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
69. PLAT
❑
❑
70. Other
❑
❑
List Improvements Made by Operation:
1.
4,
Pa
5
3. - 6. 12178104

Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 760010
Facility Status: Active
Permit: AMMON Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Inactive or Closed Date:
_
Reason for Visit: Routine
County: Randoliah Region:Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: W0612006
Entry Time:01:15 PM
Exit Time: 02:45 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Baker Farb
Owner Email:
Owner: Hubbard D Baker
Phone; 336-498-3973
Mailing Address: 3113 Marlboro
Church Rd
Sophia NC 273503113
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant
❑ Not Compliant
Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 35°49'49" Longitude: 79°53'34"
Farm Location from WSRO: US HWY 311 south to Marlboro Ch.
Rd. and turn right. Left onto Baker Farm Road. Go to end of drive.
Question Areas:
W Discharges & Stream Impacts
Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
jj Records and Documents
Other Issues
Technical Assistance
Certified Operator: Hubbard D Baker
Operator Certification Number: 18866
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representatives): Name
Title Phone
On -site representative
Hubbard Baker
Phone:
24 hour contact name
Hubbard Baker
Phone:
Primary Inspector: Melissa Rosebrock
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
7. Embankment to be mowed this summer. No woody vegetation at this time.
15. All fields were limed this year.
21. Check 2006 soil test results next visit.
25, operator has measured sludge but needs assistance completing survey form.
28. New fields being used by operator have not yet been added to the WUP. See tech specialist for assistance. Suggest using PAN of
150 for fescue hay until new waste plan can be completed to include the new irrigation design.
5123106 waste analysis=3.0 lbs. N11000 gal.
Page: 1

10 9
Permit: AWS760010 Owner • Facility: Hubbard C Baker Facility Number; 760010
Inspection Date: 0610612006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
O Swine - Feeder to Finish 1,900 1,967
Total Design Capacity: 1,900
Total SSLW: 256,500
Type Identifier Closed Hate Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Froeboard
agoon LAGOON d2.00
Page: 2
,■

0 0
Permit: AWS760010 Owner - Facility: Hubbard D Baker Facility Number: 760010
Inspection Data: 06/06/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
b. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
Cl
❑
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.1large 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
❑
■
❑
Cl
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWS760010 Owner - Facility: Hubbard D Baker
Inspection Date: 06/061P006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 760010
Reason far Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
PAN?
Q
Is PAN a 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Q
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Fescue
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14, Do the receiving craps differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
Q
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? Q
■
0
Q
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
Q
■
❑
Q
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?
0■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS760010 Owner - Facility: Hubbard D Baker
Inspection Date: 06106t2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 760010
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and documents
Yes No NA N5
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 a 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
Annual sail analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NFIDES only)?
❑
❑
■
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility Fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
■
❑
Other Issues Yes No NA N
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andlor document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? if yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ Cl
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

0
•
Permit: AW5760010 Owner - Facility: Hubbard D Baker
Facility Number : 760010
Inspection Date: 06/06/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues
Yes
No NA NE
31. Did the fatality fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
n
■ ❑ ❑
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Technical Assistance
Yes
No NA NE
Needed Provided
34. Waste plan revision or amendment
n
n
35. Waste plan conditional amendment
n
36. Review or evaluate waste plan wlproducer
❑
37. Forms need (list in comment section)
❑
n
38. Missing components (list in comments)
❑
39. 2H.0200 re -certification
n
40. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (POA)
n
41. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
11
42. Organize/computerization of records
❑
43. Sludge evaluation
❑
44. Sludge or Closure plan
❑
n
45. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
Page: 6

Permit: AWS760010 Owner - Facility: Hubbard D Baker Facility Number: 760010
Inspection Date: 06/06/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Technical Assistance
Yes No NA NE
46. Waste structure evaluation ❑
47. Structure needs improvement
48. Operation & maintenance improvements
49. Marker checkkalibration
50. Site evaluation
51..Irrigation calibration
52. Irrigation system design/installation
53. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
54. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
55. Wettable acre determination
56. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
57. Crop evaluation/recommendations
58. Drainage work/evaluation
59. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
Page: 7

Permit: AWS760010 Owner - Facility: Hubbard 0 Baker
Inspection Date: 06106/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Technical Assistance
60. R unoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
61. Buffer improvements
62. Field measurements (GPS, surveying, etc.)
63. Mortality BMPs
64. Waste operator education
65. Operation & maintenance education
66. Record keeping education
67. Crop/forage management education
68. Soil and/or waste sampling education
fig. PLAT Assessment
70. Other
List Improvements made by Operation
Improvement 1
Improvement 2
Improvement 3
Improvement 4
Improvement 5
Improvement 6
Facility Number: 760010
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
El
n
El
Cl
El
n
n
Q
n
n
Page: 8

Division of water Quality
Facility Number Division of Soil and Water Conservation l
Q Other Agency
IType of Visit � Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit i�jJ�Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
[late of Visit: b Arrival Time: Departure Time: Arta
_ y�Q y, Region:���
Farm Name: 1r" ner Flnait:
Owner N amc: I1 �e� Phone: 3`
1-3
;Nailing Address: � b b r r 1 R-73EO
Phvsical Address: Q 3 6
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
0 AV
Integrator:Ne
Pu iV j� _
Operator Certification Number: l ? Co�_
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: L--Io = 1 Longitude: =" 0 = f
from he- : aao no �td �w 3lr* now]. Le_ + on o
VoL f-1 loan, C h u rt.lr, e o n f o B X FL-;L m aj.
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
1 ❑ Nan -La er
Dry Poultry
❑
Layers
❑
Non -[.avers
❑
Pullets
❑
Turkeys
❑
Turkey Puults
❑
Other
Dischares & Stream Imoacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
Discharge originated at: ❑ structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
1). Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Humber 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
El NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
ElYes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. [ f yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
l -4 �W4-pillway?:
\ Stricture I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier; obn
14 0
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan'?
❑ Yes *No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Structure G
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NIi
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threa L, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes Io ❑ NA ❑ Nl;
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ElNE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) 9
1. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require Yes No ElNA ElNE
maintenance or improvement? A P,9-
Waste Application
10, Are there any required buffers. setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/i mproventent'?
❑ Yes _No ❑ NA ❑ NE
11. Is there evidence (if incorrect application? ll'yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, 7n, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN? 100/.or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window Q Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? Cl Yes �fNo []NA ❑ NE
15, Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes tNo
o❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the faciIity fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination '? ElYes ❑ NA ❑ Nl?
17. [does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
19. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes o El NA El NE
❑ YesZNo ❑ 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):
ceded Pe -I&
Ew-ko.-n ll__ N\P_n -k mo caged
fk,�� O�� No U �i
I
Reviewer/Inspector Name (� 1r, Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date:
Page 2 of 3 1212 I04 Continued

Facility ,Number: — [ ate of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ElNA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility firil to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? Ifycs, check ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ W up ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does cord keeping nee7weekly
rovement? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application Freeboard Analysis Soil An lysis P"' ' — t,s
L+rj Rainfall lyj Stockingrop Yield L�120 Minute Inspections Monthly and I" Rain Inspections L (Xeathcr Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
23. If selected, did the facility Fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment'? ❑ Yes
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? �r ❑ Yes
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? iq) • () (0 ❑ Yes
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification'?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional off ice of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/lnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
A Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Na �NA ❑ NL
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
t No ❑ NA ❑ NE
X
No El NA El NE
❑ No 1XNA ❑ NE
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑NA El NE
'K No El NA ❑ NE
I�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
)VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
�kNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Adp_!onal Comments and/or Drawings:
r
� 1� � •■ � 4 / rj r / r r ,f r
ftge 3 of 3
12129104

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS760010 _ ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comoliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Randglph Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 06/28/2005 Entry Time: 12:50 PM Exit Time: 02:15 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Bilker Farm Owner Email:
�:IR1:FTtls737.
Mailing Address: 3113 Marlboro Church Rd Scnhia NC 273503113
_
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: N G Pw[yis Farms Inc
Location of Farm: Latitude: °4 Longitude: 79053'30" -
Farm Location from WSRO: US HWY 311 south to Marlboro Ch. Rd. and turn right. Left onto Baker Farm Road. Go to end of drive.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts 0 Waste Collection & Treatment 0 Waste Application
0 Records and Documents Q Other Issues
Certified Operator: Hubbard D Baker Operator Certification Number: 18866
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Hubbard Baker Phone:
24 hour contact name Hubbard Baker Phone:
Primary Inspector: Melissa M Rosebrock Phone: [phone]
Ext.383
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
7. Need to mow embankment of laggon.
15. Fescue fields need to be cut. Per operator, this is to be done next week. These fields also have many areas with nothing but
broadleaf weeds or johnsongrass. May need to re -seed this Fall.
21. Don't forget to obtain 2005 soil samples.
28. Pull 2C received animal waste this year but the field is not in the CAWMP. Acreage is listed in the irrigation design only. Need to
also add pulls 8, 9, 10, and 11 so that operator can keep accurate PAN records. He does not know what the allowable PAN is for these
fields.
314l05 waste analysis=2.6 lbs. N11000 gal,
Page: 1

0 0
Permit: AWS760010 Owner • Facility: Hubbard D Baker FacUlty Number : 760010
Inspection Date: 06/28/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
0 Swine - Feeder to Finish 1,900 1,850
Total Design Capacity: 1,900
Total SSLW: 256,500
Waste Structures
Tyne Identifier Closed Date Start Date Deslaned Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Lagoon LAGOON 3100
Page: 2

0
Permit: AWS760010 Owner - Facility: Hubbard D Baker Facility Number: 760010
Inspection Date: 06Mt2005 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit; Routine
Diiihrarnes & Stream Imnads Yes No NA NF
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
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)
0
■ ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0
❑
❑
3, Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑
Yes
■
No
❑
NA
❑
NF
Waste Collection, Storage& Treatment
4. Is storage capacity loss than adequate?
❑
0
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e.l large trees, severe erosion,
0
M
❑
0
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑
0
0
❑
closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
0
❑
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks
❑
M
0
0
andlor wet stacks)
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
N
0
0
improvement?
Yes
No
NA
NF
Waste Anr3li[;atlpn
10. Are there any roquirod buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or improvement?
0
0
❑
❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
0
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Pending?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10lbs.?
0
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Cl
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1 Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Page: 3

Permit: AWS760010 Owner - Facility: Hubbard D Baker
Inspection Date. 06128/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 760010
Reason for Visit: Routine
WasL2 AAonlication
Crop Type 6
Yes
No
Nfi A
NE
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan[CAWMP]? ❑
❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crop andlor land application site need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure andfor operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
Cl
0
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
No
❑
NA
❑
NE
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
0
❑
❑
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?
❑
0
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
0
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
N
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
0
❑
❑
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
❑
❑
Page: 4

•
•
Permit: AWS760010 Owner • Facility: Hubbard D Baker
Inspection Date: O6t28/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 760010
Reason for Visit: Routine
Otherlssues
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 concem? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to nobly regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32, Did Rovi awe r/ I n s pector fail to discuss roviowlin s p oct i o n with on -site representative?
33. floes facility require a follow-up visit by same agency'?
Page: 5

ti, m Division of Watei Qualiti
- ..� .r ; IF
' Facility NuLmbe'r �' `'� bi�ision ofSoil u_nd Water:
y.i ; . ConscrFratittri:
44 - +Other Agency
..*.,t' y .'k.4..w .i�3�dC. ri:.. .:I.. '3..A... �•' - f'i.'ti .
Type of Visit 0Compliance
Inspection
Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation
Q Technical Assistance
Reason far Visit
yRoutine Q Complaint
Q Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency
Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit- d5 Arri-a] Time: �)eparture Time: „fount►': 1►iC�D �.P! } Hci;iun: Vy~ � V
Farm Name: ��En 1CM ^� 0-.%-ner Email:
Own er,Name. �tj- U( � .��i Phone: 9 ?- 3 -q ?.3
;hailing Address: 3113—M�2K16Y Q_ L.l� U� ���C.�! —Soio k to a-7�
Ph►•sical Address: .�_�•r! C�
Facility Contact:
Contact:
0nsitc Representai
Title: Phone No:
Integrator
Certified Operator: b ! �` Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: - - Back-up Certification Number:
Location of farm:
U!5 311 wor+� , Le ovvi-o
Swine
I.utitudc: M+
�- oro ►church
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Laver
❑ Non -La ci
❑
Wean to finish
El
Wean to feeder
it]
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
❑
Farrow to Feeder
❑
Farrow to Finish
❑
Gilts
❑
Boars
{.)(her
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑
Lavers
❑
Non -Lavers
❑
Pullcts
❑
Turkeys
❑
Turkev Poults
❑
Other
Discharge
s & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any Part of the operation"
Discharge originated at: ❑ Stntcture ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. %N'as the conveyance than -made?
n ©, �+,
Loagitudc:
? be on -to
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Ll Dairy Calf'
❑ Dairy Ifeifei
Lj Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the Statc (gallons)?
Number of Structures: ❑I
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (if yes, notify DWQ)
?. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part ofthe operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the. State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes iNo ❑ NA ❑ NE,
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ N13
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NEi
❑ Yes
No
ElNA
El NE,
12128104
Conti lied

Facility Numher: to — S Datc sit' InSpcc#ion 7,;RIMA
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate'?
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): I�
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'?
(ic/ 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 4No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
❑ Yes 'ENo
❑ Yes ANO
El NA ❑NEE
El NA ❑NIE
Structure 6
❑ NA ❑ NI?
❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 Here answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate puhlie health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? lAYes ❑ Na ❑ NA ❑ NE
S. Do any of (lie stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit' es - 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 *es�XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
Waste AVglieation
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need Ve
o ❑ NA El NE
ntai ntenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ElYes 4No ❑ NA ❑ NI;
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Ileavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN = 10%, or to Ibs ❑ 'Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
11 Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NEE
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;❑
i
Yes
5�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acrcagc for land application?
❑ Yes
No
[[[VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
1 S. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ 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): A.
i2 64.4-7— o kP
IReviewer/ln%pectur Name �� 11? nf�C. Shone: 111 —3
Reviewer/Inspector Signa
1 0/
Date:
12128104 Continued

Faciii(v Number: —I — Q Dof Inspection S
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility tail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20, 1]ucs the facility rail to have all components of'the CAWMP readily available? [f'yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists
❑ Design ❑Maps ❑ Other
21. Do s,record keeping need int 'ovement? If y/cheche appropriatebox Iol+. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ Nls'Vaste Applic• ion Wee Freeboarste Analysis Snil Analysis -�' � A� +efl -�Rainfall �J Stocking Crop Yieldinute Inspections Monthly and f" Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge'? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ NE;
1
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? 04- d(a❑ Yes'KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE;
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? �(`� ��(0 ❑ Yes XNO ❑ NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Ill ••• —r
29, Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NF
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 duality concern? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
I 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 o ❑ NA [__1 NI?
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/]nspector tail 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 XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Wditional Comments -and/or Drawings:
3/4/o S - a ( ( �-5 ti / jGoo
�t ►oc � -� moos ,
A-PC� w� MA L,) 0 U
N-eo-d zw,_,A�
A/ C�j -
12128104

nical Assistance Site Visit Repo
❑ Mon of Soil and Water Conservatioril
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number 76 - 1 Q Date: 12/17/04 Time: 1 11:30 1 Time On Farm: 60 WSRO
Farm Name Baker Farm
Mailing Address 3113 Marlboro Church Road
Onsite
Representative Hub Baker
Type Of Visit
N Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
N Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
1900
1859
County Randolph Phone
[phone]
Sophia NC 27350
Integrator IN G Purvis Farms, Inc.
Purpose Of Visit
Q Routine
Q Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
Q Response to complaint/local referral
Q Requested by producer/integrator
D Follow-up
D Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
❑ yes N no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment
❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure?
❑ yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Identifier Lagoon
Level (Inches) 31
CROP TYPES Fescue -hay
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)

rl
a
Facility Number 76 - 10 Date:
12/17/04
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
10. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
El
El
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
El 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
28• Farms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
2H.0200
ElEl15.
El
Over application < 10% or < 10 tbs.
30. re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Latelmissing waste analysis
33. Organizelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
[120. Latelmissing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfleld conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker checklcalibration
❑
❑
ReAulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
®
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
❑ Other...
43. Irrigation system designlinstallativn
El
El
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
Wettable Acre Determination
El
El4fi.
1 • Mr. Baker has installed new pressure guages on
47. Evaluate WAD certificationlrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
the gun and the reel.
Z.
49. Drainage worldevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3.
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
El
❑
5'
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
6.
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 76 - 10 Date: 12/17/04
COMMENTS:
No waste application has been done since the last DWQ inspection. The freeboard and rainfall records
ave been maintained.
# 42. The irrigation equipment needs to be calibrated within two years of receiving the new permit and
very other year thereafter.
# 57. 1 reviewed some of the new record keeping requirements on the new permit.
* Remember to begin using the new farms. (i.e. crop yield, Irr, etc.)
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 12/20/04 1 Entered By: lRocky Durham
3 03/ 10103

tsion of Water Quality
ision of Soil and Water Conservation
a Other Agency
Type of Visit a Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine Q Complaint D Follow up ❑ Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 1U Rate of Visit: 8111J20Ut Time: 13UU
o Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionall►' Certified © Registered Date last Operated or elhove'I'hrc+held:
farm ;Name: bull. c.k:am.................. .. County: KARd.Q.Iph...... ................................... W.SRO........
...........................................................................
Owner Name: H.u.hb;txd................................ flakcx.... ....................................................... Phone No:(3.30.49.8-3.9.:I.3........................................................
Mailing Address: 3.1.13.1►1�t.r.Ib.Qxu.Gf�t�.r.�h.quad....................................................... S.aph.i;t..iNC............................ ............ ...................... 2.7.35.0 .............
Facility Contact: 1.{4ilaaxd..Ii3Ife.0......................
...................... Title:
Onsiie Representative: k�uhh�txli.Aitill�t X.....................
Phone No:
Integrator: iN..G.. N.r.xits.X;jxire.,.lnt9......................
Certified Operalor:jjlubbarilj) .................... ...... Hake.r.............. ................................ .. Operator Certification Number:,1,80,6.0 .............................
Location of Farm:
Farm Location from WSRO: US HWY 311 south to Marlboro Ch. Rd. and turn right. Left onto Baker Farm Road. Go to IA,
end of drive.
®Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 49 ° 191. Longitude 79 ' S3 3tl
Design Current
Swine C'anackv Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
1900
1840
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle CaRacity Population
❑ Layer 10 I)airy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 1,900
Total SSLW 256,50Q
Number of Lagoons i F Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / S21id Trans 0
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑Yes ®No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. ]fdischarge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b, if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify D1A'Q) El 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 ❑WQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2, Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ..........L agocan..........................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 59
12/12103 Conih ied

Facility' Number: 76-10 Date of Inspection 8/1 I12004
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ® No
closure plan?
(if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify- DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level El Yes ®No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes ® No
1 i. Is there evidence of over application? IFyes, check the appropriate box below, ❑ Yes ® No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper andlor Zinc
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Fescue (Hay)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMI')? ❑ 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 Issuer
17. Does the: discharge pipe from the confinement building to (lie 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 anv dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ®No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20, At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes ® No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Comments (refer to question 4): 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 Nw otes j
7. Operator is to mow embankment this Fall.
15. Fescue crop to be cut soon.
lb. Need new pressure gauge on gun (maybe reel, too) before irrigating again.
23. Could not locate 2003 soil test resutlts but operator has received results for 2004 already (dated 3/4/04). Operator could have
laken samples end of 2003. Tlie lub ivas back-logger110-12 K,eek.t al thal !rate,
29. Operator has new/revised irrigation design from Gra-Mak. Need to update the CAWMP now.
8/04 waste analysis=2.9 lbs. N11000 gal,
Reviewer/inspector [tame Melissa Rosebrock
Re►'iewer/Inspector Signatu
Elate:
12112103 Camlttued

Facility Number: 7G-10 D*f Inspection 8111120f}4
Renuired Records & Mcnments
I
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage &. General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ® No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below, ® Yes ❑ No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ® Soil Sampling
24.
is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
27.
Did Reviewer/]nspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
NI'DES
Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NI'DES 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 NI'DES required forms need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below, ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After l" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this ►•isit. You ►n'ill receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments and/or Drawings:
12112103

.� . __ '.♦i - r �. ? '•xa- `rare. � - r� K.t. K. ir.r---: rn.
.f. � .. r� "•.: i1.3'S -,�G"C - �" .Lr[`�= .iRi: �yjT � �l, ' ro�n..y�.'';Ir �...:.r..._ �:C�r: 1. ��}`y�al.�':5".8�:
-�:'i..' `;1r�"';. t:�;t :1y.-s '�_h-, .`=••''�y•amx.'s'q.a?�y .::,,e���Fy'�`'t.. ' Y '� =..'�'' ?xx: ��_. - _ ,;n�:+s l. .�..-:.Y �.�a'h.,+.".X i nSoil1iildIWi6r.,C.r. yQa i "SR.3. ' SyV'S,
aht
A. i:r'�vraV
; �_r •-y�_r� '�::3.&•�..i -s' ,�'�S �•�^'��r;''��.5y.>: C"3� .'!c' M1yl Ja;. p�'! �-`" �•.. �;;Y�j��. ^;,%�-.�:.-.,i:.
.�
•:k�Ai. � � 4 � •' /,
(Type of Visit )QCompliance Inspection ❑ Operation Review D Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit 22 Routine Q Complaint ❑ Follow up ❑ Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date or Visit: 119 U11 o Y I Time: �--!� •
D Not Operational D Below Threshold
Permitted © Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold
Farm Name: .... ...... F_ ar.......................... _..... ........_.. county: .»L`�-' ��L.�!�..........._..._. ........_ .......
Owner Name: ... i..! !„t i...-... 1`-'..._............ ....... 'Phone No:
Mailing Address:.3.1.1.3 .......
Facility Contact: ....... Title:..,.......... Phone No
Onsite Representative: _. W�C�_{`Integrator: pk
Certified Operator: __.... _.__...: _ . _.................. ........... Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
U5 j
� nfo
311 5,o i3-Hi
� a
f YWLc I
�r�rm
o ro
• Can
•
nr, P ►
-~�vrn r i'l Le
A� d r I ve .
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®! ®` �" Longitude �•��
"=µ ' Curren Desigp - •Current r'- 'na r Desigas Current , Design :w t
}
Swine Ca' aci eti Po tilation'--'"i Pa�lItry.: r,"' Po�ulatinn' Cattle ` :'Ca aci `'Po elation' ?
n ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑Layer ❑ airy
Feeder to Finish QQ ? ❑ Non -Layer I I x ❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish ,1, '•'' :Tata1 D •Ca 3C1 "� Q
❑ Gilts : .
❑ Boars: „ Total SSLW: cS(p C]
Disebaraes & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any pan of the operation?
❑ Yes XNO
Discharge originated at: []Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance roan -made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallrnin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ 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
�l 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 b
Identifier: _Y1
Freeboard (inches):
12112103 Continued

CD
Facility Number: Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the *-ty of any of the structures observed? Del trei , 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 ❑YesNo
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify D'V4' Q)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes 10
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenan�mprovement? ❑ Yes - - �o
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes llskNo
elevation markings?
Waste Application
r
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N.
No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN [I Hydraulic Overload [:I Frozen Ground [I Copper and/or Zinc )1_1
12. Crop type -�� 4L�..i �. 44
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 Iand application? ❑ Yes No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre deten-nination? ❑ Yes No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? Yes ❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? Ayes ❑ No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below —f9-yes__jQ bIo o
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes o
19, Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes 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 o
Air Quality representative immediately.
Comments (iefes: ty qurstron #): Explain spy YF5`answers andlar: any =tcammendations or 9ny other comments.
,Use drawin of fadli to better- lain sit tioas. use addition;g es as riecessa �
_ tY P { pages rY_ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes J
Reviewer/Inspector Name `} _ _ iC] f'd[;[t-=' `=��7P . 0od
3 �•
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
�1
s . r
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: ' 7 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Document,; 9
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes X(NO
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
Yes No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. Ayes No
❑ W�to Application ❑ Ffeeboard ❑ W te'Analysis ❑ 5Qil Sampling 67[0-7
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes No
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes No
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes 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? El No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35) ❑ Yes XNo
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? ❑ Yes ❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall [:]Inspection After V Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
1© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
dditional Comments and/&:Draw
,-
rX0 oA (4
-7( al /0�
NA
t 9 [ k-,,,� -
a up,
12112103

on of Water Quality.
Q ll. on of Soil and Water Conservation
010ther Agency
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
hate of Vi+it: 121n512nn3 Time: t nna
E�arilit►�,tiumhcr 76 lU
d Not Operational Q Belo% Threshold
M Permitted M Certified © Condilioually Certified 0 Registered Date last Operated or AboveThreshold: - -- -- -- -- -- ..
Farm Name: F#AP.r.Earm............................ Count)': 13,OBAOID.fly............................... Y.YiS.I o.....
0,Aner Name: Jjmbburd---- - --- - --- RaiCt:C_-.- --- _ ---•----- ----- - Phone No: (331il4.9A6:34_7.1.-
Mailing Address: 3)t.1.3..lYA.tirl.bUr3a..��turCb.Rutts� .............................. ...'S.QPhi,A.N1C.......... ...................................... ............. 273.50 ..............
Facility Contact: "MhbA'rd l .&qr.................................'Title:............................................... Phone Not ......................................
Onsile Representative: tiubhordJlaker___-_-_-_-_-_-__.___•-.---.-•---.-_-_ Integrator:lS G_Pauyis.f ar".1ug.----------------_..
Certified Operator: JI.ubttstrj_Q,�........................ ................................................. Operator Certification Number: Ol O.............................
Location of Farm:
Farm Location from WSRO: US 11WY 311 south to Marlboro Ch. Rd. and turn right. heft onto Baker Farm Road. Go to +
end of drive.
0 Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 49 49 longitude 79 53 3fl
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponolation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
1900
1530
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 1,900
Total SSLW 256,500
Number of I-agoons JE1 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagewn Area In Spray Field Are`
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 0 ❑ No Liquid %N'aste Management System
Discharges & Stream Im2acts
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)
e. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/inin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system.' (If yes. notify [)%%'Q)
1 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 & 'I'reatmenl
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storin storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: -------Lagoon..._.__. .............
Freeboard (inches); 48
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
05103101 its/ y e,,y / Continued

Facility number: 76-10 0 Elate of Inspection I 1210.512003
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the Structures observed'' (ieTrees', 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 ❑NVQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any pan 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?
X%'aste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding, ® PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Fescue (1-lay)
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ®No
®Yes ❑No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CA WNIP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application'? []Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reauired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or tither Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. ]s 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 Rcviewerllnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Werc any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Continents [refer to question #): Explain any YF.S answers andlor any recommendations or any other comments.
i3se drat ings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
7. Continue efforts to control brush on dam.
11. Operator overapplied on the following fields: LINK (P6), F2 (P3), F3 (P2A), UNK-1 (P7) and UNK-1 (115). Operator only has two
all areas left to use until April and May 2004. Need to add the Redding field (R- l) to WUP as soon as possible. Overapplication was
caused by operator's uncertainty regarding how long the crop cycle was for fescue. Instead of using 200 lbs. PAN every twelve months,
he started over again after the Spring 2003 applications. Thus, this Fall, he overapplied.
19. Still need to complete soil sampling for 2003. Check next visit.
23. Operator was 3 inches into structural freeboard one week in march 2003. Reminded operator that he is required to call, per permit.
Reviewerllnspector Name ,meliss 4osebrock
Revietter/Inspector Signature: I Date:
05103101 1 41%.11Continued

Facilit► Number: 76-10 I)allnspection 12/05/2003
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
29. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, andlor public property)
29. 1s the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface orthe 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 rill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover`? ❑ Yes ® No
AA
05103101

pi,%, isinn;oQuality
llIvisionof Soil and Waier Ciinscriiitinn
Q ()ttier'A};ency..'''':':
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review ❑ Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine ()Complaint ❑ Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Dale i:f 1'isit: � 'imc:
Faciiii_v Number ���
Nnt (] eratiunai liclmv'1'hreshnld
Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date [.as( Operate ur Ahnye •1•hresholtl:
Farm Name:
- .fit s • 3.`,
t7vvner Name: U f E� E'hune ]tn• �
Mailing Address: , Z�� �i l �� l �i�j c,2 -735-6
Facility Contac(: _ �tr�l �L�� �� jYj[-�{��� i Phone No:
Onsite Representative: TM-i V) C� MCA [ ]Q-fto� I ntegrator: !S FCLm Jj Tiv
Certified Operator: �'t l`�-�' Operator Certification Number:
I.ocation of Farm:
31 N,ri ll A Fru-A,\ �-P b [i I It r f 'If t✓
Swlne ❑Poultry El Cattle ❑Horse l,:atitude L.J �' ®•• Lnngittttic�
' Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity' Population
❑
Wean it) Feeder
❑ La cr
I
1
10 []ai
Fecder to Finish
I 19 b
❑ Non -Laver
I
I
IEJ Non -Dairy
El
Farrow to Wean
❑ [;)thcr
❑
Farrow to ['ceder
❑
Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
d (]
❑
Gilts
❑
E3aars
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ I.a goon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
holding Ponds 1 Solid 'I•raps ®. ❑ No Lit uid Waste Mana cement Svstem
Di�Ki & Stream Iniggets
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 4 No
Discharge originated at: 0 Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. 1 P discharge is ohsmed, w'as the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
h. If discharge is observed, did it reach Walcr of the State? (Ifyes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estianated flow in gaUmin?
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:'
1L� astg collectiull &'freaimcnt
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillwav
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: t] 1
Freeboard (inches):
0510310P
❑ Yes -❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
�No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
�(No
Structure G
Cmrrrnurd

Facilit►• ,Number: „ — Q Date of inspection
Odor lssue�L
?fi. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or brio,+• Cn
liquid le. el of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
?i. Are there anv dead animals not disposed of proper[%- within 24 hours? ❑ 1"cs ( N0
28. Is there am• cvidence of mind drift during land application? f i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt. El Yes No
roads. building structure. and/or public property)
29, is the land application spray s}•stem 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 ;an blades). inoperable shutters. etc.) ❑ Yes No
1. Do the animals feed stora>>c bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes x
No
31 Do the flush tanks lack a submcreed fi[1 pipe or a permancnvtemporary co.-er? ❑ �'es INYNo
Additional Comments andlor Drawings:
I J`
/00/03
Uhp /o l 6s N�/oon qtp.
Otcf a-'q';'/kzd <�A. I
Ai�ff /0-6� . TI-i
moo N
�vk
•
'a'
0.510;lvoln—u-d
A`sAA J

Facility Number: 7 — Date of Inspection 7 �
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
El Yes
No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which arc not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
{Ilan}' of questions 4-6 was answered }'es. and the situation poses an
El )'es
�No
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance improvement?
❑ Yes
L]p No
S. Does any pan of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintcnanceiimprov'ement?
❑ Yes
KNI 0
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate. gadeed markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ ),es
XN 0
N,'aste_Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancefimprovement?
❑ Yes
ti'o
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pending X PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
yes
No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving cro differ with those esign d in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CALF MP)?
❑ Yes
No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
b) Does the faciIin' need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
c) This faciiin• is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
15. Does the receiving crap need improvement?
❑Yes
Itio
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?
ElYes
[XNo
'= 18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
Oe/ WUP, checklists. design. maps, etc.) r
❑ Yes
No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie! itrigation. freeboard, waste analysis & soiI sample reports)
❑ Yes
No
20. 1s facility not in compliance wits: any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
VNo
? 1. Did the facility fail to have a actively cenified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
22. Fail to notify regionai DkVQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit"
(W discharge. freeboard problems. over application)
ayes
❑ 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
15(No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AW-MP?
❑ Yes
;Z No
�❑ No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about tfiis visit.
Comments {refer to qu orin ' EiFlzia ally YES answers and/or. an3 or ndstious or an'v other. commits:
Use drawings of facility' to better e=plain situations. [else additional pages as neeessan): : 'r j Field Cony ❑ Final Notes .• .
YA4
-3
Rer'iewerllnspector 'Name � ; ,�: _ . ,,z:.r,; �� � - ;�;, � :��.. �;�.: .�: ti �,��� l .r, ;;ir + •.. 'r
Re, iewer/Inspeetor Signature: 4 Date:
0SIO3101 1
Continued

Technical Assistance Site Visit Report
O DiviAW of Soil and Water Conservation
M Natural Resources Conservation Service
Q Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other... 7
Facility Number 76 - 1 d Date: 10l30J03 Time: 1 9:00 Time On Farm: 60 WSRO
Farm Name Baker Farm
Mailing Address 3113 Marlboro Church Road
❑nsite
Representative Hubbard Baker
Type Of Visit
Operation Review
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated;
❑ Operating below threshold
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
County Randolph Phone: [phone]
Sophia NC 27350
Integrator IN G Purvis Farms, Inc.
Purpose Of Visit
Q Routine
p Response to DWQIDENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producerlintegrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
El Wean
to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
1900
1870
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
6• Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes IN no
and/or public health?
6• Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Lagoon
Level (Inches) 12
CROP TYPES Fescue -ha Bermuda -hay
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/ 10/03

a
Facility Number 76 - 10 Date:
10/30/03
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
[19. Waste spill contained on site
[110. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
®
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w1producer
®
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
El 13. Waste
28• Forms Need (list in comment sections
El
El
structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
[114, Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
21-11.0200
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or ¢ 10 lbs.
30. ro-certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
[118. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
[121. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removaliclosure procedures
❑
❑
37, Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23, Irrigation maintenance deficiency
E124, Deficient Sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
®
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
Q. Marker checkicalibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation designlinstallation
El
El
❑Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
®
❑
46. Wettable Acre Determination
1
47. Evaluate WAD certificationtrechecks
®
❑
4B. Crop evaluationtrecommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage workievaluation
❑
❑
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. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

E
Facility Number 76 - 10 Date: 10/30/03 I
M M ENTS:
Need to clean up spilled food at silos
Fields need to be GPS to determine newly cleared areas.
There needs to be a new wettable acre determination.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST 113. Barton Roberson
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 11/25/03 Entered By: 11jocky Durham
.•,
3 03110/03

Wn of Water Quality
0 n of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit @� Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit (D Routine ❑ Complaint Q Follow up D Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 1{] Dale id, Vkit: 913{}12t1t12 'lime: (193D
Q Not Operational Q lielow''I'hreshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered I]a[e Last Operated or Ahuve Thrcs-huld•
Farm Name: MakeC.Filt:p[I............... Count)': RMI1.dSM,......................................... W.SRQ........
e
OwnerName: Rubbard................................ Rake r.............................I............................. Phone No:(3.3.0.9,9.#'3973............................................. ...........
Mailing Address: 3.111N.1ax-lb.o n..Qxordh.Rct.d....................................................... Sop.Wa,&C....................... ...... ................................. Z73NI.............
Facilily Contact: 1W.bbtl.rd.RaliQ.r........................... ...... .ritle: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: kllabh�xsl.Aial �x........................................ .......:......................... Integrator: N..'i..f'.uxxis.kuF[t�5,.1►ac,...................................--
Certified Operator: Htii.bAgr I.1,].......................... Majkvr......... ....................................... Operator Certification Number:,L8J6tbt.............
Location of Farm:
Farm Location from WSRO. US HWY 311 south to Marlboro Ch. Rd. and turn right_ Left onto Baker Farm Road. Go to +►
end of drive. w
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • =I 491. Longitude 79 • 53 4 30-
Design Current
Swine Caoacitv Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
19(H)
1870
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Po ulation Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -L:tyer I ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 1,900
- Total SSL W 256,500
Number of Lagoons 10 Subsurface Drains Present JJEI Lagoon Area IN Spray Field Area
Ilolding Ponds 1 Solid Traps —J ❑ No Liquid Waste 1Llanagement System
Discharges R Sirean Impiscts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'! ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originatcd at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed. was the conveyance man -trade? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If'discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. It discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
Lt. Does discharge bypass a lagoon ,)•stem'? (If yeti, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway _ ❑ Yes ® No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:----......Lagoan....................... ...................... ............. ......... ........... ...................................... ......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 36 .
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 76-10 0 Dal 4 11' 1nspectin11 1 9/30/2002 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'? (iel 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 ®Nn
(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 main tenancelimprovement? ® Yes ❑ No
8. Does any pan of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelirnprovement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste-lptlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes ® No
l 1. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Fescue (Hay)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWM1')? ❑ 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
Reouired Records & Document
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & ('general Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
IN No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
Ocl WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (icl irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & Soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® Na
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
IN 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`.'
(iel 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
IN No
173 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Gontments (refer ito question ;Q llxplain airy Y1:S answers and/or any rcccmtmendations or any other comments.
Llse drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as nece_ssary): ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
7. Suggest mowing dam more often to discourage ground hog borrowing. Need to repair hole.
_
15. Some parts of field are bare. Suggest weed control. Operator is to re -seed and apply lime (per soil test recommendation).
25. Operator says that pulls are to be surveyed and Gra-Mak to revise pulls to be longer.
Waste analysis: 8/27102 = 2.6 lbs. N11000 gal.
Reviewerllnspector Name -Nieli s Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: JEJ I Date:
05103101 r a F Continued

Number: 76-11l Dat0nspec•lion 9/3(12{}02
`Facility
ilor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe f•rotn 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
Additionalommestts'an or.° ra►r in s�? .;� ; ;: �° ;y t
J
05103101

Q DIvision of Water Quality
Q Division of Soil snd Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit )6Rout'lne O Complaint Q Fallow up ❑ Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Elate of Visit:6 Time: �..�--f =-b�J
hacilih� Number r. �
t ._.._. tint Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted gCertified ❑ Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
I_1[.tl�lr Farm Count►•: r) �h
Farm Name- __--- - _
Vq'F
Or■ner Name: j Phone No. e-I�'3
_�y
1Nailinb address: [ -J 1 v{ �l i ±pro. �ilJ i`t� f1 �LC� �- }h !(]� - 1 �J i]� ! 3,, 0
Facilit} Contact: L) 11 h r + l Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: __� �7 RQ iL Integrator: N + U r U r ! arm � , T n C
Certified Operator: bn �V - Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
T��vy\ L,,� F 6: U.5 Nt,_)v 13) / L:5�1 OV) TZ) rn � 040 llkflj)6 r6 C n 0 r-ch W,�
T� m I Q C +-noo n Foy f- PA elb b rg- v�
0 Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude a I _ •• Longitude • 3 1
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
S►+ine Capacity Population
Poultr►•
Ca acit►• Population Cattle
Cs acity Po ulation
❑
Wean to Feeder
❑ Laver
❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish
t)
❑ Non -Laver
I
I
Non -Dairy
El
Farrow to Wean
❑ Other
❑
Farrow to Feeder
❑
Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
' � Q❑
❑
Gilts
Total SSLW
77 (Q S�Q
❑
Boars
Number of Lagoons F_ ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area IQ Spray Field Arca
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps 0 No Liquid 7i'aste ;Rana ement S► stem
Discharges & Siream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any pan of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Sprav 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 galimin?
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?
►i'astr Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: 10 6con
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
Z `[
❑ Yes X—No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ Na
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ Yes
No
Structure 6
'
Continued

1 0 0
Facility Number: -7 j(] Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion.
seepage. etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or 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)
T Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintcnancelimprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum Iiquid level
elevation markings?
Waste .Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovemem?
1 I . Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pending ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type R:5cLv-,, (kcw�
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those desig ted 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 w°ettable 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 Was Managementj an readily available?
(ie! WUP, whecklists. design, maps. etc.) I
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis &: soil sample reports)
20. is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems. over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AGWMP?
❑ Yes XNa
❑ Yes o
%Yes ❑ No
El Yes VkNa
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes 14No
❑ Yes KNO
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes rP No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes N'No
Yes N
❑ Yes ANo
El Yes [ <o
Ot VNO
❑ Yes ];(No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes X
No
ElYes No
❑ Yes �60
❑ Yes *VNo
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question 11): 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'): d Cony Final Notes
. FieldEl_
? 5 est Mow to� mar,? OP�eo - d;5�o�rc�
�� round hoc
AL
to
}} �~� - _ - -
Reviewer/Inspector Name G ' C a ��1JJ
1�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �Ii 1 try A Date:
05/03/01 1 Continued

Facility lumber: �
Date of lnspectin�z
!Ida Issues
?(. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at. -'or hclow
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, andlor public properr)
29. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon'.'
30. Were an}' major maintenance problems with the Ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan bIade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31, Do the animals feed staraec bins fail to have appropriate cover?
33. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permancnutemporary cover?
Add itionaI [:nmmcnts andlor 1)ra►►in-�s:
P5--
t'& t9W PLe& a-V�-
7/QQ /o
C91-
� . (r I bs. N/ 1 Doo cka-(�
0
3/�6/ba
4.
Ft�+
❑ Ycs 56 10
❑ Yes FNo
❑ )'es No
❑ �'es No
❑ Yes.ti'o
F�
05103101

ision of Water Quality
ision of Soil and Water Conservation1 a Other Agency 4
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 75 1[] Date,if ► kit: 1112fiCLUiiI Time: t}93[I
C Not Operational Q Rclo►►• Threshold
® Permitted N Certified 0 Conditionaliv Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Abo►e Threshold: ............
Farm Name: i;iAlC.et..1".31Im........................... .................... County: RmilIUIRb....................... .................. W��Q........
Owner Name: kku.ltbard................................ j),Pk:tr.............................. ............................. Phone No: Q33(j)..9��-�rI.T.�...............................
.... ....... ..............
Mailing Address: 3,1)«.i�kaalbttlCU.�IAU C�h.�[RFId................................
Facility Contact: Ru.bb;w.d..leakier............ ........................... ..... 1'itle:
S.P.pWa-N.��............................................................... V.3.5 0..............
Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Htlbb.atrd.B.alwr........................................................................ Integrator: ...................................
Certilied[lperalnr:kittbhaxtl)f?.......................... Poker................................................ ' Operator Certification Numberj$tJCrC.............................
Location of Farm:
Farm Location: US 220 N. from Asheboro to US 311 N. 5 Miles to Marlboro Ch. Rd. to left. 1 mile to Baker Farm Road on
left go to end of drive.
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 49 39 Longitude 79 ' S3 30
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
1900
1890
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Ca acity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ I7airy
❑ Non-I.ayer I I FE] Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 1,900
Total SSLW 256,500
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagimin area IN Spray Field Area
Holding fonds 1 Solid Traps [1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges 4& Stream Imp acts
L Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. ]t discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. ll'disch:nge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
e. If' discharge is observed. whal is the estimaled 17ow• in galltnin?
d. Dews 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 IN No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Wade Collection & Trcattncnt
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 b
Identifier: ..........Lagotan..........................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 50
1151113101 j Crrrrli►rued

Facility Number: 76-10 0 Date of Inspection 1112fi120if1 0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees.
seep
b. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a was
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yeti, and the situation poscs an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovenrent?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintena
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liqui
elevation markings?
Waste A Rplication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application'? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic
12. Crop type
severe erosion.
❑ Yes
® No
age, etc.)
to management or
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
ncelimprovement'?
❑ Yes
® No
d level
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
Overload
❑ Yes
® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crap need improvement" ❑ Yes ® No
15.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment'?
❑ Yes
® No
Required_Record5
& DoclImtnts
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or ether Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WLIP, 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?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® Na
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
11
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comment.% {refer to question #): Explain any YES answers andlor any recmmnrendations or any other comments.
[Ise drawings of facility t❑ better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
- 2
14. Designs by David Graham dated 1217198 and 2/15/99 were done on wettable acres. Per operator, LINK-1 Pulls 5-7 are not correct.
_
Design needs to be revised to reflect actual pulls and the creek.
19. Field LINK-1 P-7 is in irrigation design but not in C.AWMP. Needs to be added.
19. Operator was using wrong waste analysis for recordkeeping and on some calculations. He had waste analysis wlin 60 days of all
application events though. No overapplication, though.
•r
FReviewerlInspector Name Melissa Rqsebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:) hate: 01
05103101 r Continued

` Facility Number: 76-10 1 Il*' Inspection 0
thIgE ISS11Cs.
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon Fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of Iagonn 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 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
05/03/01

9 : 30 Am
Di►�isiori'of . nd Water.Coriservation =Operation Revi © ;`'s { yl '�: , "+.,+ i ' . 3; s� `';}' : # i q
-
O'Division of andsWater�Coriservatian » Compliance Tns on r.► ;.:d�.- :.�: �r, �,w 'F�=�'�•vF
•� . . Cp - a. - .. ace .`I .� ..t;'
Uivision'of Water QuaEit}+ - Compliance Inspection e . •-;• ;wF,,y t'� ,1 "y
Other Agency - Operation Reviews' �. `�• �. ;. t i .-... ` ':i�'t:
Routine Q Complaint a Follow-up of DWQ inspection ❑ Follow-up of DSWC review n Other
Facility Number
Date of inspection l 1 Z6 D
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted 0Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered 10 Not O erational Elate Last Operated:
...
Farm Name: F;'Vmn.. ...... .. ... ... County: -I— .............................................
Owner Name:
.... 1..'.0 ...... .Q.I .............••---...... Phone No:...33. ............................................................. .........
Facility Contact: ..�.u\0"Q0LrC\..........B0.3KgP­C ...Title :.............................................. ........... Phone No:..................................................
Mailing Address: I " 1Qr� 1Ublrb �hU �-� SQ�rl t 4. � L a 7 3 s o
.........................................+r........................----..........................................
`,,
Onsite Representative:....'1.�.7 x....... '!` Integrator:.... a......PU r1I t 5.......................................
Certified 0perator:....HV..WQ5L .... ).6q.y_ r ......... ............. Operator Certification Number:...... ..(4..........
Location of Farm:
Latitude 35 0 ®` S$ Longitude F_J_q_� a 6 ®64
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
capacity population Cattle
Capacity Po ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
[IDairy
Feeder to Finish
1900
1E] Non -Layer
IM Non -Dairy
'
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
+
E. Total Resign Capacity
19 0c)
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW,.
a S (p Sao
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons ❑ 5ubsurfare drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps $ ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System A'
r
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
t a. If discharge is observed, was the convevance man-made?
J� b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (Il•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, notity DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4• is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2
Identifier: 'Ai0ar7
Frcebo.Lrd (inchcti): S70
Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S
❑ Yes XNo +:
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes XNo
Structure G
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'? (ic/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99
❑ Yes No
Continued o hack

acility Number: �(a — n l0of Inspection 1 Z p
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 XNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes XNo
9. Do any stuc(ures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
)(No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovemcnt?
❑ Yes
KNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving raps differ with those d gnated in the Certified Animal Waste Manag ment 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 detcrmination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
ANo
16. is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
�No
Required Records & Documents
IT. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
*o
18, Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
Oel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) _ / %
❑ Yes
)No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie irrigation freeboard, waste analysis & soilsamplereports)
Yes
[]No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
M N
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
WNW
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
YNo
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
0No
El 10 viQlafignjs;or 4firie'rtcies iv
co.'.4�'i' wynoi1�rfurft
' '.4'''. '.'.4''.'.. 4.' .rrenc�auhvs:..............................
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers'and/or any recommendations or any othei;comments,;'w ! •ij`.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): }i :' :' �,:a�, •�t*;:' r_� =:
et of tar rej. te,'
OL_ &Lrx#�Q xv-alrn v
L utI5
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector
r Q Jy`_ { : .• M.7� � .. `�?�{ fr • � . 1a a �z�x� :7� f 7f .
�5."t r•: gat �" •.! r" h c`""r.
,tr Date: I 7A 6 n I

. Facilify Number: — 1)0f Inspection t a Prinlyd on. 7/21/2000
(Mor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge 5Uor below -E3-Fer {�-iio
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
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes KNo
roads, building structure. and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? - }'t es--B-No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted'? (i.e. broken fan belts, musing or
or broken fan bladc(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ko
3l. 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? 9 Yes--B NO
iii
�FHM
err "•
AL1
OO
J

- 0
T IF
7i►�isioa of Water Quality>' .y: � -CEI E �,4 rision of Soil and �Vater Conser4tauni .��C.�7��t ����� t: Mier Ajency - .
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
_�
Reason for Visit tine Q Complaint Q Follow up D Emergency Notification Q U l7eRed Access
Ilalt �lF G`isit: �(: G f I31Tll' �r¢ I'rinlerl (Fit.-10/26/2000
Facility Number e�J
�� Q Not 0xratieln:ll Q iielow 'I'hreshrlld
Permitted rtified Q Conditionally Certified © Registered Dale Last Operated or Abore •threshold:
1,'arm Name: ... 6 -�' !Ls ............T--.f .r Couniy:..............................
Owner Name:......... .... IC r. ar ... Phone No: -3 - � 9 .. ..�... ........
................................................................................
r I'Itic:...... honeNqr-' I 3 � ... �arilil► [ontacl; ........... ............. .?..„�!
Mailing Address: A .......
................ i.. ....aL'f
Onsite Representative:. H.u,Lkird -..`.. ..A �.r.... Inlc�rat+lr' .C►[G" ��I ��.5..... Af I►2.`?............
Certified Ope•ratt;r: 1 ' , k: F� C. r... ;r• .......rOperalor Certification Number:........
ocatinn nf' h;trrn: w2 ZU N 3 1 l vCIAJ
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Catile ❑ Horse f•atilude L� a1 '4 ci I 5 l.,onigituele =a ©` F2- 8 11
Design Current
Swine Cnnaritv Ponnfation
❑ Wean to Feeder
[j;�['eeder to Finish
❑
❑ Furrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gills
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Po ulaiion Cattle Capacity Population
❑ I..ayct. ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity c
Total SSLW
Number of I.agoons ❑ Subsurface iYrai s is Present ❑ 1-k;oon Area JE1 Spray Field Arr:a
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Uquid Waste Management System
}ischarVes & Stream Impaclti
1. Is any discharge observe[I from any part of the olzcration? ❑ Yes G2<o
Discharge originated at: ❑ I.agoon ElSpray Ficicl ❑ Other
:1. H'discharge is observed, was the Cot]vcyancc man-made:' ❑ Yes ❑ No
h. if discharge is observed. dirt it reach Water of the State'? (Ryes, notify DWQ) ❑ Ye ❑ No
c. ll'rlischarge is ohscrvctl. what is the osilmatcd flow in gal/min?
(1. 1)ocs discharge hypass a lagoon System? (11' yes, notily DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there: evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes li?No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes [y;'5o
%%'rite Co11t rtion tt 'f'reatnurnt
4. [s slnr:lgc capacity {frc�ho trd Plus sip rm sic rtft } Icss than adcyuate'? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structun; I Structure 2 Structure Structure •1 Structure 5 Structure 0
Identificr: ► ' rk,=
I'rechnartl f i ticlles
5/00 Continued rr►t pink

Facility Number: — p 1?,rte rot' luspcction -G F'riutcd son; 10/26/2000
5. Are there any irttmedi tte threats to tfegrity of any of the structures observed? (icl s, severe erosion, [-]Yes
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes RIo
(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 [ i()
$•
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require rnaintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
LTNo
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
ErFes
❑ No
waslc_Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
21�r
it.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ f:xcessive Pondinb ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
ElYes
o
12,
Crop type fie. S <<c i rE: — E6 r ,+-._ tL e {l
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CA WMP)?
❑ Yes
mac}
14.
a) Does the facility Dick adequate acreage for land application'?
❑ Yes
[Whin
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination'?
❑ Yes
&WO
c) This facility is penned for it wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
[allo
15,
Does the receiving crap need improvement?
❑ Yes
G;'No
16,
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[}. 'No
Required Records & Dortinucnts
FaiI Have Certificate Coverage & General Perin iI A � � h 600 10
Rryes
2,Tqn
17.
to of readily available?
18.
Dees (lie facility fail to have a]I components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan read iiy wraiIable?
^f
Oc/ WUP. chceklims, design, maps, etc.)
Yes
ElN
n
19.
Does record keeping need irnprovernent? (icl irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20,
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effcct at the lime of -design?
❑ Yes
0-10
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge'?
❑ Yes
2-90
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
Yes
Oel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑
Ergo
23.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with orz-site representative'?
❑ Yes
13-K
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
LlRO
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
5 •-Ko .
vialaWtis'oi- d fie ende . 4.0e n[>`tetl• diWing �his:visit: Yvir :wi#1 reeeiye
... .. ....,
corxes{�ondence. al�i>'ut. this .visit_ .
Comnterits (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any othei:comments',� :r •-;:, "'7 • a
Use, . druwings.of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary]:
._.Ivee,ds yA,,5crr ^4Ar <2rArcv.,vt c1LVAl7o.J•y �r•cj^_ ,Cow /_70 w; 6,J T
le- �j�. e.
'ver/Inspector Name r l n _yr, ,#j
-/Inspector 5ignaltirre � � -- - Date: 5loo

Facility Number: r/ — r �, lc rif hupecIio11 (• •. c: 4 Printed on: 10/26/2000
()dnr Issiles
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 stor-,sbe pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes o
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes Vot
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fans) noted'? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan hladc(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes O-1q-0
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? Rl�cs ❑ No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yeti Rlo
it ionall Mirnments an ar 15rawings.
A,
MOO

ivitiroiiiif Water Qualit► µ.
i►ision 4f Yoil'uttd Water Cons erratinn�
.. _.
0 Utftcr Agency'
of Visit a Compliance Inspection O Operation Review ❑ Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit @ Routine ❑ Complaint ❑ Follow up ❑ Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
' Facility Number 76 [{}
I)aty ul' N'itiit: 111312{]f}II Time: 1? 3{1 Printed on: 11/6/2000
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified D Conditionally Certified I] Registered pate Last Operated or Above Threshold: .............•
Farm Name: Makes..arm......................................
OwnerName: Rtsbb.ax.d................................ Baku .......... ....... ............... -.............
Facility Contact: Hubbalyd.B.t1hex......
Title:
Mailing; Address: .k13.r1uxintrxa.11tt.t�l><.I�Ralld .............................
County: RAtidulph......................................... NN,.SKo........
Phone No: Q3.6)..4q-aq.7,,1......
Phone No:
S.n..b.ia1-N[:............................................. — .... .......... 27359 .............
Onsite Representative: klutbh.alr .11atl�t x.................. ....... Integrator: N..�'r..l,',ur�'i ..k:a3xtr ,.into.....................
Certified Operator:JjFAb.lg.;lyd.ii) .......................... i3take.1........................................ ........ Operator Certification Number:.1.$.$,ft4................ .............
location of Farm:
Farm Vocation: US 220 N. from Asheboro to US 311 N. 5 iltifes to Niarlhoro Ch. Rd. to left. 1 mile to Baker Farm Road on
left go to end of drive.
® swine [3 Poultry ❑Cattle ❑ Horse latitude 3S ' 49 49 ll,ung;itude 79 • 53 ail «
Design Current
Swine Canacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
1900
1880
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to feeder
❑ Farrow to finish
❑ [lilts
❑ $oars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer JE3 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 1,9()0
Total SS1,W 256,50I1
Number of l.ag(wns ID Subsurface Drains Present ❑ I.agm,n Area IN tipsy Firid ,area
Holding, Ponds 1 Solid Traps 10 No Liquid Waste Management Sr:stem
Il2ischaruts -&- 'tr ant Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ tither
it. It' discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'? [:]Yes []No
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water ofihe State? [Ilfyes, notify DWQ) [:]Yes ❑ No
c. II discharge is tbserved, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass it lagoon system? (If yes, notify I)WQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. is there evidence of pass discharge front 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
Wasie Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:Lzgaorx........................—...............................................................................................................:.......
Freeboard (inches): 57
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
SllJfl ��`��� / _ � Curtti►treed on brick

Facilitv Number: 76-1f1 Dale nl' Inspcclion I113120FJO Printed (oil: 111612000
5. Are there any immediate threat~ to the egrity of any of the structures observed'? (iel tre'. , severe erosion. ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
b. Are there structures on -site which are net properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan'? ❑ Yes ® No
(if an❑ of questions 4.6 was answered vies, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notifv DWQ)
7. Do any ofThe structures need maintenartceliniproveittent? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Des any stuctures lack adequate. gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ® Yes ❑ No
Waste Annlicatior)
10. Are there any buffers that need maiMenancelimprovernent? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application'? ❑ E-xcessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Fescue (Hay) Small Grain Overseed
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)'I'his facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes IN No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records &_Ilncumcnts
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'?
(icl WUP. checklists. design. Wraps. etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation. freeboard. waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time (if design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge'?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge. freeboard problems. over application)
23. Did Reviewerlinspeetor 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 rioted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
Nu-yiil'lati0nsIot dehc' iertcies,were"noted durin'g,th.is:.Visit. You will receive nwfurther
corresparidenre' about this.►•isit. -
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
J. Need gauged marker with lowest pan of dam marked now that facility is permitted.
15. Bermuda grass hay needs weed control. Operator says they may go to fescue in this field. Suggest contacting SWCD to mexiify
WWI.
P.
19. Need to start keeping weekly freeboard per permit.
lJ
Reviewerllnspector Name Melissa Rosebrock j
Reviewer/[nspector Signature:` _pJji1O1 41_ ' _ Date: Z/ 76r,SIf1f1

Facility Number: 76-111 ,�f lntipecti,m 11131ZI1i111 Printed on: 11/6/2000
[}dirt 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 on or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals riot disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
2K Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yeti I® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land applic;stion 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), inoperahle 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 perniancnlltemporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
"
J
5/00

lP
Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
+Type of Visit (ToR❑ mpliance Inspection Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
�mI Reason for Vislt �autine Q Complaint 0 Follow up p Emergency Notification Q other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 'fine: ® Printed on: 7/21/2000
Facility Number
�[ �Certified
Q Not O erational Q Belo►ti•'Threshold
Permitted ❑ Conditionally Certified ❑ Reg stered I.late bast Operated or it hove 'Threshold
Farm Name: .. ........Far. County: ... 9-d .............. .......................
Owner Nseme:.H..Li�..1 ....... te-. C.4-31. ..'........................... .......... Phone No: 3 .. 4�.9. ' ....` .?�3.......................
Facility Contact: .. ..i.}. t ... .�....&['iIIe:................................................... Phone No: .................................................
Mailing Address:.....�..J....... ........�
....... F73,570....
Onsite Rvpresentative:.�.k.:4)�....... ..... ........................... ....... Integrator:......................................:.`..............AJr .'..1 � r V'1'5 c
RC
Certified Operator: .... l. ........') .............................. Operator Certification Number: ...... I...VAL.............
Location'of Farm:
Frb ►eo SOL" on 31 �hri born elh Y� q- I-tj r-►� Tu i-r
Zf�o � �,].-
&Swine ❑ Poultry []Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®' DIT' �•° Longitude • ©' 66
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
' Capacity Population
Poultry
Cavacitv Population Cattle
Capacity Population
Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish
4
❑ Non -Layer
I ❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
r
t
Gifts
Total SSL W
arp Q Q
Boars
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Prescnt ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Hoidi>ag Ponds/ Solid Traps ��� ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the uonvcyance man-made?
b. if discharge is observed. did it reaih Water o the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c:. II' discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge hypass a lagoon system? (I1-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
Q. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) Icss than adequate'? ❑ Spillway
StructurC 1 Structure 2 StrllC.tUrC 3 Structure -t Structure S
Identifier: ...... Ll.r.'!.iW.yl ...............................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 511
.5/00
❑ Yes p[J No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 'A+ No
❑ Yes itNo
❑ Yes 4 No
Structurc 6
Continued on hack

1'arility Number: iJ Date of inspection Printed on• 7/2112044
5. Are there any immediate threats no thle tegrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ 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 D%VQ)
7. Do any (if 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 Ap[olication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pending ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type bdxm t srfaL.a r-A nS h of ij H SCU e- haw_ S m &P,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in'the Certified Animal Waste Nanagement Plan (CA
14, a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
h) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment'!
Reouired Records & Doeuments
IT Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit rear ily availahle?
19. Does the facility fail to have all compunenis of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUR checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19, Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ irrigation, ;rceh„=� Ord, 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 problens, 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 Ccrtified AWMP?
PVo ►+ial;afti4tis:or- deficiencies -were noted. diWing #his;visit:. YoO will.f&e i*c oo; futtlt0 •
-...c ires�orideitce, ab* k this.vWL ........ .
❑ Yes XN0
❑ Yes KNO
ElYes No
❑ Yes Na
0Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes )4 Nd
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes o
XYcs ❑❑,,(No
❑ Yes 9.10
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes N(N❑
❑ Yes )(No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes XNo
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
i
J­L
owjed ra.rVzr lo/ �o�e5`�- �}a.r�- of ofam nncu'l&ej
ho �c k 5 pe'r m 14eA
}S. ��rm�d� ra55 r.t� n�.2�S �� Con°FroC•
64
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature.
.- — — -1
�1NO 11

Facility Number: ate ofInspection t �Q�1 Printed on: 7/21/2000
0
Odor issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge -.Wor Wow
134e&—M
blo
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? J i— cp Q
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?-- 10 Gr ` ``��
El Yes
[YNo
28.
Is there any evidence of• wind drift during land application'? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegelatYon, asphalt,
❑ Yes
jNo
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
XNO
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
CYNo
31.
Do the animals feed storage hies fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
VNQ
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? �
MOO

si ,ri'` t�ancl Cai> scr�atiiiii` OEicrativiirlti F" d "] jj `"5w-: �'� 'IINR
10 Routine 0 Cont Taint Q Follow-u of Dl'V ins ection - 0 Follow -it of DSWC review Q Other r;Facility Nuinber Ri
Date of inspection -ate— —c]c7 e
Time of Inspertimi c� 24 hr. (hh:mm)
id'ermitted [}r(:ertified [] Conditionally Certified ❑ Etegistered ot O 'erat Nional Date last Operated:
Farm IVarne: ... 0... t` r^D�i' fYl S County:.... .............. .{'�q ?�i�.Q.�... � .......................
l................... ........................................................................................
Owner Name: t•t 1.L�710[x {` CL`Cg i— Phone No: of .................
......................................................................................................... .
Facility Contact: .�t—�b�2.� �4 bC-`e-r-. Title: � �?+�'�p .!�`�....................... Phone No:............................................... •--
Mailing Address: .�� �.� ...................... "�...5.....
❑nsitc Representative:
Integrator.
Certified Operator:......I'�l„ ?� - ••. 1 �" •. Operator Certification Number:,, . $!�,b................
Location of Farm:
Longitude ®• =° =11
..q�._ y.. _,y J,•f� - a t5: �r - �;;:r.x. r.,,,; = r _ - ;u,r-- -
Ykti esign:: t • ur_rent;6 c .,: Gt:' z n ,� urrent :.i.
yy
sSli;iZ1:iCC
C i.: j. ' C Fe i �f7e:ell t (ln r otlltry jr r[1�0 Cattle
t:.
a Et a acrt _ . vlatiorE '
'7E
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
C�p p
%S5
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow In Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Layer
.z
JEJ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer
❑Nan -Dairy
;•r_,_,3,:;.. •.eye;.- .3?9i:i
��
Other
'
-:� ;�, �','. �;�• •��
.,a :,��..
i a •- :.c' 3w. r�� ,�r S:Y.-F� •...j:, q : i���idRh
..
.
: 6tal-DeSi h C:t acity, :3
�.i'I
yS-�Yi�'/...�••_��Total�
fUro
.S
=
e.r•a•�:
LAY Y�
i�#. "' �d
. �.:-L b:i;�;fi::.�:1i'L:,.,%.�J:.:f�i
`off: rS:3ElP�:S'k � MI
wa
F.
Discha es & Stream [mpacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes dN❑
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance roan -made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it rcachi Water of the Slate? (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 Ef No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts [o the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes Ly No
Waste (:ollection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? '❑ Spillway ❑ Yes 2f No
ructurc Structure 2 Structure 3 SUucture 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freehnard (incises): ..�...w ...................................................................
..r"..................,..................... ...................................
. ................ ...
5. Are [here any immediate threats to he inlegrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes �No
seepage, etc.)
3/23199 Continued on hack

r,
I ae 4y Number: -j( c cif Ins )I]
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly a ressed and/or rzIanaged through a aste nianagernenl or
Closure plan? ❑ Yes [?fNo
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. I7o any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes [dNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvemem? ❑ Yes 56 No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes eNo
11'aste Application
10. Are (here any buffers that need mainicnance/improvetent? ❑ Yes [dNo
11. is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes eNo
12. Crop type ��5 Ce� 1 `+� Q �r-�� -� ,
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 9"No
b) Dees 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 & IJocuments
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? (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?
(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. Pre anyfadditional problems noted which cause noncom plianelc of the Certified AWMP?
NO•Vi6l'ati0iis.oe. [i fickncies •'V4°eri3hbted• O ,,i-ti ,l i tbis.vlsit.. ;Y;oO YVIl1•teOi1le ii6 rut the '
.......
COrre.5var deuce: about: thi'is Asit.,
'answers
itinnal
i0 Yes [.'.'No
❑ Yes [(No
❑ Yes [dNo
❑ Yes R(No
❑ Yes 1DINo
❑ Yes E�/No
❑ Yes eNo
❑ Yes ©No
❑ Yes i No
nwr, ::._^^rsr:y.7.-_=a:.r�s�.r��r�.^+.xa�si;..�xr.�.-�e:r.:.:,.zaas,.'. �'ern+ulc:pras_X:r..�r.:.�'r�.a+±cr::,€s� a.'-�[r.•�r.�'�yar�s..��...vr. ��.:er:.,;f::s.��.^g�„mR.�,w_;_m*z�au�cr��x.
'O A-1
A.
Reviewer/lns }ector Name .H 'r�y`�'.a" R Z511*?.k x.. Mzz,
Reviewer/Inspector signature. -- — - �. Date.
3/23/99

Farility Number;�� - �� � pit or
r
Mor Issues
26. pons or lags Qn.fai1_to.discharge•ai/or-below- ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid.level-of-lagoon-or storage-pond.witfa_nn.agitation?_.
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours'? ❑ Yes EKNO
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift [luring land application' (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes U No
roluis, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes Q/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 Q'Nio
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ls� ❑ Yes 5!rNo
32. Dmthe-flt_F�-L=ks�l - i;ubintrged-Eilf-pipon-pmmmnentllcmporaty-server'?-- ❑ Yes ❑ No
Aifiona 'Comments an orl-Din s•�i
...�.. _:..„rawI?..:.c.:..,�°���'.
4
3123/99

IL
t 0 Division � 1 and W; onservation - Operation Re
Q Division r'�+I :m[l Wu `onservation - Compliance Iection
0 Division of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
0 Other Agency - Operation Review
Jo Routine Q Com luint Q Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follnw-up of DSWC revieww C)Other
Facility Number 7fi l{} Date or Inspection 6/29/99
Time of Inspection 14d5 24 hr. (hh:tnm)
0 Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered10 Not Operational I Date Lust Operated:
Farm Name: M Mkt.r..k.ar.m.......................... County: H;AtxciulRlx..... ...... ........ ........
.............. E 'SKS7........
............................................................. ..
Owner Name:El.uAA)ax:d................................ Ralit:r........................................................... Phone No: 13;.(tl..49..#-33`l.:i.;3........................................................
Facility Contact: Uubhud-Baker..............................................Title:-Onrkvr..... ........................... .................. Phone No: .1a0A9%739.7.3 .......................
]Mailing Address. .f.1 �3.i�1tir�AkttatrU.f:httxs lx.lEiaaa....................................................... S.ulal>ja.AN.;...................................................... .. �'T3�{r
Onsite Representative: tljUIp.b;ard.j3.;tljt:r...............
CertiriedOperator:Dttizb;Axd.t}.......................... U3 Xker.....................
Location of Farm -
Integrator: ry:is.1?.itxxr�s.,.lra<t .....................
Operator Certification Numhcr: j.$%} ..........
Latitude 35 ` t9& F-T8-11. Longitude 79 ` a3 2>i
Design Current
Swine Canarity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
1900
900
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑GiIts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Laver ❑ Dairy I I d
❑ n,n-Layer ❑ Non Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 1,91111
Total SSLW 256,5011
r,q
Lld
Number of Lagoons 10 Subsurface Drains Present JJEI Lagoon Area IN Spray Ficld Area
I olding Ponds 1 Solid Traps � JEI No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges At 'tr an 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-nutde?
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State'? [ [t yeti, noIify DWQ)
c. ]t discharge is observed, what is the "timated ]low in galltnin'?
d. Does dischaq c bypass a Iagoon system;' (]t 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?
Waste Collection & Treaimcut
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Identifier:
Frecboard (inches):
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure fi
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99
❑ Yes ® No
Continued orr back

I acility Ntimber: 76-111 of Insplo
r
6. Are there Structures on -site which are 0properlyat'ssed and/or managed through afte management or
closure plan?
(If any' of questions 3-6 was ansµered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
H. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/irnpro�'emcnl'?
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?
IL Is there evidence of over application'? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type Fescue (Grace) Coastal Bermuda (Flay)
fi129199
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CA4' MII)'?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
N 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'?
I{equired Records & Iktcumvnts
17. F ail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
19, Dues 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? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail lu have a actively certified operator in charge'?
22. hail to notify regional DWQ ofemerge situations as required by General Permit'?
(iel discharge, freelx)ard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector tail 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 AW,N111'?
',Ntio:vii;lations;or deficiencies'.were office! iturin*g'th' is vish.* ;Ytiu:rr'iII rcreive nti further,
correspifndence. abiluf this visit.
ACILITY IN EXCELLENT SHAPE. RECORDS Vf:RY WILL KEFYI'.
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yeti ® 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
Revier►er/Inspector Name ;W. Corey Basinger , A n ------ I _ _
AL
9V
Re►•ieµerAnspector Signature:
Date:
3/23/99

© Division and W. :onservation - Operation
0 Division Alo and Wa Conservation - Compliance
Mivision of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
0 Other Agency - Operation Review.
n
W Routine. d Complaint Q l,'t)llrr�r-up of [)1i' rnspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other i
Facility Number Ito t ❑ Date of Inspeetion
'Time of Inspection /¢ 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted Certified C3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered JE3 Not C) rerational Date Last Operated*
Farm Name:ZO
EF rrA.�►�Y COUM : 5Z"1P0 -+ V4- W` ...........
�iGc....................... 5........................................................................ .............................................................
0% ner Name: � RAf-7
Facility Contact : .............. ................... .... ............
Mailing Address: 311'� 1`'la+'lbarr Glul-1-0-• + Q
Onsite Representative-.....,� Amo �JAok�-
............................................................
Certified Operator: V-. FU 'A�� .a4,&--
Location of Farin:
I'Erune No: ••---------------------------------------.......
33c- ) 4� B ~ 3� 3
['hone tio: (,334 ) 41ig - 39+3
r�Pt! a.a�...►.. tiL......................................Z 4.35b
Integrator: -PP-4 s
.............................................................................
Operator Certification rNurnher:.... i$.g�"
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
............................................ ........ .... ........................... ......................................................................................... ...... ....................
I.atitude 3S • ®' ® f.ongitude ® • F�;37-
Design Current
Swine C:anarit.v ['onulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
NJ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gifts.
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Ca acity Population
❑ Laycr I ❑ I)airy
❑ Non-I,ayer I I j[3Non-Dairyj
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity D d
Total SSLW I zS�*Szd
�Nurnber of Lagoons—J ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray' Fieid Area
Holding Ponds! Solid Trips 0 10 No liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed front any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ;Er -No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field [:]Other
a. II'discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes g No
h. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of iltc State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes RNo
c. Vdischarge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Dees dischairgc hypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes `2!FdVo
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes NNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes FxrNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes (1!qNo
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: + /
Freeboard(inches): ................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................
5. Are there. any iinrnediate threat~ to the integrity of any of the structures observed'? (iel trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes X No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

' Facility Number: � — 1 p � �tr o1' Irrtil�,n
6. Are there Structures on -site which are not properly *ssed 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 13WQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancelintprovement'?
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 maximurn and minirnum liquid level
elevation markings?
NVaste Almlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancclimprovement?
I I. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type 49 V>C—Mio
1
❑ Yes � No
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes j No
❑ Yes ;E�No
❑ Yes U No
❑ Yes &No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CA WMP)? ❑ Yes No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes `� No
h) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes R,No
c)'1-his facility is pertded 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
TZ No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
VN❑
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available'?
(iel WU11, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
M No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
X No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at ilie lime of design?
❑ Yes
®'No
21.
Did the facility foil to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
�J No
22.
bail it) nwify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Pcrmit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Ycs
[yNo
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site rcprescritative?
❑ Yes
;D No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
RNo
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
M No
PT'N'6'i'UA'a'tK)'ns'o'r
def`iciencte «ere rtp#cil 00irig this'vis t.- Yoir *ill-eeeeiye rio ff'ueth ;
' car�res' ondence. about this i isit.:.... ..... ... .................. .
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
7
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
- .
Rer'iesverllnspector Name f [�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: ,•ll.{ 1 9 '
3/23/99

j Facility Number: � — 1 O � of ln.sp*i
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?
2T Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ElYes No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application'? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ 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? ❑ Yes 0
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan bladc(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes kNu
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover'? ❑ Yes ;ZNo
32. Do the Hush tanks Dick a submerged pill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yeti 4 No
I
I11
J
3/23/999

p,Uivision of Soil a ater Co ation - Operation Review
p Division of Soil a 'ater Con. ation - Corn plianee Inspeelde 0
Divisioit of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
Ia Other Agency - Operation Review
I* I2nuline 0 01111pialnt p I nllo►l'-up n1 DWQ triNpecuon 0 hi
Fat'ilit►' h li nl her
M Registered o Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted
Far to INanor: Hi ier.Earm.s...............
a►►' -up 4 a 1 115W(, rev It-w 0 i}Il1er I
Dail• [rf lrlsprciioll
•I inic of twipeclion © 24 hr. (hhmini)
0 Not Oper:jtlon:I Milt. Palm t?peraled:
.............. Comity: Randolph WSRO
()1►'nvr N:Inlc:IlLibbard ............................... Ba r-r........................................................... 1111onc No: 336-.49,8-397.1 ... ..... ..... ..... .....
Fncilit►' Coillul't: 11u11hard.Raker.......... ............ ........................ I'ille:Owner................................................. I hotic No: :3,36-.49.i-3!.73............. ..........
Nhilill;; ek(ldress: 31.1.3-Matr.I.hrarn..Churc:h.iU........................................................... NO.Phia..1.5IC...................................................... I........ Z7.1!io ..............
Ottsile l4epr•esent: dve: kiu.bhu..[l..13APr........................................................................ InteJPr':tlor:Mg..P..ux.vis............................................ .....................
Ceriilied0perator:Ilubb7.1.d.D..........................Baker................................................. 0per:I14trCcidtif caIiltlt Nlltlther:)88fi6.............................
l,rteatioit of Farm:
I,,ItiI[Ide ©0 ® Loll-ltil[le ®•
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Fceder to Finish
1900
13 Faff0w to can
0 Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
aycr
Non -Layer
10 Other
Total Design Capacity1,91)
Total SSLW -6,.
Nulnher of Lagoons 1 Holding Ponds
❑ S u bsur acc
D rains
11 resent ❑ LLgoon A rea M Spray Field , rem
❑ No Liquid Waste
Management
, ystcm
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovemerit? p Yes In No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes ® No
Discharue originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field f3 Other
a. II'd ischar-'e is ohscry d, W:Is the cclnvCv► Illce Inan-blade'? ❑ Yes 0 No
ll. It' discharge is observed. did it reach surl"9ce Water? (Pages, IlmiIV DWQ) I7 Yes ® No
c. il'dischar'-'e is ohscr►'cd. ►+'hat is the estimated flow in uallntin?
cl. Docs diSCII:lr c bypass a Int+on system? ( I l' y es, nul ity DWQ) ©Yes ®Nn
3. Is there evidence ot'past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ®No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoonslholding ponds) require ❑ Yes ® No
ma i ntenanceli m provement?
G. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes 0 No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes ® No
7/25/97

i
Facm —tY7 unt ter: 76-10 € ;110lnnpeel;El
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
p Yes
® No
SlnldinI- Pond.". F I 1 11 1,iu, ete.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
[]Yes
® No
S11'11clurc I till'[/celll'e structure 3 5truclure 4 Structure
titrllcture o
ldellllller:
171.ccboard I I'l I:...................................................................... ............................
10. is seepage observed from any of the structures?
p Yes
N No
11, is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
p Yes
M No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
M No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the sitaaIinn poses as
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. ❑o any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
p Yes
® No
LL':rill Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
p Yes
® No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type __ ... ...................... .............................. ............ ................................................. .................. __................ .................. .................................... ...... ..,.........
.....
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (A WMP)? El Yes ® No
17. Does the facility leave a lack of adequate acreage for ]and application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement'
19. 1s 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. I7oes record keeping need improvement?
Fnr t:rrtified or Pur'mitted Fncililie_" 0111 •
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 AWM11?
25, Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
. N'o.viol�ttions.or de-Ijuienries-were .nx)tcd.dunng this visit:. You. will .revelve no_ turther
4[iT`retipeinGtle :ilult tali l itii}:. . . . . . . . .. ....... .
p Yes ® No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
[3Yes ®No
p Yes ® No
© Yes ® No
[]Yes p No
p Yes No
p Yes p No
(Comments (refer to question 4): 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):
RRENTLY WAITING ON APPROVAL OF AG -COST SHARI- PROGRAM TO BEGIN INSTALLATION OF
IRRIGATION SYSTEM.
AGILITY IN GOOD SHAPE, OTHERWISE.
Reviewer/inspector Name IW. Corey Basinger" _.
i
Revie►+er/Inspector Signature: Date:

E i;�. I a . �.;�... � n �f Si ati5c rv~ t �m )tf�e
a i iSic) id Wat ❑ t ncy
bivision of Water Quality
I,@ Routine O Conrnlaint O F't}flow-up of l)WO itztiUcctiotr O l' allow-uu of l)SWC review O 0ther I
Dale of Inspeclion iD Z F
Facility Number D
Time of inspection E2d=24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Registered © Certified © Applied for Permit © Permitted 10 Not Opera Date Last operated:
Farm Narne: N-K L.. V A �l s Countv: �iq ru pa�P...........................ws
.......... ........................................................................................ ...............................
Owner Name:....... a ;R fl .........BA-Y-C--P—......_.............................. Phone No: ... 33 ....... `..' ...."..3... .3...............
Facility Contact: ( ( [�........�� `E Title: ' Phone Nu: ,Qqf3 3
ut i 3 1 born C rt~�Ld �,
Mailing Address: ............................................. ........................................5��?�.�!li.Ql.............^1..................................... z ����.
..G�yeS
.............................................—...........................-...Onsite Representative ....... PAe .lnter:trr:...........
Certified operator:....... �....... %3-op ... P• ........� ��.................................... C?per•ator Certification Nrrr=sber:.. �. 'S �......
.............
I..ocation of Farm:
........................... ;
....................... .. M........... ................................................................................................................ r
Latitude • 1 ®46 Longitude ®• ©6 ® 94
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
1906
1 yoo
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ID ;von -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 9 o a
Total SSLW zsz,
Number of Lagoons 1 Holding Ponds 0 ❑ Subsurface I)rains Present ❑ I.agcxrn Area ❑ Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need rrtaitttenaticelirnprovement'?
❑ Yes
�Zl No
2. Is any discharge observed From any part ofthe operation?
❑ Yes
M No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyaoCe man-made?
❑ Yes
13 No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reacts Surface Watur? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
EFNo
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does dischargC bypass a lag{ton system? flt'y(:s, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
[9No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
IR No
4• Were there any adverse impacts to the water', of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
[a No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
[R No
ma i ntenanceli mprovement'?
C. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
F?,] No
7, Did the facility fail to have a certifier) operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
ID No
7125197

Facility Number: — ( p 1
1* 0
' 8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to lie properly closed?
•
❑ Yes
9) No
•tructures La goons 11old inp. Ponds Plush Pits etc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
JE] No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft): ...................................................................................................................................,.....................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the Structures?
❑ Yes
M No
11. is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observer!?
❑ Yes
RNo
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
2 No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
N�%Io
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application:?
❑ Yes
"M No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type LJe......
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
JUNo
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
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
P No
21.
Did Reviewer/lnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
22.
Dots record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes]
No
For
Certiricd or Permitted -Facilities, Only
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause nonconipliancc of the Permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
No.violatio'ns•ar dericiencies.were noted ditrin� this:visit.-.You.will receive no furtFiei
coerespondeivice dh'ok this;yisiU:: :... . ; ... : .
» »• , .. ... E. .... »q.gts::
Comments prefer to question #}:'»Fxptlain any YI S answers's�ncflor atiy:;recotnmenda ons`or,any other cnmYnetrts: F ;£
• SsE E5?F: ,Stitt,:. .8°ti 3 k F E' i FFs E t >£
C75� drawings of facility try better e�rplaidsituatluns [USE aEIdItlSinal pages; a3 t7@CL'Ssar sd Y '3 yFF F
r.E ., asp s .3 .. .« .... , ... .,s ... ...
7/25/97
Reviewer/[ nspect or Name
Reviewerlinspector SignatureDate:

p Division ofZ�U.dity
Wate
t
® Division of
on p utner
I* Koutme 0 k ontpiaint 0 Vouo►v-up of uwV Inspection 0 rd
Facility Number
1p Registered 0 Certified 0 Applied for Permit 0 Permitted
up or u,-,,w[; review 0 t-nner
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection � 24 hr. (lihmini)
In Not (-)I)crationa Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: .Baker..F.airnns.................................................................................................. County: Randolph WSRO
Owner Name: Hubbard ............................... 1 ahff........................................................... Phone No: 9.111-.491ir.39.7a .................
Facility Contact: Hubtbard.Ralic r........................ ......Title:......
Mailing Address: 31J3..Mu rlbaro..Cburch.Rd,..........
Onsite Representative: Rubba.rdl.U:tkrx.....................................................
Certified Opera tor: Rultliardl..t)_........................llalicr ..............................
Location of Farm:
Phone No: ...................
SoPltia.NC............................................................... µ7.35i.1..............
Integrator:
() lie rator Certification Number:13SA6 .............................
Cfl. .....drib:e...............................................................................................................................................................-...........................................................�—
Latitude �■ ©` Longitude ©■ �' ®"
Swine Capacity Population Poultry
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Fee er to F inis t
El Farrow to Wean
❑ arrow to Vee er
© Farrow to Flm s t
p Gilts
❑ Boars
Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Layer
p Non -Layer
p Other
Total Dcsign Calracity1,900
Total SSLW . t,5
Number of Lagoons 1 Holding Ponds
❑ Su bsur ace
D rams
Present
❑ Lagoon. rca
10 Spray Fie
❑ No Liquid Was(c
Management
System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need inaintenance/improveinent? p Yes M No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes IN No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) p Yes N 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
3. Is there evidence of'past discharge from any part of the operation? 0 Yes ® No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? p Yes ® No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/}folding ponds) require Cl Yes ® No
nia i n tenancelini provemeitt?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ® No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes ® No
7/25/97

acr } y N umtier: 7,_10
9, Are there lagoons or storage ponds on 01which nAto be properly closed? EI Yes M No
Structures (Lat:oons,Holdina Ponds, Flush HIS, etc.)
9. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure G
Identifier:
1'rceboard (ft): ..........3.ft l r J...................................... ....................... ....................................................... ................................... ....
10. is seepage observed from any of the structures? p Yes N No
11, Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? 0 Yes M No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? Yes M 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 o['the structures lack adequate minimuin or maximum liquid level markers? ® Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? p Yes []No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ............. .......... Ecscuc.-.................... ...... Coastal.Bertmu,da.Grass................ ................................... ............
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (A WMP)? ElYes p No
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
® No
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
Yes
M No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
p Yes
® No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with nn-site representative?
p Yes
® No
22,
Does record keeping need improvement?
Yes
® No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities !L
23,
Does the facility fail to have a copy ol'the Anima! Waste Management flan readily available?
-p Yes
p No
24.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
0 Yes
p No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the permit?
p Yes
p No
t.. ❑.%,ur •lttons.or iciencLes.Nrercmote urinKt tisvisit:. on. ►fi .reecimnor urt er.;.
.-.�ci�retipeirt�lGne��bi?u�;tf�i�•�'itii�::.:.:.:.:. .- ,.•.,.,.,.,.•.,. ...-.... ...•.•.•. -�•
�U[il[nenttiT[CL'f'er to�questiurt #): I�xplain ant' 1`CS ans►+'crs andlur'.Iny 1'CCO[11EI1CIEdatl0115 (}I'all�' other'commciits''�;::'.:�';'�.
Use dr(r►viugs of facility to better cxplalrl situatiwiiiiiiions. (use a(1d111U11F1I l},yeti a5 nL'CL'SSany): °; '<' "' ;L"•�.,
4 1.3 - NItCSISWEi.was oiiisite,ttiday (+1U19197)ltoµset e e�iitioiis fi r puiitliiiig+iti<rrkcrs:.,:
# 16 No pl;iii�y�et:: SWCINEZCS[wtirkiiib tiniit .
41.
No''fpl
4 23 - 25 - _ niNieI
1'aciIity islin,exce-llent•condition.. Very -well maintained and operated.
7/25/97
"';; :.; . 7:'::..� .::';
yWx
Etevicwcrllttspcctor Name E(}rcy IIIt ittg9.
; Ar l w
Rev iewerllnspector Signature: Elate:

:�❑ DSWC Alr 1 FeeMM Operation Review
WWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
[Zouline Q Complaint 0 Follow-up of MVQ tns wction a Follow-up of PSWC, re►•ie"i 4 Other
Uatc of Inspection F
Facilio Number
rime of Inspection 3.'Da 24 hr. (Wrinn}
ITRegistered [I Certified D Applied for Permit D Permitted 113 ,Nolt t? teratiunal hate Last Operaled:........
Farm Name: .............. ..........................................� � FA-F-ma, Count►:„FktkPDLj�H ........................... Lis'k,"o .................................................................. ......
Owner Name:..........? �.���� ! aA CAR.. I'(tune ti ..(,v).44f3 ...........39� 3................................
racililr' Comtatel:..............................................................................'['itle:................................................................ Phone tio:..............•....................................
Mailing Address: ...... 3.,..4, 3 ±! !►j? .rrf�a�Tt� � I�QCN P-1a . , a4-hA � .. �:�C ..... ............................... ��..................
,,...rr.....--.......................................... ............ ... ..... .�
Onsite Representative: ...........�".3.�? . ltt(e};rafor:........�t�!�*�t-S'..........................:.......................
....
`` '' ...............
C:ertilied Uperalor:.-1---6 �R.—...... 9 ..OAVL t.�Q................................. Olwrator C'ertitiralion :Gunther:......U4,1o'...............
Location of Farm:
.... .-.... t:. '!........: �! ... .......... t 1.........r.. �.n?.!. 5.... r ' safe 4rtr � 5 . T.�-..............I......
t3a�ic�� 2�1.- f!'Nr.....a...e.uf off' ,Zdc �.
r.�.C�................. .......................... ....... ...........--- ..... ........
Latitude ,3S - =,= Longitude ®0 �' �f34.
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Cap6city Population1
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
QQ
pp
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to i--eeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ L.ILVL'r T- j::� ❑ I)airy
❑ Non -laver L 10 Non -[)airy
❑ Other
Total Desit;tt Capacity QQ
Total SS I AV 25�, Sari
Number of Lagoons 1 Holding Ponds ❑ Suh%itrface 1)rrins Present 110 1.al;awn Area 10 Sp ray Field Area
❑ do l.iiluid %Paste ytanagentent S►stcttt
General
1. Are there any buffers that need ntainten.ancelintpnn'rrncnt? ❑ Yes �'o
2. is any discharge ob;erved from any part of thu operation'? ❑ Yeti JNo
Di;char2e 01`12111aWd ,al: ❑ Lagoon [ISpr,ry Field ❑ Other
a. [I'discharge is observed, ►vas the conveyance mmn-made`:'
h. if &,charxc is observed. diof it reach Surface W atet-'` elf yeti. nosily 1)%\!Q}
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estirnawd flo►►• in w�allmin'!
d. Dies discharge bypass a lagoon ;y',teitt'? [Il y'cs, notify 1)G1'f))
3. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to [tie waters of the State other than from a discharge'?
5, Doesany part of the waste ntanagentent system (other than lagoonslholding pond;) require
IF aai IF tena n reli nt prove i lie rrt?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time ot'design7
❑ Yes li�"[Vo
❑.Yes B�No
❑ Yes 5;�tio
❑ Yes ,RNo
❑ Yes 'IR'I""o
❑ Yes E 'No
❑ Yes grl�o
Continued on hark
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge:'
7/25/97

Facility Number: —
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yeti No
5tructtores fl,at,00ns,lloldine Pc nuts, Flush Pits, etc u
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No
Stricture l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Iduttificr;
...........................................................................................................................................................................
I`reeho, rd oft): ................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes &No
11.
1s erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
Ktio
12,
Do any of the structures need ntaintenartcelimproveinent'?
❑ Yes
X`No
Of any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health (or environmental threat, notify D%VQ)
13.
DO any of the structures lack- adequaic minimum or maximum liquid level starkers?
?Ycs
❑ No
WasIc A1!1)1iyaIiou
14.
Is shere physical evidence of veer application?
❑ Yes
P�Nco
Of in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify 17WQ) r`
15.
Crop type s.UI!.......................................................................................................
...............................
16,
Do the receiving crops differ wiIli those designated in the Animal Waste Mana4gement Plan (AWNI1')?
❑ Yes
❑tic}
17.
Dues the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yeti
P Net
18.
Dees the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
WNo
19.
Is there a lack of available waste: application equipment?
❑ Yes
M-INo
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
KNo
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss re►•iewhwpection with on -site reprewntative?
❑ Yes
k] No
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
iO No
For Cvrtilied or Permitted Facilities On[
23.
Does the facility fail to have ;% copy cif the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Were any additional problems noted which cause nooncomplianco of the Certified AWM0
❑ Yeti
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noled which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes
El No
i`ro violations or deficiencies ►►•ere noted during this:visit.--Youm"ill receive nu ftirther
correspondence ahoitt this. %-isit:
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers andlor any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
e-1"ems � .P`,,S t%� AcvT
l� 0c,
7J25/97
Heviewerllnspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: