760012_INSPECTIONS_20171231

i
-- Division of Water Quality
Facility Number `% ` O ivision of Soil and Water Coo ��rvation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review
0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine
0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other [I Denied Access
Date of Visit: 03 Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
Region: A5 RQ
Farm Name:
u ► r "-�
�'f
Owner Email:
Owner Name: A., 1' n
a k,e
Phone:
'f9s = -33
5-29
A I
Lmo n I
c- 2-7
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: 6o0 2-2-tJatke A lI kcl,
00.yhe-
•�
�''v�i�
CC`037- TWO
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone No: (),
Onsite Representative:
Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Operator Certification
Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ff�]- ° Longitude:
UL_ 1,k+1 er M;tit FU l..ar� s� �L -- l�eo� N �r �d k •
sm-41 sld� — off ll.lry '
Design Current
Design Current
Design C*urrent
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
Dairy Cow
ZOO Z
❑ Wean to Feeder
JE1 Non -Layer I
1
0 Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
ElFarrow to Feeder
ElNon-Dairy
ElFarrow to Finish
El Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑Non -La ers
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Soars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other ❑ Turkey Points
❑ Other ❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
. 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? (1 f yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes XNO
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
0-Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes No
❑ NA
[3 NE
❑ Yes >(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104
Continued
r

-' Facility Number: 7(� — j • Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: • S WS� C�enc� S� �r� t45p
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
II +
Observed Freeboard (in): 2 1 70i/
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
[I NA El NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Xyes ❑.No El NA ❑ NE
,Id�/
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)X
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10.
Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes A No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11.
Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes )XNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ElApplication Outside of
Area
12.
Crop type(s) F-Mz , L&,,, . Cif A d— bM_L - j a►i�l� S i l� fq4
13.
Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ YesgNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes ❑ No NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes )�'No ❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Cl Yes VNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
CommOnts (refer to question'..#) Explain ariy•YES'answers andlor,any recommendations or any other comments �q N ;i . t• *
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations: (use.additiodal pagesas necessary) `g�
q 1=6Q6.VV i I i% �/ i ' � rz k(low
W RSfL �on (31 lC 51� jtiU ^'� M` ��Ne�l , �d tp f hJ y,� Ldv ..f ��lA 1 9^►�
�,jas p�� or al �,� � wc�� ,9 ar ,nee d 4 . � ma �i-,
'g,A,rk-r J��1S�°1���� avj J;vy,[<f�e, In G ��a11Ar'^
Reviewer/Ins r , k+i get
Phone:
Reviewer/inspector Name
p
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 03 3t 2U 1
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facilit y Number.— 1 f Inspection L73 1 1
Renuired
Records & Documents
�..(
19.
Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
)!] No
✓kNo
El NA
[3 NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
El Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement?
��I J Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
to Application �ekly Freeboard Analysi Soil Analysis
asteTransfers
--Waste
Vfall Stocking Crop Yield LvJ 120 Minute Inspections onthly and 1"
Rain Inspections 2 eather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
)<No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
*No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
J�(J No
❑ NA
❑ NE '
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
'� Ll
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
VN o
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
3 I.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
�No
El NA
El NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
4*No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Add>ttonal Comments�apolar; Drawin s
2, w b 1 sAj. rte l. f �
Y�r�;9i" e W r Z10, 5 e,�
hs� G1Iia
fl� 8h
I yr r z I t
L't),C� �c wed As SN '� ' 1m 1- j��r✓ � R
S� le�� lVD
4r l a �71
Z01 O>
sCIO— — - r�G� l ie "� �ym4f
NOTE-51l`��
�-- --y cM�r'I' 1 ea
k)2161 10- SYL-6,9, gl.85- S, / 0tAS5 - �6, 4,6 DMg5-
tag 17 l b - cbz ,,,-* 1, 4 DSr�G.
Page 3 of 3 12128,104

C[Q-55 e > 5 ► r,e - -Coy` �e
Division of Water Quality q r`ir'J
Facility Number ,Z Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral 0 Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: I� ��R,egion:
Farm Name: _ n 1tt �P i G Y 11 EMI �PX r [•� Owner Email: L) it ! en_ R I]a � iY!
Owner Name: 8 i t 1 h U IT ��t Phone: - q ! 1.3q. 3
Mailing Address: S I WCJ: P•li L)G a 1
Physical Address: y,1/13) d-- �.� lLear 1 I 1 rah • eum (1p.� N e z 31
Facility Contact:y�d u'� ri -e- Title: Pone Nbh C✓ 7
g_3�?�
Onsite Representative: �Ine Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ET ®, EN Longitude: ERe M
L e� Stile — Rr 1�.at m4r� C le-6c j)m if 4
S S)Ae— Ta be tCM Mom, b4 iird
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
I j IE]Non-Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Points
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
10 Dairy Cow
19
O'Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non-Dai
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 1,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: `IL — I d- 1 Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: LQ • S A f 106 P t.,C}nLLI e- 50.0 11 S A e
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(iel large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes D(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes %No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? P(y 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 ❑ Yes 'VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [:]Yes )�(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 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)
W 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 here a lack og properly opeWin�g �yasf� applica 'on quipm , 1 � / / ❑ Yes
h n , . � nl "_ _ _Win
I!I 0 d A. A-M
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
P_ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
P(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
or
g •� t� � NL c�� P I'� 5 `�o
ReviewerAnspector Name �' Phone: � ~ Sa
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Reviewer/inspector Signature: ate: a
J 12128104 Coqt' Ued

9
Facility Number: -j(Q — Dade of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ yes
he appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. oes record keeping need imp vementI Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
aste Ap=in'
eekl Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil A alysis Waste Transfers rtiinr ttien—
Rainfall ❑ Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections onthly and I" Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
XNA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
El Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
XYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
X
El NA
El 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
El 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
P�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
32.
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
/XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑Yes
m yj No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional , i , i _
o
-For _ `•
I
I J
' 1
• 16
CIA" V��
�• , � � �� `r �� ,, _,. � � is f �► � ' / � � �� / ' � i � ��

Type of Visit C mpliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Qtegion: o
Farm Name: ., y� LUru FnteAnD irl 5e.S Owner Email:
Owner Name: r 1 ii4 U LS O �}rq o Nm Phonebc6r. T �d 013
Mailing Address: _Tl 1(e w Q_l_ hPa" pa • 12040 a le (M a o
hh �
Physical Address: V
Facility Contact: U '� Title: Phone�No: I c, �g �,41
Onsite Representative: -K10 Integrator:
Certified Operator: -k� Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: O '— 3h ' tP ' .1 Sack -up Certification Number:
`
Location of Farm: - Latitude: �� EKE] 1�6"
Longitude: etude: ®o ®, a�)"
L our9 e. S lde -- - Koo �,pox\ D ' -►r � (lard Kj00 `
5 �1 Sides — To b� lC,!)op,rn, -I)ljIru f I"rd
"J1
Wean to Finish
j_j
Wean to Feeder
La
❑ c
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Dr
Farrow to Feeder
❑ La
Farrow to Finish
❑ Nc
Gilts
Pu
Boars
Other
Other
Poults
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood (
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA [I NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
other than from a discharge`?
12128104 Continued

r'j
Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
NJ
rr,,,,Identifier: t. C...0 mre 1 f
�' pillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 1 D2
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of afVthe structures observed? ❑ Yes ( No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes o []NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan? l
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes tXNo ❑ 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? A
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ElFrozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10%, or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yeso
El NA
El NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
El YesNo
I'N
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yeso
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
ea .c'! 1.t�Ittfit ` aj�
Comments (refer to question #) <Explatn any YERanswers$yyand/orlany�recom.mendattons:or. anylother comments �t sr b
Use drawings of facility to°better'explain situations.=(use additional pages; as necessary)�lxi'°.
Reviewer/InspectorName jQ, ' 'i 7r'I=' Phone:
.
ReviewerlInspector Signature. Date: Ica
12128104 t bntinued

Facility Number: — JA bate of Inspection 0
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑Yes No El NA El 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. ❑ WVP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement?AF:AfA-b Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application We oard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis aste Transfers Annual G614ifintitimi
PP Y Y *eather
61 ainfall Stockin Crop Yield Monthly and I" Rain Inspections Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes # No [I NA ElNE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ElYes ElNo *A El NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? El Yes XNo ❑"```"NA ❑ NE
25, Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ElYes ❑ No X NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ElNE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ElYes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes 1KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes X
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes P(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a
12128104

0

Division of Water Quah
Facility Number �p O'DEvision of Soil and Water-Canservatian
- -- — -- . Q Other Agency
Type of Visit 9Q Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit I Routine 0 Complaint 0 Fallow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Timer Departure Time: County: kh Region:
Farm Name:
Owner Email:
Aid >pman �4�ry 3 Owner Name: r Phone: 9
Mailing Address: oZ 7JL7
Physical Address: _ 60 ol,- W A I Lp y- (; PA - awn ._un a '7 (7 -- l-f�
Facility contact: `' n ej !p U--84
ty K Q}� Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Q i-�V I Integrator: 7
Certified Operator: w CLA4 yve t3_t-1.P Operator Certification Number: a a
Back-up Operator: Y1t t V.? Back-up Certification Number:
'W 1�rY10. �Lco�rnc�n
Location of Farm: Latitude: []gto ®' ® Longitude: ®o m i m to
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population: Wet Poultry. Capacity: Population Cattle
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars i
Other
❑ Other
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
Clurkey Poults
❑ Other
Design.` Current'.
Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cowl
I
Number of'Structures:. E..
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
0No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
�4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or otp ential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge? tv
/ /
Page I of 3 /� � �O! ////J WO/ iN 12128104
Continued
O
TT 1 'P

Facility Number:'? — .Date of Inspection '"`�"�t'�� •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? 15dyes ❑ 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.
[3WUP El Checklists [I Design ❑Maps El Other ,.,.,
21. Does r cord keeping need improvement? El Yes l_�#'No El NA El NE
Waste Application L�! Weekly Freeboard, L� Waste Analysis Soil Analysis Ly'Waste Transfers
Lf Rainfall 12 Stocking M1 rop Yield N420 Minute Inspections M4onthly and I" Rain Inspections L'i l eather 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 application equipment as required by the permit? we t n El Yes
94
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ 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 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
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ No
ANA
❑ NE
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ No
'XNA
❑ NE
�(
El NA
❑NE
�No
IN(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
A
No ❑ NA ElNE
9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
? No ❑ NA ❑ NE
KI
o ElNA ElNE
)kNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 1KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
.,A�&nal Comments and/or Drawings:
f e 1 I TI I M �v �
010
r 1 •
' i, V1 i • / •
I
yield �
d iri 1 LIMcciplklll�
3 of 3
12128104

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: L4-:SJP_tL 5P /,nrrre�e t, Sma[l_'Sde P
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? KYcs ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 'Co ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No
maintenance or improvement? 1�
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes �No
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes A No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs []Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soi
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) ,t& h I Y N? A,O , /' .184 A Jl
13. Soil type(s)
El NA ❑NE
❑NA El NE
El NA ❑NE
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes No
ElNA
ElNE
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 oper a er the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
�- hov>l et,�l®n ?
❑ Yes
(`� No
❑ NA
El NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land applicatio ?
El Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other, comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): .
ru to -()PC ?
Smo-0 side
- � es�-a�. q n �es bi�l s heC� ov1 dWM.
ws P
a t - D
mss esa_ 15 o In darn 1
Reviewer/Inspector Name I
r _— - - - - — Phone:
10
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: L<9d
128104
P UAllr�'""�-''.!'""� rb��_ AL_&,r- 92`�nued
.�; t

a
ryl
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit VRoutine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: © County: r r�io �II RegioJn: 1 ISKO
Farm Name: - Owner Email: (e—) 3 IS1
�r
Owner Name: A&m u Q 0o Phone: r 1 h �,=,-
Mailing Address: ? i*0-a I_Kle-400:77-m i__11 2RAnXPem 07 311
Physical Address: tIl b a eX atn ll'� C- '� �] 3 _
Facility Contact: ATitle: Phone No: -qqS— 13� 3
OnsiteRepresentative: 1.Ane, uU _ �trt to V�7G�.�► h� JeJ f'a w7"�y`-f 6
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Operator Certification N
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ® Longitude: U-T ° ®
US 14i.-O y 3 ! 1 566t� , L o-ark �o L_A l y,ee- Witt
f,"S'
aDeSn�+ L�C tFi'�� �]�lll CL1rCent ( 's�[ 3 DeSlgn CUrrent
S me' Capacity PgpuE lation Wet Po`iiltry Capa `sty Populat�on3Cae_ Capacity ;Popula an
El Wean to Finish ❑ Layer Dai Cow a
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Non -La et El Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish �.s j, s; F ❑ DairyHeifer 50
❑ Farrow to Wean G ❑ D Cow
', Di• Poultr a
❑ Farrow to Feeder ' y' °ems' ` y i ❑ Non-DaiEZ
❑ Farrow to Finish + ❑ Layers #� El Beef Stocker
❑ Cilts ,::' ❑ Non -Layers
;, ❑ Pullets ❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars t ❑ Beef Brood Co
t ❑ Turkeys
herTurkeyPoults
❑ Other r ❑Other I!' Numh.er of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑Yes
)(No
AA
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made`?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
' .c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? ([fyes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
�No
0-NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
Yes
❑ No
1
❑ NA ❑`NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

es C)
I.FacilkyNumber:_7 Date of Inspection 9AP6
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes )6 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
S?ide.
cture I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
tiI- 0S d tv
Sj;XI
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? Yes El No ❑ NA El NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA El NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? VYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) i
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste_ Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes NfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) V��,C&,uo kam= P^rL 6 dwnln�
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes ElNA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ElYes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes O(No ❑ NA [--].NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes %No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
U,v,drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
y�. An►� a.P�lica,` on5 J Irr`gabon, NoivE . Atl �On�Wc� ono
IsC1��r p� m of rn u r2 r u n- &T S o n
D Coo 1 ���e . M 0JJ re. SS a , S � je5f fe- +R
Reviewerli n s pectokNa me
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
CC) un Mewl 4c� es
rSl box vi5o
Phone:
Date:
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: *ate of Inspection ` b 4&)S 3 mdn
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 0;N El NA El NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check El Yes L1dNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists El Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Do record keeping need i provement? lf�as; else ria ❑ Yes 5No ❑ NA El NE
Waste A liZocking
Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis soil Analysis Lllewaste Transfers 2Annu Certification
pp Y Y ,,,__,, Y
Vainfall Crop Yield 19<Onthly and 1" Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes neNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
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? ;L C67? ❑ Yes
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ 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 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 �y same agency?
JA_Vit'tlonal Comments and/or Drawings:' j_a 6 ) 14flIj �; (o 0,6V Pje- t0 W U Vo
❑ Yes
,Yes
Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ No
[2 No
❑ No
XNO
❑ No
❑ Y �No
Yes ❑ No
CZNA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
�A ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
El NA [I NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
[I NA ❑NE
El NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
k65
1` Vj 'ts �di na to s-I L+,e aooNSrnaf side ws P o MO we,� �a�-- a�ou� � a-�$ �►
2 �, r b rood e_oL)U�S o Q 1 r� - Se ei 1� Pei' Mane i
P
�rass C���e�o main50
�8c6e_ rn 1 x? - m O w I h.
+ must re- s ep-d w f Fe Scv
` a
M.&I SPrajj Oor+� Sj e_
l aW 7®

_NR
Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection 04 operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistan.%H 0 4 2007
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Accesston.-IAem -
Date of Visit: Z^�� Arrival Time: :,30 Departure Time: County: Aka :_ Region:
Farm Name: b►1 ..,_� _._ s Owner Email: �at�.�_�.._......__w_.._..�,_..._..._._.__.___.__.___...__...r,__......_..._.�..�._.�.._._._w..
Owner Name: � _ .� -- - -- Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �t�? IC r ._. Title: _ _ _ .� _ Phone No:.�t?{'�i.,$__7. — 0Ya
r
Onsite Representative: -� _ _.._.�._ Integrator: _._..__.....____._.�....—_.._..__.._....----
U
Certified Operator: _ —..� w_. Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
RD." *Uy
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: AT ° 50 $ ©16 Longitude:
?.ZD y,f}Ki; l.0 G s Cllti'. Ri6HT 01j o B+wSao #AI- � fr owfo
oN 44er
f
�, �,*v ' S Design � Curreni �; �Desig>s� Current Design ` A Cur'reat
, F l 4
r5►vinef ; `� Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capaci Population Cattle Population
Capacity`
. ❑ Wean to Finish
0 Laver
❑ Wean to Feeder
:; ❑ Non -La et
Feeder to Finish
'c ❑ Farrow to Wean
k
Dry Poultry
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
'
A ❑ Gilts
f; [] Boars
ri1{
t
sl=lter•'Sr'�'�5
t
❑ Other
r �
lNumber of StructuresFT
�.'�°,rcv1y.�.�Y a --y .S .. �. ... .. _.,... �i`.. _.- .Y, r.. rf•.:.41 �xM �..ti
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turks s
❑ Turke Pouets
❑ Other
❑ Dairy Cow
ODr�
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ D Cow
ja
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes DQ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the. conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
. ❑ NA
❑ NE
b..Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2, Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
�} No
❑ NA
❑ NE
--�-3 WWer"hm any-adverse-impacts-or-potei� ai-adverse-impacts-w-the-Waters-�ofthu-State—
—
N A—B IB—"
other than from a discharge?
12128/04 Continued

0 Facility Number: — y Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ,M No
❑ Yes ❑ No
El NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: Ga1J�G� 1 Arto fdV,k[
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
p N �
Observed Freeboard (in): Si& /40
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
JM No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
q] 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 environmentat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Eyes
CoN
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
JQ 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
IR No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffets, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
U No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenancelimprovement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
X No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Fonding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑. Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ FAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drill ❑ 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
01 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
A.No'
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determinations❑ Yes
No
J4 NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating -0aste application equipment? 3 / ��
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
El NE
p "LA:Us Ot Rex uklooz Luc 7o 6&T-Xi .. 64m pi p& M�S1�gOs.
Reviewer/Inspector—] ene•
"I
. Reviewer/Inapector'Sigfi'iWre....,.. ... Date:.
1212"4 Confinued

. Facility Number: -- ate of Inspection
i
Required Records & Documents
19.• Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & permit readily available? ❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20: Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check 5� Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ �Wp ❑ Checklists 0 Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 10 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute'Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facilityfail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 21 No ❑ NA . ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No M NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Up NA •
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
PP 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
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
[j Yes
X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
Z 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
IM No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
0 No"
.❑ NA
❑ NE
��-� �s� �����s - c� ������ • u� ����_ Noy SE1� g� r�
12/2"4

Facility Number: Date of Inspection 0
-
Technical Assistance
Neede
Provided
34. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
4
❑
35. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
36. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
37. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
38. Missing Components (list in comments)-
❑
❑
39. 2H.0200 re -certification
0�
❑
40. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
41. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
42. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
43, Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
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/calibration
❑
❑
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
t❑
�.I'bIRj9'I��f�
❑
56. Evaluate WAD certificationtrechecks
❑
❑
57, Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
58, Drainage work/cvaluation
❑
❑
59. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
[
❑
60. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
61. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
62. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
®`
P. PW ❑
63. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
64. Waste operator education
❑ w
❑
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.
2. 5.
AIEW ,E46,401,60 S

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 760012 Facility Status: Active Permit: NCA3Z6012 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compligrice Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Rando nh Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 05/23/2006 Entry Time:09A5 AM Exit Time: 12:50 Pam! Incident #:
Faun Name: Buttke-DainLEntemrises - _ Owner Email:
Owner: Arlin Buttke Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 5796 WalkeLoll Rd Randleman Nt _273177319
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: latitude: N'50'36" Longitude: 79°50'36"
From GSO, south on Hwy. 220 to Level Cross exit. Right onto Branson Mill Rd. Continue to Walker Mill Rd. and take left onto Walker
Mill Rd. Farm office is on the left.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Wayne L Buttke
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 22101
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Wayne Buttke Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Wayne Buttke Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melj�ga Ropebrock n } Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Date:�a is
Inspection Summary:
15. Several fields have copper levels >3000. Contact SWCDlNRCS.
16. Facility is only applying waste by honey wagon.
21, 17 fields have Cu indices >3000. Resample within 30 days. Send copy of result to DWQ. Contact SWCD/NRCS. Change foot
bath?
21. Need Fall 2005 small grain records to review PAN applied and compare with PAN deducted from Spring 2006 corn crop.
21. Must keep records on site. Operator to send Fall 2005 records to DWQ Win week (Received. mmr)
24. 2005 and 2006 calibration ok.
27, PLAT to be completed this Summer.
Small side dairy is no longer leased to David Faulk (Kings Mill). He has moved to Meredell Farm (owned by Arlin Buttke).
Page: 1

Permit: NCA376012
Inspection Date: 05l2312006
Regulated Operations
Owner - Facility: Arlin Buttke
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 760012
Reason for Visit: Routine
Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
O Cattle -Milk Cow 1,200 1,030
Total Design Capacity: 1,200
Total SSLW: 1,680,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
aste Pond
CONCRETE WSP
96.00
aste Pond
MAIN SIDE-LG. WSP
84.00
Waste Pond
MAIN SIDE -SMALL WSP
Waste Pond
SMALL SIDE
22.00
Page: 2

Permit: NCA376012 owner -Facility: Arlin Buttke Facility Number:760012
Inspection Date: 05/23/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Vlalt: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts. Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? 1101111
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)
❑ ■ Cl ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
00011
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■ ❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
moo
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
0011
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■ ❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■ ❑
Cl
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

Permit: NCA376012 Owner- Facility: Arlin Buttke
Facility Number: 760012
Inspection Date: 05/23/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Ap lication
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 Ibs,?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Cover
Crop Type 3 Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
1S. 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?
❑
0
■
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
■
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Page: 4

0 •
Permit: NCA376012 Owner - Facility: Arlin Buttke
Facility Number:
7600i 2
Inspection Date:. 05/23/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yea No
NA NE
Checklists?
■
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
■ Cl
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
■
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after> 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDFS 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 (NPDFS 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 and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: NCA376012 Owner - Facility: Arlin Buttke
Facility Number: 760012
Inspection Date: 05/23/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Otherlssues
Yes
No NA
NE
31, Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
k
❑
■ ❑
❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
■ ❑
❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Page: 6

Division of Water Quality -
Facility. Number 8I.Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit mpiiance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access'
Date of Visit: rrival Time: Departure Time: � a d County: Q A
Region: S P' 0
Farm Name:
8 - I wner Email: C 11 D
ArlI I Owner Name: _ l V1 R, V'�"i�e �l O Q� Phone: I il" l i ti []
Mailing Address: 5 1 l�1 P m an NCB -7 3 7
Phy�a d %s: D a g 1n]c�11der f i l �.ndlernrar u� NCB a -7 3 1 rT
Facility Comfact:". /.r j n oQ:ig yne, Title:
Onsite Representative: l' V
_11 Certified Operator: V Tit✓
Back-up Operator:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: ';� a 101
Back-up Certification Number:
r-1 o r-1 d r-1 a r-1 n r-1 f r—= u
Location or r arm: Latitude: LJ LJ " Longitu e: LJ L i LJ
311 b o r1 w 0.1 ex- M I
Design Current Design Current . Design;:
awme Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity P
❑ La er 3
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ TurkeX Poults
❑ Other
Trent
Nation
CZ
Dairy Cow
Dai Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes t Io ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�<No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — ri-- 0 Date of Inspection api�*
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 ��Syytructure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
)2� Identifier: O f —
�J
/ Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
❑ Yes $%No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA El NE
Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? } � ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) / $
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ?kNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application _,(
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ElYes LJJTIo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? J
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 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) 01� ( COO ye'r
�$
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
1ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
❑ No
9 NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
IXNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages'as necessary):
ri�aon des'l3 n ehoun�ed
v)a�
kW 4.4� l 000
Reviewer/Inspector Na ser b Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signat e: Date: Jr a1
Page 2 of 3 1" k j 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — I Ote of Inspection •
Required Records & Documents YNo
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ElYes ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all compone is of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check Yes El No El NA El NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
odor{ YMbr j&jI ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
21. Does record keeping need im ovement?%yes
Ly W Ste Appllcatio Week y Freeboard �KWa"s't_e­A'_n'_a'_1y1`S­is Soil Analysis Waste Transfers Annual Certification
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield [ [onthly and I " Rain Inspections M<eather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
ElYeso
tN
KNA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? 2601
❑ Yes
No
9No
❑ NA
ElNE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
LTA
❑ 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
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
[INA
❑ 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? tsld3e
❑ Yes
L1Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
�(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
Cl Yes
�dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
LNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Add' 'onal Comments and/or Drawings:
a ass Ca l i
b raQ4-i o r� ^? t�- oZ o o (p c�--
a Co P P4Zr ? L ham. C 3 C OO R�5 l- ASP
o t c+ gym
9�tvgx-sioe)
PLAT ? Swc j ,� foof-'C
eeds on damap wsP-N� 12
d ti+cA x o In t-rr'orrt of IM aA h [a. Ws P ?
4V"0,5 Aww P
6tj" to� MN
�4
4
x
Page 3 of 31 � 12/28/04
l � iJ o

r 1
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soll and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 760012 Facility Status: Active Permit: NCA376012 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: romoliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Flouting County: Randolph Region: Aiastgn-Salem
Date of Visit: 07/21/2005 Entry Time: 09:05 AM Exit Time: 12:30 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Buttke Dairy Entemrises Owner Email:
Owner: Arlin Buttke
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: O a w0. tX C
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Phone: [phone]
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35'50'36" Longitude: 79°50'36"
From GSO, south on Hwy. 220 to Level Cross exit. Right onto Branson Mill Rd. Continue to Walker Mill Rd. and take left onto
Walker Mill Rd. Farm office is on the left.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts 0 Waste Collection & Treatment ® Waste Application
0 Records and Documents ® Other Issues
Certified Operator: Wayne L Buttke
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 22101
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Arlin Buttke Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Arlin Buttke Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melissa M Rosebrock Phone; 336-771-4600
Ext.383
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Page: 1

Permit: NCA376012 Owner -Facility: Arlin 6uttke Facility Number: 760012
Inspection Date: 07/21/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
3. and 9. Two waste management issues need to be addressed immediately. First, waste and sand mix from the west end of the
concrete WSP is entering a surface water drain near the WSP. Waste from the cattle lot is also entering the same surface water
drain. Must scrape more often, construct berm, etc. to exclude uppermitted waste from discharging at the far end of the freshwater
surface drain.
5. No immediate threat today, but blue painted lines indicate that the water level of the new Randleman Lake will abut to the dam of the
small side WSP. Referred to Raleigh.
7. Need diversion ditch on front side of Main Side-Lg. WSP to keep rainwater out of WSP. Need to spray broadleaf weeds on the
embankment of this WSP to encourage growth of grass this Fall.
15. Soil copper levels are very high in several fields (about 2000). Need to monitor.
16. Will need to have irrigation design and WUP revised due to loss of fields to Randleman Dam project (i.e. Field-5 Hydrant-1 and
Field-3 Hydrant-5).
21. Need to keep crop yields by tract at minimum.
24. Don't forget to calibrate all waste application equipment in 2005.
27. PLAT still needs to be completed. May want to wait until dam project is more certain.
28. Waste from closure of Main Side -Small WSP was applied to at least one field on HWY 331 that was not contained in the WUP.
Also need a closure plan for this WSP immediately.
Page: 2

Permit: NCA376012 Owner -Facility: Arlin 8uttke Facility Number: 760012
Inspection Date: 07/21/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
© Cattle -Milk Cow 1,200 1,196
Total Design Capacity: 1,200
Total SSLW: 1,680,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Deslaned Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Waste Pond
CONCRETE WSP
118.00
Waste Pond
MAIN SIDE-LG. WSP
96.00
Waste Pond
MAIN SIDE -SMALL WSP
164.00
Waste Pond
SMALL SIDE
18.00
Page: 3

.! •
Permit: NCA376012 Owner- Facility: Arlin Buttke Facility Number: 750012
Inspection Date: 07/21/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes- No- NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ M ❑ ❑
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. 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?
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Yec No NA NF
Waste_ Collection_ Storage P. Treatment
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, Is waste level into structural froeboard?
❑
5. Are there any Immediate threats to the Integrity of any of the structures observed (Led large trees, severe erosion,
❑ M ❑ ❑
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑ ❑ ❑
closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or Improvement?
❑ ❑ ❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks
❑ ❑ ❑
and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑ ❑ ❑
improvement?
Yes No NA NE
Waste Annlir_atinn
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or improvement?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
11. is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Pending?
Cl
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu. Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 Ibs,?
❑
Total P2057
❑
Failure to Incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 2
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 3
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Page: 4

Penult: NCA376012 Owner -Facility. Arlin Buttke Facility Number: 760012
Inspection Date: 07/21/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Ag lino ntinn YRs No NA NF-
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the recelving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
17, Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Retards and Documents
19. Did the facility fall to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Checklists?
Design?
Maps?
Other?
21, Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
120 Minute inspections?
Weather code?
Weekly Freeboard?
Transfers?
Rainfall?
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
Waste Analysis?
Annual soil analysis?
Crop yields?
Stocking?
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator In charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑
❑
SOO
❑
❑ ■ ❑
❑
■ ❑ ❑
❑
❑ ■ O
❑
■ ❑ ❑
00130
Page: 5

0 •
1
Permit: NCA376012 Owner -Facility: Arlin 6uttke
Inspection Date: 07/21/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number. 760012
Reason for Vlslt: Routine
Otherlssues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those mortality
rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the Inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewertinspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 6

Ue_+ -e,A,­ +- 0-oP v -to W It n
L
Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
for V,isit' y ' Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ElDenied Access
Date of Visit: I I L Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: RlDddph Region: @L 0
1- o
Farm Name: ❑� 1t e— be %r`I Eyiy x {fir 1 �5 Owner Email:
t—� (��p
Owner Name: A r- 61 114 �� Phone: S ! (3 9� 0 1— — 7�0
MailingAddress:P � b�-a Gl �, 1,l1 P_0GA fW�Y1 ��ri}0,1� , N3
Physical
0
Facility Contact: Arlo 0 r Y J Q-L4 11 Pi Title:
Onsite Representative:' l P_ UA+S 1� ,P__
Certified Operator:
Phone No1n�
: 3(0
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
zaIN
Location of Farm: Q Latitude: ®®L64-0 Longitude: ®° �
op ma n
�\\V\Ae "hn,l 1.1 — ba v A Igo u l I< C(- J )
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
h❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
D iry Cow
I
El Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than frorp a discharge? -
wv�.
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes 10 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: - — Dag Inspection 1 a�� 0 •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes X.
❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. D�orecord keeping neeVWee
ovement? if yes, c;heck'he appropriate box low. Yes ❑,,_Noo ❑ NA ❑ NE
aste Applieat' n y Freeboard L4J'Waste Analysis Soil Analysis Waste Transfers P Annu cation
,'Rainfall Stocking d M onthly and 1" Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install a r rain gauge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No &NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit'?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
N(NA
❑ NE
❑l Yes
>rNo
ElNA
ElNE
)(Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal'?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ic/ 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 jNo []NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes liNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA El NE
El Yes jjNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional.Comments and/or Drawings:
ti\+ l f � •tom v i+ l; � / i
� V
I ► �' �� ,,
i
i-7me.
�9- 4 ou I� Lk)a i-e4r
V_
0
06 TO �q V) A� V1. 1v S U If' �ca�C�. p� v`Q IV) . � r4. k V1 301

t,
Facility Number: — ! Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: (i l YN — al V\- sm Commk m41150.
. 1Q Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of an the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) X
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ElYes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? (Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit'? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? !!lWO
����`
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ElHydraulic Overload ElFrozen Ground [IHeavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes Xo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination;❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Commets (r�eferto'auestiona#) i I�,xplatn attyYESyanswers and/or,any recomrnendatlons or any other comments.
Use 11
dra .logs of facility�to�better explarn situations (use addrttonul�pages as necessary};
d",i4lll
I WIJ (_kp LA-)
?= r._E�nn a�r 0- f
R /Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur�&-'��Ll
`4 eali buai-e �o-v- a
Phone: . -D .
Date: 7 d ~ 5
7 I2/28fQ4, , r, V ued J ,
5 ti�A" "-4_-PF T'.
r_-A, " -

Zechnical Assistance Site Visit
Dlwon of Soil and Water ConservatioM
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number 76 - 12 Date: 12/14/04 Time: 11:30 Time On Farm: 90 WSRO
Farm Name Buttke Dairy Enterprises County Randolph Phone:
Mailing Address 6022 Walker Mill Road
336-495-1393
27317
Onsite
Representative Wayne Buttke Integrator
Type Of Visit
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Randleman NC
Purpose Of Visit
OQ Routine
O Response to DWQIDENR referral
O Response to DSWCISWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Layer
Dairy ® Dairy 1200 1180
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERALQUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands?
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
-�Igl
(C—)
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Main -Large Main -Small Concrete Small side
Level (inches) 1 22 24 40 F 26
CROP TYPES lCorn, Silage Ismail grain cover
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
1 03/10/03
Randleman NC
Purpose Of Visit
OQ Routine
O Response to DWQIDENR referral
O Response to DSWCISWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Layer
Dairy ® Dairy 1200 1180
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERALQUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands?
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
-�Igl
(C—)
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Main -Large Main -Small Concrete Small side
Level (inches) 1 22 24 40 F 26
CROP TYPES lCorn, Silage Ismail grain cover
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
1 03/10/03
Dairy ® Dairy 1200 1180
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERALQUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands?
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
-�Igl
(C—)
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
❑ yes ® no
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Main -Large Main -Small Concrete Small side
Level (inches) 1 22 24 40 F 26
CROP TYPES lCorn, Silage Ismail grain cover
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
1 03/10/03

r�
■
Facility Number 76 - 12 Date:
12/14/04 '
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
El
10. Level in structural freeboard
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
El❑
12. Waste structure integrity compromised
[113. Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30.21-1.0200 re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33.Organ izelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
[119. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Reaulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
®
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
❑ Other...
43. Irrigation system design/installation
❑
El
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
11. MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
47. Evaluate WAD certificationtrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
2
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Suffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
5'
56.Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 76 - 72 Date: 12I14/04
COMMENTS:
Mr. Buttke has not completed the Fall waste application records. Waste is still being applied to Rye.
Records have not changed since the Spring, except the Freeboard and rainfall.
* Remember, no more than 30 lbs. of N can be applied to a planned cover crop and that must be
deducted from the following crop (i.e. corn silage).
# 42. Mr. Buttke has had the wetted acres calculated for the irrigation fields, along with the operating
parameters from the irrigation design. The irrigation equipment still needs to be calibrated.
The contract applicator has documentation of the slurry tank calibration.
# 55. 1 reviewed some of the requirements of the NPDES permit with Mr. Buttke.
* Remember to send in the annual certification by March 1, 2005.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 12/16/04
Entered By: lRocky Durham
03/10/03

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Facility Number 76 12 Date of Visit: 91Z/2i)04 Time: 1215
rQ Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
FarmName: ..................................................................... County: RAlift1ph ......................................... 1? SRO ........
Owner Name: Alrft........................................ Autki c......................................................... Phone No: G-.4�S-1 Q .nx. 1,.42 ,1.4R�........................
Mailing Address:{.0.2.Wa1)�ex.l�alll.An�1..............
Facility Contact: Atha. r. QX119-DjltW .............................Title:................
Onsite Representative:.yypiyjac..HatAkc...............................................
Certified Operator:.WAyjar,,L ............................... am0kc......................................
Location of Farm:
RAWIci aaln-NC.................................................... 2731.7...............
.................................... Phone No: Wayne.[e1.
Integrator:........
Operator Certification Number:2.2J.Q.t.............................
From GSO, south on Hwy. 220 to Level Cross exit. Right onto Branson Mill Rd. Continue to Walker Mill Rd. and take left
tnto Walker Mill Rd. Farm office is on the left.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 50 36 Longitude 74 OF 50 6 36 46
Design i Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
1]esign Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ® Dairy 1200 I l42
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 1,200
Total SSLW 1,6801000
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (Ifyes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ...... Main-.1arp...... ...... maiursnnall................ Cancrele ......... ....... S call.side.......................................... ........................
Freeboard (inches): 29 36 102 24
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 76-12 Date of Inspection 1 9/2/2004
, 1
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ es, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ®No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ®No
closure plan?
(if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes ® No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12, Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) 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) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ®No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16, Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
Odor issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® 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.
o question #) �xplam;,any,YES answers4nd/or any recommendations'oh.ariy ather,comments E 110
Use drawin . seof fa. y i, +,E p { p' eras necessa v u 6u . ,.� .M . _..,, �..k a'%13a
g ct to betterex lain situations use additional ag ry) ❑ Field Copy JKFinalNotes
s „ E_ ,„.„
7. Need to mow/spray vegetation around concrete waste pond.
15. Check copper results next visit.
16. Facility has contract hauler at this time. Entire irrigation system --reels, guns, hoses, hydrants, must ALL be checked and calibrated
prior to use.
3. Don't forget to send Southers copy of new CAWMP.
3. Approx. 660 tons of solids were given away this year. Operator has records.
34. Need to calibrate equipment -- honey wagon, irrigation, and spreaders per permit. Must be done each year. Are in violation! Send
calibration results to WSRO of DWQ.
35. Have Mathis' send crop yields for your yield records (as required by permit).
w
Reviewer/ins ectorName i.Mellssa'Rosebrock
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: —76-12 D 6 f Inspection 9/2/2004 .
Reauired Records & Documents
21.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
®No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
IN No
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
27.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
® Yes
❑ No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
®No
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
® No
33.
Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ® Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No
❑ Stocking Form ® Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ® Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
I3 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
;J
12112103

(Type of Visit Q Cpmpiiance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation II
Reason for Visit' 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number , Date of Visit: Time: � J�
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted © Certified 0 ConditionaAy Certified 1] Registered Date Last Opera or A ov Threshold: . »
Farm Name. U lLt Qom[} 1^ 15e;5..._._._ County:
.. ..._ »».................. t..� ...... ._.». .... . » .»..»...d..»....... _...» _
Owner Name:.���a-� .0 �L` ... ..._�. ... _ . 'Phone No: _. 3 • �r �S �..Q 0 .».» �..: ».» : k
Mailing Address: » .. +... l lll......]! �1(. ...�..1 » »�..»!»::»i» !µ ».RA ........ Pic,
Facility Contact: li{�.r ».». ». » U�tit� ._..._ __.. _ Phone No: -5 _, 1 �j 3 .
VY40_2tC Onsite Representative: , r.ne , !`"'�' .»., » .».. . »._»...... Integrator: g. g„
Certified Operator:. .&_J!2L.... l , ;»... iL� .........»... .......... Operator Certification Number:...
Location of Farm:
LbZZb Sorh FC- 0 r ML, W ff a Love i -i 1- U C)—f0 b irc i�,�ar)11
[e-
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle ❑ horse Latitude �•'��" Longitude �•'°'
eslga
Current z f Ctu
.
Swuie Ca' ci
Po on?Poultry+Ca' acii :Po
Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
Farrow to Wean
`
Other
Farrow to Feeder
.19
El Farrow to Finish
it' � 7 Y•,
Gilts
Boars
n�
S
-fir • -. i.w .�.I.f.iyY��F -�r..ww�'��
lllb
Ll �Yi1:
It y Desigact log)
one " acr 'Po ulatiion i
Dairy 2. CSC
Non -Dairy ] �ot '
1 �
Totat{SSLW l 'gOl OOc
Digs harges ; Stream Im acts
1. Is any dis hpar fr m any part of the operation?
` Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
ar a. If discharge is 'observed, was the conveyance than -made?
"o�� l� b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
O
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
1
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
❑ Yes *o
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
Structure
,l I S eture 2 cture 3 SE
cture Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: d 1 ».lc .:.... 1 �.�. .. . �.� : WW� 1��.. ..... _ .. _..... __ __.....
Freeboard (inches): rJ
12112103 t-j Cowed

Facility Number: - — Date of Inspection
S. Are there any immediate threats to the i*ty of any of the structures observed? (iel tre*were 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 fN
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenan�mprovement? El Yes
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
I0. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes JNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen/Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type 6 jp I— \ 1 6 _} � ( u-02 5 ► Ko jI ks rn ,l VN)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste MMagement P.4n (CAWk e)? ❑ Yes
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes fNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below des—E3­No—,
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes rNo
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Field Cove ❑ Final Notes
O
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signal
Date:
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: Z D of Inspection
Repaired Records &Documents
T
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ VaT, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23. D s record keeping need ' pmvementOwe
es, check the appro ate box below.
Waste Application Freeboard Analysis Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on -site representative?
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
NPDES Permitted Facilities f,7eAe j
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
35. Does ecord keeping for NPDES required fora need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below
Stocking Form 0 Crop ;ZinualCertifirsitinnFr
Form Rainfall Inspection After 1" Rain
� j, ! 20 Minute Inspections rm
❑ Yes WO
❑ Yes
❑ Yes No
❑ YesNa
❑ Yes )'No
❑ Yes No
ElYes o
❑ Yes z
❑ Yes
kes
❑ Yes
❑ No
fo
Yeso
--=I y
A-Ire's ❑ No
❑ Yes A<o
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit. I
'3 R� wuP� �en
WuP.
N e'r IV) So( I na- s U (+s
L_ E> 5 P-1-bM 14.0''
sL,--13s a..3 L'-s5. 1,(a
)13
To 0115 M-12� v Ld�Q
71I2/03

e of Visit OO Compliance Inspection O Operation Review -O Lagoon Evaluation
son for Visit ©Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 12 Date of Visit: t21091Z003 Time: 1230
Not O eralional C Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: Uut(ke.Hairy..EWorpfiscA...................................................... C011110': RoadQ1pk ............................... YYW......
Owner Name: 9rJittiuttk�---------------------------- Phone No:
Mailing Address: 5.79.0..WAjhgx.WA.RQAd.................................................................... Rajndlgat a.H...................................................., 7.3.><.7...............
Facility contact: Arlttl.Qr.WAyao.Muae ...................... Title: ............................................... Phone No: 495-1393.................
Representative: integrator: W&�M C (911-vt 4�
Onsite Re
p Y!'axo�and.AxliD.B�uttkg__-- - ------------------- -------------- - - ----- ------------------
Certified Operator: Wgyrie.L .............................. D.U11kc ............................................... Operator Certification Number: Z1iQi.............................
Location of Farm:
7rom CSO, south on Hwy. 220 to Level Cross exit. Right onto Branson Mill Rd. Continue to Walker Mill Rd. and take left i
onto Walker Mill Rd. Farm office is on the left.
I —
[I Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Morse Latitude 35 ' S0 36 Longitude 79 'F 50 1 36 �
M
hI'Deslgp �'CurrennKeeCa aci Po ulation Poultry Ca aci P.o ulation Cattle Ca aci P,o uiat�ion:,''
ean to Feeder ❑Layer ®Dairy 1200 1 173
der to Finish ❑Non-Layerrrow to Weanrrow to Feeder ❑ Other <
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design C►apacity 1,200 '
❑ Gilts
Total SSL,W 1,6$0, ;
,t ❑Boars
i
Number. of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ® ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure C
Identifier:-Mainsida.large...,_MaW.sniW1---- ----- Small.side..... ...... ..................
Freeboard (inches): 108 42 24 42
05103101 L1Q - / Continued

Facility Number: 76-12 Date of Inspection 12/09/2003
5. Are there any immediate threats to the Regrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ treePseyere erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Anolication
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ® Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
® Yes
❑ No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
o m in re o io in a a s a o 0 o a o
ra Ing of fa II . o e plain 1 ue i I ❑Field Copy ® Final Notes
7. Continue efforts to control vegetation on the dam of the small side waste pond.
7. Need to cut trees on the dam of the main side-smal I waste pond.
19. Use PAN number from the new CAWMP in completing calculations.
14. and 25. Operator irrigated waste onto several fields that are listed in the CAWMP to receive waste by a pump and haul method.
Need irrigation design, wettable acres, map, etc. put into the CAWMP so these fields can receive irrigated waste in the future.
* 19. Several fields are near 1500-2000 for copper per the soil test results. Must cease application on these fields when levels reach 3000.
Several waste analyses results were documented for Oct. 2003.
Reviewer/Inspector Name !Melissa Rosebrock �T _
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date:
05103101 Continued

facility Number: 76-12 1)i 11f Inspection 12/49/2003
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
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.) Cl Yes ❑ No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
J
05103101

Type of Visit j Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ` Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time: U�
P Permitted E3Certified E3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered
Farm Name: TWILeTNc�irvu&kY rl ses
Owner Name: LAU=
Mailing Address: PX
Facility Contact: 1k 11
Onsite Representative: _
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
'2 I,
0
Date Last Operat or Abo a Threshold:
County:
Phone No:J
2cUnd fengao _2 73
Phone No: -[ i dnu 4�j
Stnr:
Operator Certification Number: a I O
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®0 « Longitude Elp• 6 �
Design Current Design Current Design Current.
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population C tle Ca paci Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer I I Dairy IJ
❑ Feeder to Finish ILI Non -Layer I I ILI Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder ID other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity 1, _Od
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SS LW $�
Number of Lagoons❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon roan Area ❑ S ra Field Arc -
Holding Ponds f'So11d,.Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
.. �:_.
Discharges & 4t� ream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in 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?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
14z
❑ Yes )(No
ElYes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes �No
Structure 6
Continued

i r.
Facility Number: — I Date of Inspection I inGly
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ANO
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered ves, and the situation poses an
?(
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do anv of the structures need maintenancelimprovement? R Xes ❑ No
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes )(No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes No
Waste Annlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
// ❑ Yes o
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding AN . ❑ Hydraulic Overload es N
12. Crop rype
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those deUgnated in the Certified
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reggired Records & Documents
17. fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the i it to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP,(checklists, design, maps, etc.) ��
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & sot 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 D«'Q of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie? discharge. freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss review inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
o
❑ Yes
No
)<Yes
ElYes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
o
❑ Yes *o
❑ Yes to
❑ Yes fNoo
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
_TV es ❑ No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
•i-. - r�l•=a"ni?'+ ... .. - ��—� .:•CS:�'•` 4,li•=s^C'S:w.Yk:�n�a `� .+C.fi
•Com.;.-yments refer tii" nestian 'E lain an YES siiiiii s!and/or,an recommendations or $ er comments. F �t , ,
_
Use dr�5a'wtnsys, of fay�cility better expEasni situat ons' (usc ad dttxanal,page�s, as necesssary) j 31�"{j Field Copv� Final ❑FNotes
inalote
tto
�.--+•-��"1�Jid'Y.i`
1-1
AL
Iwo,
?
Reviewer/ins ector Name ' .o ' , yx l ^�^ �•" ,�, p
� �i��.....5��ry, "x.�s'
..
..�'�J.'�Ld:R .. .,i ..�_.r�^'..���;-:e.;,.
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
Date:
05103101 . hueB 65NR - t0r! 37lda
0x3�u5f� EI1_ 0/�7/03=S, � I OC1 ad � s.CoNc70 (11 / 03 a. N/la�- a 855L tk ItiJs.
OYwo

CY
Facility number: —7— 4 ate of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27, Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28, Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s). inoperable shutters. etc,)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
�1ktionWl Comments
i
��
C.=AWA
%ll��i ' � � r _ _ � �. �.-- `•--ems �,��rr•�.�r.�`.
rI
OFF
1003 35L55 y¢�� = [, 2 1 s.NIlno
01

Type of Vislt O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
IReason for Visit ® Routine O Complaint O Fallow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 12 Date of Visit: 10/1/2002 Time: 0930
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
S Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .....................
Farm Name: ................................................... ..................... County: F;9uhdjalph......................................... W5RQ........
Owner Name: Arlin........................................Byjj& ......................................................... Phone No: �3b„495,�4U�..(�t aftx�c.�n�uanllt�x�..................
Mailing ............. Address:..1.44t.Wellt<trtc.11litl�iQ�td..................................... .. RARdlematit..N.C............................. ..... 2.7317.. ............................ ..................
Facility Contact: Axliltt..a ..i?SAyar.Xmtkkc;............................ Title:................................................................ Phone No: 4�? -d 9 .L2�aad. t>k'> c�......
Onsite Representative: ,yy},tYMC..4ja Adin.Autike....
Certified Operator: Y.f'aityxte.L............................... btxift ......................
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
......... Operator Certification Number:22191 .............................
From GSO, south on Hwy. 220 to Level Cross exit. Right onto Branson Mill Rd. Continue to Walker Mill Rd. and take left AL
)nto Walker Mill Rd. Farm office is on the left.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse : Latitude 35 • 50 36 Longitude 79 • 50 4 36 11
D'scharaes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? • ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?.
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 . Structure 5 Structure 6.
Identifier: .Mainside:Large. Matitt.side:Smail......... Small.sitda....... ... Cancxem.WSP.........................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 51 ' 98 54 98
05103101 o ,� q Continued

Facility Number: 76-12 1 Date of Inspection 10/1/2002
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an'
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
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?
r
r
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
® Yes
❑ No
® Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application '0 . : t,.
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? • ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
12.
Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain Overseed Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
ReUgired
Records o u ents '
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General .Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ® No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
7. Continue efforts to control vegetation of dam on "Small side" waste storage pond.
B. Small freshwater pipe leaks have caused waste to wash off lot (across the road from office) into a culvert/ditch. Has not reached
surface drain. Leak to be repaired as soon as possible.
3. Still have flush water waste that is not contained to the lot since some waste continues to enter the rainwater drain. Ownerloperator to
repair berms or come up with another idea for containment.
19. Several fields have copper levels at or above 1500. Suggest applying animal waste on other fields for awhile. Need to monitor.
27. One mortality to be picked -up today.
Reviewer/Inspector Name ;Melissa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 1
Continued

Facility Number: 76_12 D& Inspection 10/1/2042
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
❑ No
19. Main side, small WSP (#2) 8/21/02 waste analysis for closure = 3.3 lbs. N11000 gal. Operator also took sludge sample in
August 2002 for closure. Larry Hollingsworth (Randolph Co.) got 301 tons in Sept. 2002.
19. Need to take sample of dry pack manure waste that is given away to Walace Farm, LLC. (704.975.29.75) in exchange for
shavings (plus $12511oad difference). This amounts to about 550 tons/year. Walace Farm, LLC. is selling manure in bags.
19. About 979 tons of sand from the main side, large WSP (#1) is given away to W&H Trucking and Hodgin Trucking.
J
05103101

9:
§ PtPgel pE
i Dlvisioa of Water Qua![ty ' 1 „ 'w
b +�.. ,,1E -° � �
Wklon of Soil and �Miz'. Conservation ? .
pOther' en �' @P f. .•P.+a� E .',it,A , r- E x EE " f E E E P s E rat: r
Type of Visit P Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit A Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification, O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date el'Visit: � � 'l'ime:
Facility Number 1/0
rO-Not Operational 01111elow Threshold
Permitted 9Certified 0 Conditionally Certified D Registered Date Last Operated or Above JThreshold-
Farm Name: [JJ)Q)r- pr %�! �.S County: RaJj / JDr &)G O
Owner Name: d C-fill y if fee_ Ph o a Noaq
w ' O FFi �e
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Rep
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
/u C- 13 I
Phone N : T� J O 1 T4
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: aZ2 10
MEN,
wa,
�
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry xCattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®' ®®" Longitude 0 ®•
Design.: Current
Swine', `.,.Capacity "Po ulatiol
.Wean to Feeder
`M Feeder to Finish
U Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
f br !
Number,of, L9goona
Holding Ponds'/ Solid,,Traps , f
'c.t,Designt ,Current ;.i;r E'�,:'DeSt�il E €.Current ,
Y ,it >Capacity -Population., Cattle . Ca' acity Po `cation
❑Laver
)airv
.�
Non -Layer Ion-Dairy10 f
Other i
Total Design Capacity _; QD
116 FellE
i E€ Ll Subsurface Drains Present
❑ No Liquid Waste Managen
Discharges 8 Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Laizoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
'Waste Collection && Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway
Structure I �- Structure 2 �� Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S
Identifier: f_
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
❑ Yes
A No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
)KNo
❑ Yes
A No
❑ Yes
JXNo
Structure 6
Continued
���r� I� 979. `�a..t�� �.ue+, acva� rcA�-��, riq

M
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection ma�*
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes W 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 o
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes XNO
Waste Aviffleation
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes Ko
11. Is there evidence of over application-? ❑ Excessive Pondin§ ❑ PAN 60 Hypaulic Overlokd ❑ Yes �jNo,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those desikhate'd in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan ((/ WMP)? ❑ YVs ,R110
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes WNo
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
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
Rye aired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other, Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) / El Yes [(No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, aste nalysis & soil sample reports) QO�es ❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes XNo
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ElYes A-14
23, Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes rNO
o
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes RKo
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Gorrriments Crefer to queshitir 0} Ezptain;a'riyzYES'answers-andlor°any recomirreadations'or-any , othercomments:
USC.d{rAWIft5zPfCl�fy to better ezplam srtnations.,(use;add_ihpnaik.page9 as necessary) �,,'F °,� Field Copy ❑Final Notec
7
OL to-ALO ®u--
6 a 7` as 3 F l� Si;Lft -t- 2131 F S 1 b73
T 2131 • _ 3 1 � I $ I'f T" a 13 7 F- a �
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101
Continued

Facility Number: `��p — Date of Inspection
for Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28, is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
I"Additional Comments and/orDrawings:
r
yr
gas/�Ua d►���
El Yes '�o
❑ Yes XN0
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes ANO

ll,4}I II I1 1` i!'I 1: ] 1 st rt" ! .,,. R1
i a i! I r; r I I r •I, r- Ill r. ! €. i I Yf I €` _:I r4 V. € rY, 4 `i ;--``i r# iY Irrif r 'U o rC.YifI - € ..- is Nr ar I. I ,„ :...�Iln
Ylri1rY,,ir lr y:c € A6 of Water QuaIIty ll-KIt #' Ir aj I ' '. I i t r r i
n.',�
Clrl,r. Irl„ I , N r I Q tsionlof Soll and,Water onservatlo
rr ii i ', € 1 fl!! �P. ji E ri�l'Ir€ti ell�I`IIII IEf o.:{III I -w Y., r C n it lIl;I. i[e„}7!'d rl NIuN µi'„ �fpla i, rl I3 i�,-N111 iiSi �E�i:(i ,iI1114
r f I IY I +Id € i i r lhl 1 l i I r " l r it
ty Other Agency
I ! •! li , €I �.'r
r. it [ :.,. r1,0111 Irl'..i It I I r €_€..ar-
2� !lir�,ir- €rrr,.si II .,tLi7,i.__i.l,III€ ,ilia i:if:itrs,_�,Ir:€,,.,! it,_, dl _1 itlY„nrl,.11 .l,r„�,-_N,JN,,,,_1,9
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint CV. _Fol1, ow up::gEmergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 7fi 12 Date of Visit: 3/27/2002 'rime: 1030
= Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:. ...................
FarmName: ...................................................................... .. County: fiat d ph......................................... WSRQ...... .,
Owner Name, P1xli]a............... ......................... .utkkt.............. .......................................... Phone No: f-4_9S.-Q.�uf1-i 3Cej.........................................
Mailing Address: 5.7.4.6.WAjkcr..Mj11 foad........................................................... .... ... I RA1 d1gM3n.X.C.................................................... 21317...............
Facility Contact: Ai'ai70.and-WayaP.l UIM9.......................... Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative:'my�ne. a[id.Ailiil.l}utx)�e�.rirx.SQ�ukh�xS................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:.W,AillQ9.L............................... H]Attkr ............................................... Operator Certification Number:Z210,1 .............................
Location of Farm:
From GSO, south on Hwy. 220 to Level Cross exit. take right onto Branson Mill Rd. Continue to Walker Mill Rd. and take i
eft onto Walker Mill Rd.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude 79 • 50 ' 36 66
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity .Population
poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
®Dairy
1200
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity'
F 1,200
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
1,680,000
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 10 . ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area I0 Spray i field Area
Holding Ponds,l+Solid Traps, 0, ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System Y,
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
h, .If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ®No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ..Main.Side,.Biig.. Maan.,Sxda,SnWL .......Small.Side............... Comctcte......... ......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 42 19
05/03/01 ,/ to A I V Continued

Facility Number: 76--12 Date of Inspection F312712 002
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ treesevere erosion, [] Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ®Yes ❑ No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ® Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
® Yes
❑ No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
®No
12.
Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Hay)
13,
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
®No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19,
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
®No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
®No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
®No
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
, `..i} tr•�!, � _ �; ,lid ,Ila ,li IIL=�"' !f _fill` .illl7tl {,I„if{;LiJ.r G." I`HV4fllilllE1�61i �i9ililulU if l[St[€ii[tliCdllt k,3 :?.,1111 I!I<, "cil.�ail4 - 1i ,,;h:Id•. 1,1,13i;t3}i3;.1„III i 4
Comments' refer to:' uestion'# s ?Ex lain'ian }YES'answers andlor'an recammendations�or:`an Pother comments i'
{:, .I?, .,q„- :},) P, YtlI+•I I! Y 6. ,,: .€€ , „I;6�,
I, :! „, I , ,Y, „f;!
ilse.d"r`alwine s loflfacilit` il'to�ibette`ri ex l'aiti sit`uationll :1 use` a�'djtliti'on°al's`ta`' es'ilas4�li►eces{salrGll Isl ��i���, al. � u, s� 1,�c.l:l� a lau w�Uu€ ul,€..�
g Y p ( Ip g Y)•j l i r
111 , ; 1 € ::I [' ,, II,i I ,I ❑ Field Copy Final Notes
Jjr
€ JI I I
,I _ It - `r'!_It 1 - �.E j r .F=.i, .I{. .1 -,:_, �� II•€€-Ilel,: i. I, a..m.. „�Il�s€- :13,ils�lis3klf,�ik,, II.Iv�a . €,,i,iil��.l.�'1l���!]_i j•IliilMIil'iii`ii°�li..i': I. iiln'Yi71:PiiT:'R:R'1,€.Isul !':
Questions left blank were done so since they were not applicable to today's visit. The purpose of this inspection was to follow-up on the
A,
3/19/02 follow-up inspection to document lowered waste pond levels, check on a complaint alleging application made too close to a
residence, and to re -check stockpiled bedding and discharge of waste from the barn onto a pasture.
3. Stockpiled bedding at end of the concrete storage structure needs to be lowered by land application or reuse as soon as possible.
Discussed with owner the need to widen and raise the earthen berm to more adequately contain waste in the event of heavy rain. Earthen
erm still needs to have vegetation established.
7r, 1�rI -1HrP?"'4!"'n 11� -•i'' rh €I'� t'��:
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melisii,Rosebrock
, ; :,
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date:
05103101 w J v Continued

Facility Number: 76—t2 D f Inspection 3/27/2002
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e, residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
[].Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
�. E-1 � � � g. ,: S I I !� �II
Additional ommen $ an Qr raWln S' 11'I 1 11�[1I I I I I I`1
.I'.�i 1.1 Ir41IfI I��Yl:l i�il.� I i {�s :IJI.I I I' �IE ^" i I i I •� I.I i 1 ��.E i i .3,.
4, Level for Structure #1 is now adequate. Need to pump waste from Structure #2 as soon as possible. Other two structures had >4 +
feet of freeboard.
Facility is working with Larry Graham to get concrerte structure certified and incorporated into the CAWMP. Structural stability
s now been certified by James Bivens.
A plywood board has been installed to contain the recyling flush water.
. An additional source of discharge was discovered on todays visit. Flush water from the freestall area needs to be contained to the
oncrete drainage -way below ground. Concrete walls at the lower end of the barn need to be repaired and/or sealed so that waste is
of allowed to get onto the lot and enter the freshwater pipe.
Boards have been added to the bottom of the fence on lot across road (on small side). Boards were added to keep sediment and
ste from washing into surface water ditch.
Concrete berm on lot has been raised and extended to keep waste from entering fresh water drain.
Markers for new concrete waste structure to be set by Mr. Graham.
10. Waste had been applied about 45 feet from Mr. Bum's residence. Wayne and Arlin Buttke and Brian Southers (contract wastern haulerlapplicator) met with Mr. Bus. Dairy staff had already tilled in the area onto which waste had applied and Mr. Bums stated
that he was satisfied with the Buttke's efforts.
119. Have received copies of waste analyses from operator.
J
05103101

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation ! I Iq M
Reason for Visit O Routine Complaint IdFollow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
"ate of Visit: 3 a O Time: LLLLj
Z
Q Not O erational Q Below Threshold
*Permitted 0 Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
il 1 Da:, h Erb �a7 r� a County: ........2Q n r j? .....................
Farm Name: ....E:,I.I.31�AL` ....:......]..�....�. f �........................ .............. C nt�': 2 j
Owner Name: �r l I n ! 5 t"� Phone No ✓� „!. ��-e-
.........................-?...................................................................I................ :........................ -....q � 0�.......I................
�} I
Facility Contact: ...I... d.1 n.*..... Aike . ......... Phone No:
s aid M.
r 1 Pi - 4,e resin � a7
MailingAddress:......... .4f!.....1�4�................ ...!.t.}:...................................................................................................................13.... r........................
Onsite Representative:.. 11 i �.t.11. u ..... Integrator.....................................................
Certified Operator:...... Qr .1 .... .�✓� I.............................I........................ Operator Certification Number: ......... a..a. 01..........
Location of Farm:
tfwy c'�)ab r ht on 75rar-&n Mi F
. orlib Ufa. W ec Nl r 11 0.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry dCattle ❑ Horse Latitude �' �Q ' �•° Longitude �• ®' �«
Design Current
awme Capacity aci Yo ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Other
Design . Current
C the Capacity Population
Dairy 12ZO
❑ Non -Dairy
Total Design Capacity a20O
Total SSLW
Discharges & Stream lmRaciti
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? El Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If' discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
h. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (if yes, notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No
c. If dischar_,,c is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Dries discharge bypass a lagoon system'' or yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? El Yes ❑ No
3. Werethere any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Wasw Collecdon & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (fre.-board r}lus storm storage) iess than adequate? [(Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Svm:wrc ! Structure; 2 j Structure3 %1Sttructure 4 Structure 5 S[ruciuie 6
I.I ....... Nncr teo...................................... ............... I.....................
Frey Z �41
elx�ar;i (intiteti;: vg 11 Q
5/00 $ l 17 Continued on back

Facility Number: -- Date of Inspection TT_ Printed on: 1/9/2001 .
5. Are there any immediate threats to the ty of any of the structures observed? (ie/ severe erosion,
age, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4.6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
VYes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ❑ No
12. Crop type-
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes No
14. a) Does thefacility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes M No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes !f No
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?
•EFFen, El 0
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
'''�--E3-No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
PNo
21,
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
"VNo
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
kfNo
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? .
❑ Yes
0 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
•yioiattQns.ot- lief clencies were poteo. OiWiing �. s'visjt; • yojk will i•eeeive Rio #'urt�ter _
cories' oricieisce atbauti this viisit: ' ...... ' .. .
nrir -^r r k a .q -'_ s7
ilseldrawtngs ofxfacility to better explain situations {use addtbonalipgges as necessary) '��� �� r 'fir � r
f
✓2J�.�L�. n 1�G1
J 1
Reviewer/Inspector Name I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
i K6SP-h rraC'.L
Date:-117"710 d' 5100

Facility Number: — 1 : Date of Inspection ! ` Printed on: 1 /9/2001
Odor Dues
,�. 26:''�I�oes the discharge pipe from the con inement building to the storage pond or lagoon discharge allot below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ❑ No
28, Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ❑ No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
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.) "^^ '^ wr
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? Bf
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
o .,; ommentsanOfqrrawings:
4AAY
fiecuJA�J
5100

r
. s €�I 1 it } �� 1 i �€ '!il}Il fir€ Ix '�til � € }I ' IiYY,;. UkS.- 7. r-,,..i, `.� •::Fa � 1sL ,r ,,: SR ltj €4Nf _',V;YY l i 13 € ,I>>Jlllf !l, 1�€ilsl.r ".1< 1}',. r.€§[ i;1t}ir 1' � 4 i - {,`: i€ € €,rf rlr
—Quality,r r
,� € ,:[. �..'a€€ ., €.
s1on,of Sou.IEandlWater Canservat>lonit°i€
S 1 r y ,
! :,'?
,N,i,€,�r,l,I}I}a'III€1 }i4' 41;utherlAgencyi 41$ll�lli,.l�;i, ;,>� }4,S14r€1iiYl� i!114,,,Y ril„r1' Is t,.i. it I l 4 1,
s4 i EI- rl, iili €il �I�$:..I 3- +Sa• €Y € y i � YI � YJ it .� ,rEt�l
• ..< . I , M . ,w.. ,. „l. >5.,.
Type of Visit S Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint S Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 12 Date of Visit: 3/19/2002 Thne: 0950
Not O erational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .......................
Farm Name: ............................ .......... County: RAjI PIP......................................... Vl-SR-0........
Owner Name: Axaixl...................
Mailing Address: 5.79.6.WW per..MillAQad........................................................
Facility Contact: WayieAuttU............................................... Title:........................
Onsite Representative: W.ayxte..aad..Axji AUt1kV......................................................
Certified Operator:..WAyxjp,, .4............................... amifl e.................... ...... ..........................:
Location of Farm:
Phone No: 33.6-4.95.-1.39.31offirags..........................................
>1Aixdkman.,i.0 .................................................... U.117...............
Phone No: .............................
Integrator:................................................................. .......
Operator Certification Number:ZZ1QI
rrom GSO, south on Hwy, 220 to Level Cross exit. take right onto Branson Mill Rd. Continue to Walker Mill Rd. and take A
aft onto Walker Mill Rd. r
[]Swine []Poultry ®Cattle []Horse Latitude 35 • 50 ' 1 36 Longitude F 79 • 50 1 36 4,
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Ca acit Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer I IN Dairy 1 1200 996
j] Non -Layer I I JCI Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 1,200
Total SSLW 1,680,000
w
Number of Lagoons 0� ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ID Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 4 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System I,
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes OR No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. 1f discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ® Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ® Yes ❑ No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ..Main.Side-Big... Main.Suie..Small........ Smalz.Sidc ............................. ...................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 16 19 60
05103101 W—G 1 f a- Continued

Facility Number: 7G-12 Date of Inspection 3/19/2002
. 5. Are there any immediate threats to the in city of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, Nvere erosion, ❑Yes ®No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ®Yes [I No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ®No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ® Yes [--]No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ® Yes ❑ No
Waste Annlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Hay) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, 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) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15,
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
®No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
®No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19,
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
®No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®No
22,
Fail -to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
®No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
®No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
® Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
® Yes
❑ No
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
I:. •. - s_ ,.. I .l: i.::ii� . : ^,A1,�.;.,A!il�,. '1V,1:1 ¢ I !j'i'113,,.Cl,L,� i=1, ',i l.L.aihl, .LI . I`pR.l'I >.. "V ri,Ifl,l s ..Ill..
',
Commeiits;(refer,„to fluestion'#) Eznlam!an YES answersg9and/or7(janV recommend ations 'orlan other comments �i' i!il ikl�1�" 1liltl\EI'II.'°ii 9 N �??'E
Ja�ylllll I:1�,?,
, 11? •., ,,.:I ,l! . IiE,€ !8 ,t !` �I!!' 13111$llili',il�ir!il:l,l 4s �
Use drawings oflfacility,to better explaan',situations (useiadditionallpages as necessary).'
+G ° R f !'ns ;4' g .i Field Copy ®Final Notes
��
r i Isr. l ; ,I ,i 1 ;,,,:9 `. k¢ rl'.t 1 i l ! ,Ills +! 1 t, i l
l:a.A ! r, . T i , ,. a .': �ll i ! I li, (I t ! I,� E 11�, !{ lk,�, ,, 43q} � �,111. i I � :.I � � �9 , :� � � � I a � 4 ��� ! � � � �, %��� � � i, , SI .��, f¢rn w
, 1 ¢!elt sl,I t i E I € ri ,. ,114 2 { 4 i
t, l !.: „r € 6: e!l1 ���1 I l.. � L,:„! :,.t . !„ tit (- !,. , .! , t I�! 1 � �.-:,:�,� R 1. ! �',100. �, 4111' �AiI L�,E� , ,LI!' � � :,i.11��,%,,.1�,,1., , I , � �, :�:,,, ! �r mr� , �� R ~Ott -,rnr- . ,.,. .,., i
3. On today's date, leachate from the stockpiled bedding sand waste was being contained inside an earthen berm at the far end of the new
concrete waste storage structure, DWQ concern is that the stockpiled waste is several feet higher than earthen berm. Need to establish
ermanent vegetation on berm as soon as possible, Fescue seed broadcast in February/March 2002 has begun to germinate on the newly
graded embankments (see 12/2001 DWQ inspection). This area should be ok now.
3. Waste from Structure 2 that was stockpiled in the field (see 12/2001 DWQ inspection) has been trucked off -site by three different
companies. Per operator's records, 395 tons were trucked off -site. A small amount was also moved and stockpiled at the far end of the
new concrete waste storage structure. A soil analysis of the old and new stockpiled waste in the field as well as the soil beneath the
_.. ..-.. , rock.. . „'' Y'!. i[=E3€ I! IFT-,• "1.D"i3 I
,, Reviewer/Inspector Name IMehssaRose6
a11 tle.P;:-
iewer/Inspector Signature 3
j• r
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 76-12 lla�f Inspection 3/19/2002 •
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ❑ No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
iles was obtained. No waste analysis was obtained of the stockpiled material as instructed by DWQ NOV dated 01/02/02,
Waste in Structure 1 (Main side, Big) was 3 inches into 25 yr., 24 hr. storm level. -Left 30-day Plan of Action Form for owner and
erator to complete and return wlin 48 hrs. Completed farm was received by WSRO on 3120102. Owner stated that waste
uctures were to be pumped starting 3123102 (weather permitting) or no later than 3125102.
The new concrete waste storage structure is in use now and has not been addressed in the CAWMP, yet. This needs to be done as
in as possible (see 01/02/02 DWQ NOV). The design for the structure was certified by James Bivens, P.E. in July 2001. Per Arlin
I Wayne Buttke; they do not have written certification of the waste structure's "structural stability" but Mr. Arlin Buttke stated
t it had been certified for structural stability by the engineer who designed the system. Pete Frye (of Buttke Enterprises)
the construction of the concrete waste structure.
Surface water drain for the rainwater run-off (near the pack barn), may be getting lot waste in it when the concrete lot is scraped,
rticularly during rain events. Suggest making berm higher to contain waste to the coneretre lot and concrete waste storage
Flush -water from the recycled waste water system is not being contained to one of the barns and was observed washing out the
onto the ground. This needs to be contained immediately.
Operator has installed markers for the new concrete waste structure. While the markers are of excellent design and construction,
maximum liquid level has not been established by a technical specialist or incorporated in the CAWMP (to include diversions,
etc.). This needs to be done as soon as possible (see 01/02/02 DWQ NOV).
6. Southers does all waste applications for this facility. Contacted Brian Southers on 3121102 and he stated that they already had
guipment on site and would be pumping as soon as weather and ground conditions permitted.
. Operator is now keeping a record of the number of loads of bedding waste given away in exchange for new shavings. Need to
ep record of the amount in tons on bill for Wallace. If over 10 pick-up loads of waste are given away per year, then operator needs
keep record of this, too, Dates on SLUR-2 form completed by Southers must be more specific (at least weekly), Dates for all Fall
Este application events were listed as 10/18/01 - 11/09/01... this is not acceptable.
9. Waste sample must be labeled as to which waste storage structure it came (see 01/02/02 DWQ NOV). If small grain is not
arvested this Spring then the PAN that was applied to the small grain crop in Fall must be subtracted from the allowable corn PAN.
Only the design for the new concrete waste structure has been certified by a P.E.
of Structure 2 (Big side, small) has not begun yet. Questions that were left blank are not applicable to this facility.
Ti
05103101

•
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
FAX TRANSMITTAL
Water Quality Section
Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27107
Phone: [phone]
TO:
FAX NUMBER:
FROM:
DATE:
336. q45-. /.39 �t
R1/OZ
Number of pages (including cover page)
COMMENTS:
�fi� •
IDENR
Fax: [phone]

fir -
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint WFollow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility NumberD—E= -]
Date of Visit:
14 Permitted Certified © Conditionally Certified © Registered
Farm Name: .............. e.......... .................
OwnerName: ... hr.AM.....-but.1................................ ........................
Facility Contact: ..... Wa.-ju.......Pa. I '...... Title: .........................
Mailing Address: -...- ....... ..........II. .Q...l..........::1!..L.�.�.�...............:.�f
Onsite Representative:....wa.ne .., ..6. tI R...-
Certified Operator :.....1 ..t']!1 ,..L..:...-.AJV. -. .... ..............................
Location of Farm:
10 Not Onerational O Below Threshold
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
County: ��� I t' : ?
Phone No:...... ....T .5 ...... i.39........
PhoneNo:.... ............................ ..............
73
.n �. �a..i- a.C..7......
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:,_..,_ p� a.J?� J....
From GSA, Souk o ffto Zz6 71m uxel C"ss exi t T& IZ-e. r�yhf onto 'I
-Bn9n56n a to c�
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry [Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ©• ° Longitude �•''�
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
'Design Current Design . Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle capacity Population
❑ Layer Dairy 06
❑ Non -Layer I I JE] Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity I,a Q�
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons JE3 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ID Spray Field Area
�I
" Holding Ponds /Solid Traps ® ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impact_~
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?❑Yes ❑(No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If dischargc is observed, was the convcvance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
cf. Does discharge hypass a lagoon system? (If yes,'notify DWG) ❑ 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 t the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? Yes
Waste Collection & Treatment bQ,
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm story 11 less than adequate? e Spillway ] Yes ❑ No
Stt'tictltre l r ffS,tructurc 2 Structure :++11 tructurc 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
ldeni icr: .. ........ V.. ........ ............ ...n..[.f... P................................................................................................
Fr ,m l ' (P. Sr' m� r.......s!
eel oatci(tnctTc,� 9 J S a� , 131de
5100 La 19� ;(71 Continued on Duch

Facility'Number: 776. — ,�2_ Date of•Inspection Printed on: 1/9/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to theWity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ severe erosion, ❑ yam. ❑ No
,. Image, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? )(Yes, 'o +(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
I L AS there evidences of �ov�er}appl application? ❑ Excessive Ponding [I PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type ' f "lf>�LtJ IS �' /�
13. Do the receiving crops differ with dose designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the -facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
I5. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17.i. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19, Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21: Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
yiolatiOtis:or d0rcis)nctes ft'rb pofed• i��ng fbis'visit; • ;Y:oij wi�I•reeeiye dti fufth0r
c o •irisDoridenk aho f this :visiiw
❑ Yes 0 No
Yes ❑ No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes L},1
❑ Yes i9No
❑ Yes YNo
❑ Yes of.
❑ Yes o
❑Yeso
❑Yes XNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes�No
❑ Yes .�No
>`Ies ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ;KNo
❑ Yes KNO
❑ Yes �I o
XYes ❑ No
`Yes ❑ No
73Y _ - - ! '�• - �! .,1 2.. - e - fr i� Y:F r .� . - - f --. t .Z scl 1 -�4ic ,;`i �r. k`Y I3se,draw of ht ity,to better ezplatn situations {use aildittonal pages as necessairy)` dU4 _ � ' ,s � ' r �
, . h
ICE- 5ou4ka)rs of oe s -at I i 1 kind Q I � ca�R-I`oh - i3 ri a� 56 U`#i-e. VS
� 0 �7 360104 "w I I f- 36-3
Rebiewerllns ector Name r,. {' ' i�r a'.
p a k £, .� . x� t=_a
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 3 J� 5100

Facility Number: `76 - -/.I Date of inspection Printed on: 1/9/2001
Odor Ism ues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement buildi g to the storage pond or lagoon Patto discharge attor below -Na.-
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. ' Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? G.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?
r
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes 'd No
M

a S . �,L��u-� ✓� �.r�,� ?eat
RE.
�. o �),5 p Jq�
I �.
96
&pL� f1A N C,.P 16ul
Y> i

, ------._..-----
r
.... ..... ....... _.- ..._.._. _._.....__._,._...._.._,._..._..___.-_..__...._-._,..._--.__._._.._.._.....--•---.._..._._.....---.-...._........__.___.___.._—.__.eCiL 1 V IYi\--- —-------
------- .
i
--

I
e � Cam._.—_..._.----.�_�
���1,—, GU���,�
___.
—•-----------�Z_�

Al {'
l;2-!/- OJ
6Z
�2Ro-6Z
a - a S"Gz
.2- � 7-oa
0
/�
7 s
�d
.� 7.2-
Tom
7_
TDB
7) % a-YL 7 t 1 A 4-
J 7 7, d 7-e r4 �-
I�I,ah-Ot, Q.kde

'CDA Agronomic Division
4300 Rcedy Creek Road Ralei
, NC 27607-6465(919)
733-2655
Report Na: 20215
Grower; Buttke Dairy Enterprise
Copies to:
'
5796 Walker Mill Rd,
Randleman, NC 27317
oil
Test
Report
�
Farm:
2/ 7IO2 SERVING N.C. CITIZENS FOR OVER 50 YEARS
Randolph County
,gronomist Comments:
.d Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
rlple No. Last Crop
Mo Yr TIA
Crop or Year
Lime
N A05 Ka0
Mg Cu
Zu
B
Mn See Note
Os1 No Crop
lile io-peh�
1st Crop: No Crop
2nd Cro :
t Results
Class HM% W/V CEC BSS6
Ac pH P-1
K 1 Ca% Mg%
Mn-I Miz-AI (1) Mn-AI (2) Zn-1
Zn-AI
Cie-1
S-I
SS-1 NO-N .NHf-N Na
411N 0.09 1.25 18.3 97.0
0.6 6.5 459
341 68.0 20.0
177 616
616
1454
394
1.2
d Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
uple No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N P2O5 KO
Mg Cu
Zn
B
Mn See Note
OS2 No Crop
Vo 17 r el
lst'Crop: No Crop
2nd Crop:
t Results
! Class HM% W/V CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I
K-I Ca% Mg%
Mu -I Mrs -AI (1) Mn-AI (2) Zu-I
Zn-AI
Cu-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N R'1b-N Na
441N 0.09 1.38 15.2 98.0
0.3 6.7 4 4
275 65.0 24.0
128 521
521
116
418
0.9
d Information
lied Lime
Recommendations
uple No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or YEar
Lime
N P2O5 KO
Mg Cu
Zn
B
Mn See Note
NSi No Crop
1st Crop: No Crop
5�xnd o+4k'o 4 k oovl
2nd Crop:
t Results
Class HM% IV/V CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1
K I Ca% Mg%
Mn-1 Mn-AI (1) Mn-AI (2) Zn-I
Zn-AI
Cu-1
S-1
SS-1 N($-N NHrN R'a
411N 0.09 1.36 16.0 98.0
0.4 6.6 476
323 63.0 24.0
130 536
536
2226
478
1.1
:d Information
lied Lime
Recommendations
uple No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or YEar
Lime
N N--0 &0
Mg Cis
Zn
B
M11 See Note
A's2 No Crop
Cd 4Vj
Isi Crop: No Crop
2nd Crop:
t Results
1 Class HM% W/V CEC BS96
Ac pH P-1
K-1 Ca% Mg%
Mn-I Mu -AI (1)Mu-AI (2) Zn-1
Zn-AI
Cu-I
S 1
SS-1 NO3-Ar NHi-N Na
I11N 0.13 1.24 19.9 96.0
0.8 6.5 525
407 66.t1 20.0
214 745
745
1803
451
1.4

ICDAAgronoinic Division
4300 ReedyCreek Road Ralei
, NC
27607-6465
[phone] Grower: Bunke 64iry Enterprise
Report No: 20215 P -2
Id Information
Applied
Lime
Recommendations
uple No. Last Crop
No
Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime.
N RO5
MO
Mg Cu
Zn
B
Mn See. A'ote
LEAC No Crop
1st Crop: No Crop
1I1cl'u- Pite i Y �'
2nd Cro :
{
t Results
i Class HM% W/V CEC
BS%
Ac pH P-1
K 1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-I Mn-AI (1) Mji-AI (2)
Zn-1
Zu-AI
Cri-I
S I
SS 1 NC�-N A B-N Na
VIIN 0.41 1.18 18.7
97.0
0.5 6.9 320
501
59.0
25.0
1655
716
716
866
222
0.
Id Information
Applied
Lime
Recommendations
rrple No. Last Crop
Mo
Yr T/A
Crop or Year
lime
N AO5
MO
Mg Cu
Zn
B
Mrr See Note
LEAC No Crop
Ist Crop: No Crop
2nd Crop:
t Results
s
(Class HM% W/V CEC
BS%
Ac pH P-I
K 1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1 Mir -AI (I) Mn-AI(2)
Zu-I
Zn-AI
Cu-I
S-I
SS -I NO3-N NIB-N A'
1lIN OA 1.1s 19.3
99.0
0.3 6.9 334
536
60.0
25.0
1593
779
779 _
854
198
•

W"'7holf
�K(0,j� -:- .

,�. 03/20/2002 10:17 3364951394 BUTTKE DAIRY MAIN OF PAGE 01
Buttke Dairy Enterprises
Arlin Buttke
5796 Walker MITI Ltd.
6422 Walker Mill Rd ."shipping
Randleman, N C 27317
336-495-13930 main office
336-495-1394'fax
Send tc: ti
From:
Attention:
rA p15z
Date:
Office Location: ;. g
Office Location:
Fax Number: 3_%
phone Number 3
❑
Urgent
❑
Reply ASAP
©
Please comment
'(
Please Review
0
For your information
Total pages, including cover: �.
0
Confidentiality Note:
The Contents of this fax are confidential and intended only for the
individual named above. If you received this fax in error, Please notil
immediately 1
Thank You III

03/20/2002 10:17 3364951394 BUTTKE DAIRY MAIN OF PAGE 02
PLAN OF ACTION (Pot) FOR HIGH FREEBOARD A ANIMAL FACILITIES
Facility Number:-- - -- County: AAtwoozA
Facility N
Certified Operator Name: 1- 6422tw Operator # � 2-10 %
1. Current liquid level(s) in inches as measured from the current liquid level in the lagoon to the
lowest point on the top of the dam for lagoons without spillways; and from the current liquid level
in the lagoon to the bottom of the spillway for lagoons with spillways.
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
jf�� k�er,f yn�LLL��rI
Lagoon Name/Identifier (ID): L2� �, S�Id�
Spillway (Yes or No):L S -- -'r, t�
Level (inches): �(�_ - ! a J
2. Check all applicable items
Liquid level is within the designed structural freeboard elevations of one or more structures. Five
and 30 day Plans of Action are attached. Hydraulic and agronomic balances are within
acceptable ranges.
Liquid level is within the 25 year 24 hour storm elevations for one or more structures. A 30 day
Plan of Action is attached. Agronomic balance is within acceptable range.
.. Waste is to be pumped and hauled to off site locations. Volume and PAN content of waste to
pumped and hauled is reflected in section III tables. Included within this plan is a list of the
proposed sites with related facility number(s), number acres and receiving crop information.
Contact and secure approval from the Division of Water duality prior to Ulnefer of waste
a all nat overed In the facility's certified animal wastg management plan. d diIMWZb,� o A r✓ -1061
0
Operation ill be partial ar full depopulated.
attach a complete schedule with corresponding animal units and dates for depopulation
- if animals are to be moved to another permitted facility, provide facility number, lagoon
freeboard levels and herd population for the receiving facility
I Earliest possible date to begin land application of waste: • p 1q1:4TiJFR . PFRM I TT
OR )Vo L AT ER Thy 3-;s 02- -
1 hereby certify that I have reviewed the Information listed above and Included within the attached Plan
of Action, and to the best of my knowledge and ability, the Information is accurate and Correct.
Faclifty owner/Manager (prim)
Phone: A_1R ` .L25„
rAfiff4q1�5t.� I
PoA Cover Page 212f/00

0 0

Buttke
0
Subject: Buttke
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 17:10:14 -0500
From: "Barton Roberson" <[e-mail]>
To: "Melissa Rosebrock \(E-mail\)" <[e-mail]>
Melissa,
Got your message.
Buttke has not been certified for the use of the new holding area yet.
(Atleast not my us.)...I will apologize to both you and him, but I'm sorry,
we have not had the time or opportunity to do -it. I understand that his
request is as important as any other producer in the county, however, I have
to first take care of the basics, and for the past few months, it has been
ringing the register for my superiors as well as filling the void of 2
individuals that are no longer here....
Let me know if you need to know anything. I am not able to certifiy the
structural integrity of the structure. That will be -the responsibility of
the engineer. The sizing and certifying of the operation as well as
addressing collection, storage, and disposal. But not the structure itself.
Sometimes, the need for speed is best served by the private sector when it
is a landowners preference to change an operation.
Let me know.... (I will be in Salisbury all day Tuesday, however, I can be
reached by cell if necessary (336 669-3222)
Barton
B. Barton Roberson (E-mail) <[e-mail]>
District Conservationist
USDA-NRCS
USDA-NRCS
1 of 1 3/18/2002 5:14 PM

Senate Bill 1217 Interagency Group - Technical Specialists Designations http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/interagency/Designations,him
SB1217 Interagency Technical Designations
Group
The North Carolina Soil and Water Conservation Commission designates
Committee each technical specialist with specific areas of authority. The technical
specilist is only allowed to certify best management practices within their
Technical area. The designation category, code and area of authority are described
Specialists below.
Guidance
Dov
Outside Collection, Storage, SD (design) • agoons, storage ponds, dry stacks,
Links and/or Treatment SI (installation) storage structures, composters,
pushoff ramps, curbing, settling
basins and other similar structures.
I
Waste Utilization . WUP
•
development and implementation
Plan
of land application plans including
crop and acreages available to
meet nutrient budget, hydraulic
and nutrient loading rates,
placement of application site
buffers
+
measurement of existing storage
volume
•
confirmation of existence and
compatibility of land application
equipment with waste utilization
plan
•
certification of cropping systems
•
confirmation of absence of exterior
lots
•
confirmation of sludge and effluent
removal and application at
agronomic rates for lagoon closure
Waste Utilization WUP / WA
•
development and implementation
Plan / Wettable
of land application plans including
Acres
crop and acreages available to
meet nutrient budget, hydraulic
and nutrient loading rates,
placement of application site
buffers
-
•
measurement of existing storage
Post -its Fax Note
7671 Date 3 j 0Z pageSl
•
volume
confirmation of existence and
To r I
�/ �� From ('
compatibility of land application
colDept.
co.
equipment with waste utilization
plan
Phone #
Phone #
•
certification of cropping systems
pP 9 Y
� Fax # �
S 3 Fax # �
•
confirmation of absence of exterior
lots
_
•
confirmation of sludge and effluent
removal and application at
agronomic rates for lagoon closure
1 of 2
3/19/2002 3:05 PM

Senate Bill 1217 Interagency Group - Technical Specialists Designations
Runoff Controls
Irrigation Equipment
Irrigation Equipment
1 Wettable Acres
http:/Iwww.soil.ncsu.edtdinteragency/Designations.htm
0
• determine wettable acres in
accordance with Certified Animal
Waste Management Plan
RC development and implementation
of filter strips, grass channels, and
related nonstructural BMPs used to
reduce runoff from exterior lots
(primarily dairy operations)
I • design and installation of irrigation
systems to include pipe size, pump
horsepower, nozzle size, system
layout, thrust blocks, etc. and
operation plan to meet criteria of
Waste Utilization Plan (hours per
set, etc.)
I / WA • design and installation of irrigation
systems to include pipe size, pump
horsepower, nozzle size, system
layout, thrust blocks, etc. and
operation plan to meet criteria of
Waste Utilization Plan (hours per
set, etc.)
• determine wettable acres in
accordance with Certified Animal
Waste Management Plan
15-oct-2001 Dept of Soil Science North Carolina State University
2 of 2 3/19/2002 3:05 PM

Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 12 Date of Visit: 12/13/2001 Time: 0920
O Not O erational Q Below Threshold
e Permitted 0 Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: ........................................................ ................ County: RA]xdalPlx......................................... WSRQ........
Owner Name: QAirlin........................................ Rulkke..............................
Mailing Address:..7.��t.1llieiC.1�1>ZiDRI�.........................................
Facility Contact: 1?Nay.IigAUttk9............................................... Title:
Onsite Representative:..Wam,..Rtxttke.................................................
Phone No:G-4S-i�..fatif'x�e�..........................................
l3amdkrAttlLaNC.................................................... 2.7.317...............
PhoneNo:... .....................................
Integrator:.........................................................................
Certified Operator: j -AYAle.L............................... Buttke............................................... Operator Certification Number:2�2J�3.............................
Location of Farm:
rom GSO, south on Hwy. 220 to Level Cross exit. take right onto Branson Mill Rd. Continue to Walker Mill Rd. and take A
eft onto Walker Mill Rd. w
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 50 36 " Longitude 79 • 50 ' F 36 "
Curr`Design `Cu:� n"t ,�- �. P I�,_ 1. �f i�p�gn°'
k }Swine Ca sell Po ulation Poultrty Ca sell Po ulation Cattle Ca acit P,o ulation
j`fi ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ®Dairy 1200 1086
s
❑Feeder to Finish ❑Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
t ❑ Farrow to Wean
r
F
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish ' ,
Fs '" Total DesignCapaclty 1,200
�. ❑ Giltsiz
❑ Boars , 1-ssr:4w 1,68o,000
Number of Lagoons ® ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area I0 Spray Field Ares k
RHolding• nds'j/ Sofid Traps I ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges K Stream Imp
E Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ® Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection $c Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? to Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I . Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifer: ..........UpfterA.......... .......... Upper.2 .................SnWl.side........................ ........................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 84 24 60
05103101 Continued

e ity Number: 76-12 Date of Inspection 12/13/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the mtegnty of any of the structures observed? (iel trey!severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
W. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type corn silage rye cover
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18, Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24, Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
•amments of o io in a s e a o a o 0 0
rawin o f i i t t p m i ion ❑ Field Copy ®Final Notes
3. Need to sow seed for quick establishment of vegetation prior to fescue seeding in Spring on newly graded area.
8. Will need some way to contain any leachate from stockpiled sand bedding at the end of the new "concrete" pond.
3. and 8. Tons of solid waste from bottom of waste storage pond upper #2 has been stockpiled, uncovered, in field below upper # 1 on
land now owned by Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority. Waste needs to be sampled immediately and either land applied or
re -used for bedding.
9. New concrete waste storage pond needs to have waste level marker installed prior to certification.
14. Facility is all pump and haul now.
15. Rye looks somewhat sparse on some fields.
w
Reviewer/Inspector Name jMelis.VRTeProck AL N JOHNSON
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date: Oil Q 1==
05103101 Continued

o
Facility Number: 76-12 1) of Inspection 12/13/2441
ar issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
6. and 25. New concrete waste storage pond must be certified prior to use.
11. and 19. Several fields have had waste applied to the rye cover crop last year that was not harvested in the Spring. The plant
available nitrogen (PAN) was not deducted from the corn crop and thus caused an overapplication of the PAN. Any animal waste
nitrogen applied to a crop (ex, rye) that is not harvested must then be deducted from the nitrogen allowed on the next crop (ex. corn
silage).
19. Waste from all storage ponds that are land applied needs to be sampled. There was only one waste analysis available today and
waste from all three structures was applied.
19. Record of amount and nitrogen content of waste "given away" needs to be kept.
27. Dead calf at heifer lot is to be picked -up today.
#3 is to be closed Spring 2002 due to construction of Randleman Dam. Need to contact SWCD about a closure plan now.
J
05103101

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 12 Date of Visit: 12l13/2441 'fine: 0924
0 Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted ■ Certified © Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: ........................................................................ County: RAiLd.algill ......................................... WSRO........
Owner Name: ,9►]CAW........................................ ft.tjkc ......................................................... Phone No: 331-495439.3..(Q.filiu)..........................................
Mailing Address: 53.9(...alkCt;.MjjJ..RQ%d...................................... .. Rtndlem a NIC.................................. ... 2.7.3�7...............
FacilityContact: WayntAmitke...............................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: Wayjae.j),ILttkc................ Integrator:..........
......................................................................................................................................
Certified Operator:.W.a'Atg.L............................... HjXjtjkC ................................................ Operator Certification Number: 22101..............................
Location of Farm:
?rorn GSO, south on Hwy, 220 to Level Cross exit. take right onto Branson Mill Rd. Continue to Walker Mill Rd. and take A
eft onto Walker Mill Rd. #
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude 79 • 50 3t5 11,
" Swine ` °
I)estgn:
Ca act
Current
P,o ulation
I,.'.', 'I '�M: �, �ni ,i f" GI Me'si k k7klnl
" Design Current Design Current
Poultry Ca acit P,o ulation Cattle Ca acit P,o ulation
❑ Layer ®Dairy1 1200 1086'
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Non -Layer
❑Nan -Dairy
❑Other
Total Design Capacity 1,200;
.= 'Total SSi.i 1,680,000
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
ber. of L® ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
� ONHoldPonds / 111dMiraips0 r ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Ili
Discharges & Stream lmgacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes. ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ® Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes 99 No
Structure i Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .........Uppet.1.......... .........Upper.2......... ....... Small.side .........................
Freeboard (inches): 84 24 60 }
05/03/01 �� 3 / Continued

Facility Number: 76-12 Date of Inspection 12/13/2001 -.
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ to , severe erosion, ❑Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ®Yes [3 No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ® Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ® Yes ❑ No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with thosc%signhted in1he Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CA"P)? [:]Yes ® No
t4.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
[] Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23,
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
® Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
® Yes
❑ No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this,visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): xplain an YES answe and/or an ecommen a ions or any o her en .
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. use a itional a eves ary : ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
3. Need to sow seed for quick establishment of vegetation prior to fescue seeding in Spring on newly graded area.
AL
8Will need some way to contain any leachate from stockpiled sand bedding at the end of the new "concrete" pond.
3. and 8. Tons of solid waste from bottom of waste storage pond upper #2 has been stockpiled, uncovered, in field below upper #1 on
land now owned by Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority. Waste needs to be sampled immediately and either land applied or
re -used for bedding.
9. New concrete waste storage pond needs to have waste level marker installed prior to certification,
14. Facility is all pump and haul ncw.
15. Rye looks somewhat sparse on some fields.
Reviewer/Inspector Name $Mali sa Rosebrock ALAN OHNSON
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: All Q
0.5103101 Continued

L
la
Facility Number: 76_12 I)f Inspection 12/13/2001
Odor 15 A
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or "storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® 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
C_' , t ona L *_ommentsTan .orb draw '�s:
6. and 25. New concrete waste storage pond must be certified prior to use.
A.
11. and 19. Several fields have had waste applied to the rye cover crop last year that was not harvested in the Spring. The plant
available nitrogen (PAN) was not deducted from the corn crop and thus caused an overapplication of the PAN. Any animal waste
nitrogen applied to a crop (ex. rye) that is not harvested must then be deducted from the nitrogen allowed on the next crop (ex. corn
silage).
19. Waste from all storage ponds that are land applied needs to be sampled. There was only one waste analysis available today and
waste from all three structures was applied.
19. Record of amount and nitrogen content of waste "given away" needs to be kept.
27. Dead calf at heifer lot is to be picked -up today.
Structure #3 is to be closed Spring 2002 due to construction of Randleman Dam. Need to contact SWCD about a closure plan now.
05103101

:36
(Type of Visit % Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation f
for Visit )(Routine O Complaint. O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other;
Facility Number Date of Visit:
ermitted Certified © Conditionally Certified © Registered
Farm Name: ....B.......��, .......... 4.... El..t."i CP.Ei... ? S..............
OwnerName: .............r..t -a ....... [IL�.................................................................
Facility Contact: .....ua,. ie....... P .A. .....Title:...... .............. .
Mailing Address:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry
Swine
.:....:.!................................
Cattle [3Horse
Design ; Current
Cainacity 'PODUl9tion
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Not
❑ Denied Access
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
County:......Ran&..t.�.,!.. ................................
PhoneNo:.. .......................................... ...............
PhoneNo: ...................................................
..... , ..... a..7...: �..
Integrator: ........................................................................ ..........
Operator Certification Number: d I '
- z1
Desi'`
gn .•Current
Poultry. , 'Ca",a fty Po ulation . C the : ,'.Ca
❑ Layer Dairy
❑ Non -Layer Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity, C
Total sstw.
Number of i.agoi6ns ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ©Lagoaer Area
H6ld4ng Ponds / Saud Traps. , ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
` Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Dischafge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? 0.
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
Yes
'<No❑
j
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 91
Yes ❑-No
%a 4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway ❑ Yes No
Structure 1 1 Structure 2 �"—� Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure fi
Identifier: 1�.,�..........L.,l�....�.....,���..........................................................................................................
C r�
Freeboard (inches): ` 4
S/00 r i 561,05
ot 15 _ Continued on back

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
'
5. `Are there any immediate threats to the inPrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
0 Yes b6o
1 ' seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste, management or
closure plan?
Yes ❑ No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
,
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes )ONO
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
XYes
elevation markings?
JPO
-Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑Yes >rNo
l l' Is there evidence of'ovei application? . `" ❑Excessive Ponding )SeAN ❑ Hydraulic'OVerload
Yes o
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with tho(a designated the Certified Ant ai Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes o
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes [INo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes ❑ No
o
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?-
❑ Yes >jrNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes >ff4o
Reauired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? . Yes qo
18. Does the facility fail to have all components oof the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) Ag
c/Yes kNo
19. Does record kee in need im rovement? ie/ irrtion fredboard waste anal sis & soil sam le re its �,�rYes No
P g p { Y p Fm ) �l ❑
20. Is facility,not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes XNo
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? s ` ❑ Yes *11
0
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by neral Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) CF ElYes XNO
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-sita.Tepresentative? ❑ Yes XNo
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ,Yes ❑ Igo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompli#ke of the Certified AWMP? Yes No
L]: Q YiiE4>Rs'o d�f cje �ie5 •ftft,'hO e4- �11;>F 1Og,'tbjs'vjsjt; • Yo 011- .......°ee$iye too fli4'thtr'
cories• oridence: about this visit . .
�. I:,. .'� .. t i. t
�is ��q p y. y y��`.
Comments (refer to uestion #) Irz lam�an ,YES answers and/or an recommen ons or an other comments
k.-:,. �!:
Use dra of facility to better ex lain`situations (use �ogal pages,as aecesss
aN
Reviewer/Inspector Name'' C� V ' n `�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature '�
Date:
A-
f
5/00 1 le

Facility Number: Z l f .litspectiona.
(1
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below-BYes--❑-AFe-
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes X No
28. is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes *0
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? -wee--lo
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 `4
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes �'N0
3?,�I� the flush to ks la a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporaq cover., A
/�UCP�,Otr� WaX 0111e-Ar1.)rx/ � �.f�dls �b !�e
1
r•
rMY

�q1 l: ii e rt E€' hl': �. '' a}�� f f € g,j �� . t...- , a.: ':ki3€ p�= p e !€ € € € r —. .� I t�f'' -•#� S 3 q "i
ater,+ffl"isron'oSoWrw,rvationSC
III},,d t..a "' �'t •' ` :4, �'�• e�`S ther:A&ne�It
r' i r '-�>� f. .Nr. 1�i'�E 6 �, IJ , :6: 3 �• � ,,;� 4 .f d.: , S�> sit
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection peration Roview O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Vfioutine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: r� �,t� lLJ'rime: i�d /t-� Printed an: 10/26/2000
Q Not O erational Q Below Threshold
ermitted © Certified [:] Conditionally Certified [] Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ...............
Farm Name: .... (yL.......... ................i"r.,Sn.S.. County• N1 ij
Owner Name:..... G........................[1t�aCL....................................... Phone No: ... .lrt.:-..,.7r.....4.9,3..................
Facility Contact: ...All..........#/`............ 'I'itle:.,l'f/M ........!l1AJ.'C/... Phone No: ......... 11/!ti.0..................
Mailing Address - 9.1.........��r�.......� /..% C�tJ�! .. .., c3Y[e/h N........... ............. ..l.. f..l
Onsite Representative:.... ' �J�.......,,�Gk. 1 .. , Integrator:... ..........................
Certified Operator: 1�.....„•su.. Cr..• • Operator Certifieation Number: .Z ..10 f
Location of Farris:
G.4-re,,'� of /�iqn/ Ca/J A%ry a� /�
r►
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ®'Ladle ❑ Horse Latitude J$i • i `, Longitude ©• ,jp - ®"
Design Current
Swine ennneity Pnnttlatinn
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer 5515airy �Js
❑ Nun -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other .
Total Design Capacity 12-00
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps © ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges c& Stream I_ mpact;
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? �es ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field they t�e►�e�iV
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance ratan -made? ❑ Yes FE I�o
h. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes 0405'*
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? Co I ,
d. Does discharge hypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) LLkAJAZA_,1 ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes U,1?0`_
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes . UWN�
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes 2<0
SuFucturc I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ),
:.............................. ...........I.......... 7...�'
................. ......................... ................... .................. ""................,...................
F rreboard (itic hes): y
5100 S4"Ac
Continued on hack
of

Facility Number: 76 -- Date of Inspection — / Printed on: 10/26/2000
..5" Are"there any immediate threats to the i ty of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tre vere erosion, ❑ Yes 041+o
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not prgperly addressed and/or. managed iEaough a waste management or (� "
closure plan`? Yes o . a.[^.
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an �� tY�.xF fod,
immediate public health or environmertal threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement`?
❑ Yes
[V Ko
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
R
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
szd&_�
Yes
-A .4t;-
�,�
elevation markings`?
El
�O
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
11. Is there evidence of over application? []Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
ElLl Yes
,RIC
Wo
12. Crop type a
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
S.OKO
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[;,<o
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination`?
❑ Yes
EW10
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
M,1110
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[R<o
Re wired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
M<o
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
R10
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
91<00
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
Oi?sfo
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
Yes
,....,/
0<0
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑
L
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[!W4o
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
W-Yr"s
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
rj,,' 4<
yiolati[jtis:o dryfc ensie wire n tech it rirtg th�s:v sit; Yost wii� tr00i*6lid #'t><�-t�t
corres aridOii ' e: abotif; this visit..
N' f l� y•., h li _' _.:_ i ; .. i t-i!.-'..: 1'. t' F--:E 1 ^f. 'i 1 m-
Comments#(refer to question #) Explain any YES answers andki any'reeomtnendatloas or;any other coments r 'tom Y I f
— ty tier explwn Atuattons T{use additional pages„as necessary}:,; E 31,t•�r,r'' E i s 'E: s�+ � ' p.
Use drawfn s of facih to be
P , 7 I r'L
kPim, ,ti rcdr_41o
,( �n,rQlr�_•-- bko ,x�..I�,��1�`P��
a tv �7.G�*'c , � C�-ple 4 -- Gam- I.�-p �r[`d y1 UQU• R
�1 "'. CC�� Lc.3! 2�T n,r�i�c. l±`lm✓� sty f-�- -P lt�_ ;
Reviewer/Inspector Name R
Revi ewer/] nspecto r Signature: Date: 5100

Facility Number: D e of ii=spection O— -D Printed on" 10/26/2000
40
,r'oC ISSUES .
�)d
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge ai/or below
�'es
❑ 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
ln, •l�o
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
- Io
29.
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
Is the land application spray system, intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
q?4--
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
tXo
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
[V.J IK
lack
Yes
32.
Do the flush tanks a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑
Additional Comments, an or ra „np: ;.
1 fk.e ..
,�
A. w
-a"OL L
ha sJa �eLc,; re,-J) CZ) LivL [� �-[� {Jug__ ��'"". �'�L ✓C 't� r .� f 0 U � +.w (.[,�"_
TLC
ct

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O* Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 12 Date of Visit: 10/22/2001 't';u,4; 9:00
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
S Permitted ■ Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ......................
Farm Name: l >xtkl��.t2sa>cx.l mxtwt ptsis�s.................................................................. ...... County: Rai dalpix......................................... WSRA........
Owner Name: Alt in ........................................ D.ul ike........................... .. Phone No: 33.C-4QS-13Q3..(Af�IW........................................ ..
......... ............................
Mailing Address: 402Z..W..arilt;��. M�i�l. tilva d.....��. .�a.. t �..�G l ' �.t<... &adim ern.N.0.................................................... 2.7.317 .............
Facility Contact:..............................................................................Title:
Onsite Representative:W.ayjacjD.at1]fg........................
Certified Operator:.WaytilrL............................... outtkc ...................
Location of Farm:
Phone No: ...............................
Integrator: ..............................................................................
Operator Certification Number:221Ql
rom GSO, south on Hwy. 220 to Level Cross exit. take right onto Branson Mill Rd. Continue to Walker Mill Rd. and take A
eft onto Walker Mill Rd.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 50 y 36 « Longitude 79 ' 50 36
�,. -rn sc-... r ; $ A ., •. 't ,. �Gr ba
Cuent Design Current gn "CurrentP It C"ttl't.Number�of Lagoons Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Arr❑Spray Ficld Arca
Holding Pnds/ Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Identifier:
P,olititions rYctoit
bs:�l?ti ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
• Layer �
®Dairy 1200 $97
❑ Feeder to Finish
,
❑Non -Layer
Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
•'h sy 1 S yy� {; : e�.w<
"❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Design Capa�c�ty 1,200
SSLW 1,6$0,000
❑ Farrow to FinishTotal
Gilts
❑ Boars
Discharges R& S�Ul1. 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 Stater? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ® No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑Yes ® No
Waste -Collection R Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure b
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 74 2 74
05/03101 Continued

Facility Number: 76-12 Date of Inspection 10/22/2001 0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the i4ity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ®Yes ❑ No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ® No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
24. Follow-up to secure certification of planned system.
18. Field #'s on records should match field #'s used in WUP. This will be updated wh;;n WUP is revised to new format. Plan needs to
reflect all broadcast. Soil samples taken by managed units-WUp shows I fields(7998046) Plan and application need to match -complete
in update of plan.
16. Spreading is contracted.
6. Calf waste needs to be addressed in plan.
Buttke Dairy is changing the wms by eliminating 1 storage pond. They will discontinue using it next year. Construction has begun on a
concrete structure. It is not is use yet. Buttke Dairy has secured the services of an engineer but it appears that he is only looking at the
Reviewer/Inspector Name Barton Roberson.
Reviewer/Inspector. Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 76-12 Dale of Inspection 10/22/20Q1
•
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
A61
J
ra-ZI 11%

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ® Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 12 Date of Visit: 14/22/2041 Time: 9:40
0 Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified U Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Rutttke.Dairy-Eaterads s........................................................................ County: FtAad.(tjpjj ......................................... WSRA........
Owner Name: Araim........................................ D.IJ11kc .....................
Mailing Address: �R?�e..W..all�eh.�1�1��041�......................................
Facility Contact: .............................................................................. Title:..
Onsite Representative:WAyjue,jj.utjkC....................................................
Certified Operator:,, AlXU9.L............................... Buttke ........................
Location of Farm:
Phone No:6-4QS-�. (fQ#lei..........................................
I;iAWAtman.SIG.................................................... U.317...............
PhoneNo: ...................................................
Integrator:
............ Operator Certification Number:UIQI .............................
?rom GSO, south on Hwy. 220 to Level Cross exit. take right onto Branson Mill Rd. Continue to Walker Mill Rd. and take +
eft onto Walker Mill Rd.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 50 ' 36 44 Longitude 79 • 50 36
MUgsign `
Swine NaPacitP'Ovulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
Current Design Current
Poultry Ca acit Po pulation Cattle
❑Layer ® Dairy
Design Current
Cciltv ulation
1200 897
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
c .
1,200
.,
1,680,000
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑Boars
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps
0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges -&Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ® Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection A& Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure h
Identifier: ...................................................................... ..... ........................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 74 2 74
05103101 Continued

......
I.ly, fF�f 13 r,re{kr !f li - 1 i 13,.s Eil� II .•1 t I j I Ii i i17 I 1 • 1
Tj
li �I'II�rl i' I I j }... •r ts
1 ion;oWater€Qnallit
lii M� i 1 it' t { LS1Qn Of SOII and Water, Con$erlvaFtlon
� 1:
{
'Other Algency i ;
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 12 late of Visit: 11/6/2000 Time: 1005 Printed on: 11/7/2000
O Not Operational Q .Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold
Farm Name: Ruitka.Dai[y..hiaterprins ....................................... ........................ .......... County: Raudolph ......................................... W. .SRQ........
OwnerName: A. xli�a........................................ RVALkt ......................................................... phone No:-4�5-1...(QtCI���..........................................
Facility Contact: Wayne. 11100............................................... Title:................................................................ Phone No: 33.6.42.8 2.7.4........................
Mailing Address: ..7.9G.WW�er..dill.ltv.a..........................................r................... ..... l> ....................................... I ........... 1 Z.7.317...............
Onsite Representative:.WAyx1?,.B1.tAttk0...................................... ...................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:V4.'+AXlag.................................... HjUjtkg ............................................... Operator Certification Nuniber:2.2101 .............................
Location of Farm:
From GSO, south on Hwy. 220 to Level Cross exit. take right onto Branson Mill Rd. Continue to Walker Mill Rd. and take +
eft onto Walker Mill Rd.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ' S0 36 6= Longitude 79 • 50 36 1,
Design Current
Swine Canaeity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Po ulation Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ® Dairy 1200 900
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 1,200
TotalSSLW 1,680,ao0
- 11 Nuinber,ofLagoons ®'i. ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area t
1
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 0 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify D WQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estiinaled flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) Iess than adequate? ® Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:.........UppcxA1................... Upper.#.2......... .... ;mall.Side.#.3.... .................................... .............................
Freeboard (inches): 65 53 65
5100
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
...... ....................................
!/ 61d f �
Continued on back

Facility Number: 76—t2 Date of Inspection 11/6/2000 Printed on; 111712000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the i*ity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ treovere erosion, ❑ Yes ®No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ® Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ®No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18, Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
0; No yiolatibtis:or deficiencies vvere:noted during this; visit.:You;will receive no ftirthe ;
corres ondence, about this ,visit. . .
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
F7.1ond
nts (refer to,gttest�on#) Expla3�n any€YESEaiisweErs and/or any recommendations or any other corriments t{ ,
wings'.nf facility to'!better„�ezplain� situations (use additionaU p' ages as necessary) i' 6v,
#3 has a burrow hole that needs to be repairede. Continue efforts to control vegetation. Trees are to be removed as soon as A,
7. Pond #2 has several groundhog holes needing repair. Top of dam needs repairing, too.
D. Markers on all three ponds need to have top of dam/spillway marked per permit.
19. Need to start keeping freeboard readings now that permit has been issued (last week). Soil samples for 2000 will be taken within
the next two weeks. April waste applications did not have a sample within 60 days.
Reviewer/Inspector Name a r Roseb i
ack
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:`�f/j/j l /, dj_ /V A —4. /1, dA b Date: 11141 1,96 5100

Facility Number: 76-12 Da f Inspection 11/6/2000 . Printed on: 11/7/2000
y
Odor ]slues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27, Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ®No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
5100

ti
visidn of Water Qualityvision of Soil and Water Conservation
,,
�.. � �. ` E � - Q Ot11er Agency i
r�
k- ,
k� i� { 1 r k _ ' ��f� k k i. a1.E ,�z.,. nk,n.°i�3k ��.... ,�3: .� k[:4.i.�(isi
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit: i Time: Printed on: 7/21/2000
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted OCertified 13 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
40
Farm Name: .B.Q-•1.1.!'e.............J%1.p...�...tiS..L°.............. County: ... I`
.....
f�...................
................. ........
Owner Name: ....TL�`.1.�.�i... �.]�T.. L Phone No: 33.(a'...7..:..I... 1. .......................... .... 1 .......... .... ..... t I
Facility Contact: A.1l.i(..�..-B�?fll&............................'l'itle:.....I........................... ....I.................... Phone No:.....`>T. g..�. .°�.7 (4)1"7 I
Mailing Address: ,7q ..•,� (,/ , �.. .... ...I...... .V....... ..f. .rit ..Q. ... f ........................... R. 7... J ..........................
Onsite Representative:.............*.W,,,,,,,,, f� Q� ..... , Integrator:..,, (, ,.
`Q e�Qe-l.Y1'........................
Certified Operator:...,.g�........................................................ Operator Certification Number:... Aalo..I............
Location 'of Farm:
Fran'1 : So on Wy �6 e X qh le rl ,n rar)sa
! . Ca m e- le,f� &-,a1 Mee- 1y
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry acattle ❑ Worse Latitude �' �� Longitude ' t vJ` ®"
Design,' ° Cu_ rrent Design Current Desilgtt,k Current
:Ca 'aer Po elation .. Poultry Ca aci Pa elation C .1611 k . Ca: uci.,�Po elation
eder
irk; WIdF
Finish
Fean
Feeder
kit Finish
GB
❑ Layer Dairy
❑ Non -Layer Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total near, caPac�ty
Total`SSLW $
�l7 Dd
,f �;'t't �t NniQt<bee of ]Lagoons .t' ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ t-ag^�+n Area ❑ Spray Fie Area
(s,1H toldhug Ponds /; Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated now in gal/tnin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & "Treatment
❑ Yes 4 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway ❑ Yes No
Structure Structure ucture 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
{�p� ii 11 I c•,] ,�
Identifier: ..1"""'`"....... ........�.lP.......� ....... ii��.l•.�l.Kid....,�................... ............... ................
....,....................................
Freeboard (inches):
5100 _ Continued on back

•' Facility Number. — ( a•, . Date of Inspection Printed on: 7/21/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? XYes ❑[No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? gl Yes ❑ No
Waste Application /
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes VNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes XN 0
/ ` r
12. Crop type .rr,�' 1 1F ,a 1 t Igftlyl l n r1l21 A 1
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those desig(ited in tf?e Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14, a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reauired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
.19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22, Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
10 yiola�itj>r}s;oi- d�> c�ertc{es ry re IQte ¢4rring �this;vis}t, • Yoh iviti•ree�iye o fu�t l�r
orres�oncience' about. this visit. • . ' . ' . '
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes �`No
❑ Yes 1XNo
❑ Yes *io
❑ Yes eNo
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes lNo
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes �(No
❑ Yes YNo
❑ Yes11�No
,Comments (refer to question #):Explain any YIDS answers 'and/or any recommendations oriany other c)mments' ,1,
Use drawings of facility, to better explain_ situations. (use additional pages as necessary)
71 -43 PerA �A5 ot,r b u rro Lo VVole-qjna+ neQcls -6 be rip re� . Co" n ue A.orbs & cow vele°k�on o T`m s 04-e-is be-i ermtred aS swn a5 Qoss' J Q
R 6 Kow- kixz r�&J -6 P o-� down -/Spill fe r ,po-r m l � 4
PoOa has 5e�rera rouv�t ho�25 needy n r r .
14, �L1.- U..nA.�nn !!,_ �_ _ � -1.. 1� �A�_.-_�R1 In ne' Innti,n
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signal
Date:
5100

b
Facifity Number: — �of Inspection Printed on: 7/21/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or Mow Vie"
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? OM TfaO0O
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes to
o
28, Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29, is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes )6 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? I T I aaoo .
AaMilonal Comments andorDrawings:
No�-e5 : jrna�i rainy Lorn 51 �t �� FeSe Ue
ro-r fY1 4 r1
r I n _B49t it S oLon ar- 0r
Lea5Se- now ?
M rYL+ . ? AerSri n -Fo r
1 � d � y
sQ 1 ma ��✓el 1 :5 f,q ' betoU-) -6 p -of dqm
Q - maX 1W .! 15 -3, 61 6-clod 4& da n�
�P#3 a.� � bejal� f6u-)es+
P� 6r) dam
- Ve3e-"ov1 6u4 on Jogn5 Ori- �
1 Free boo-rd re- eooJ s ? - T�o So 11 Sc le be. V r �r a
I�Y1 neX-i- t vo c�.�eei�-
V; n ed bu�ve r on pa5fvIre.s rimaved 006V) Oa.11ter M i j 2
Neu)/Old r'tA. A" l d v e - ?
� e.•
196
-43.
aa rl 01 C- e- ? ahll�
Ca ► as � n 5 l ale. +V-e-n c41 ? �
Spill gal -F-e-s+C>r-0-4-0rl ? 6)' "
-
� &no-N S'ls ? ��Y i I pl � ohs
a
d s 5 sJ
3?� rJQ �� day
5/00
� 'fib `�� `� �
e1,15A
all

101zoutine Q Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review Q OrhZx:- I
Facility Number a R Date of Inspection r+ r tl�
Time of Inspection Ahr.-�C-hhmm
Permitted [2 C rtified © Conditionally Certified 13 Registered 113 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ...v6 .........;Z;k( ! ........... til.V {, ........ County:.... t L 4.......................................
Owner Name:.........��'G�.......................?ty C.................................... Phone No: .,.3.3...~`t...f........... ...................
Facility Contact: WAN .... L4 �............................ Title: /�!4.... 11�!IJ A {.f� ......... Phone No: 33.......... .T..7;E.32. 7 4
....�.. ..A/G.............7�SJs.........Mailing Address:�(7 .....Y. ....G'...................
OnsiteRepresentative: ... ".YA jjvC:.... ?,c�� �.e........................................... Integrator:.. .t e QGridcn. ...........................
...... .. ............
Certified Operator:,,, !�I ,t, ............ Operator Certification Number:... ..... .....+ .,�0
..................
Location of Farm: ta/., /. �_rr .J ^ A J /r 1. Zk,-r M: // AIA1 1 /Ail 5 7—n 1' ASGC/Z.r...aw.
Latitude [�• 1=1
=11 Longitude .=• =, Ei-21-
Current
Design - Currents;i�,, kk k7�E?� Desrgn: 'Current
.Poultry„
1� i':.,.: i "s.. ? 31,E :.iFGa
Ca 'aci Po ulatiori-,,,�Catfaer.,�Yr,.M �R� aci Mahon,
ti,
. ;Po
a
r,
ec
y'
r -All
a
F
Total°Deyysign Capanpcity;�y
r'
,� 1 A 1 _ 71� d G7Yks,_ j 2! l��kt�' xC dPC,ESF [� jiLr;
'lk
�d r
�'k t , `�TOtal SSLW t t
,sa
i;,�kt�Nom erafkLagoons=� �1 a� ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Feld Area `
#�Holding�Ponds I Sol�d�Tr�ps�
yy��, ❑ No
Liquid Waste Management System�r1x��,
aiCa"
aer ,°�Eo''ilatton
t +k
Wean to Feeder
❑Feeder to Finish
�r
❑Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Fa
❑ Layer
�,
❑Dairy
�
❑ Non -Layer
I`
❑Non -Dairy
Discharges &Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑Yes C,�No
Discharge originated at: ❑Lagoon ❑Spray Field ❑Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑Yes ❑ No
h. If discharge is ohscrved, did it reach Water of the State? (Ii' 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? [3 Yes (�o
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? (3 Yes C�o
Waste Collection &Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑Spillway ❑ Yes @'�
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: P�d N[MkW � Ma/�
�c -7 2
Freeboard(inches): .........�..T.1. ......................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑Yes D4o
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

f .
Facility Number: —f /Q- Ote of inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which ar of properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes 2No
(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? &Kes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes
Uwo-
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes &3'N-5
Waste Annlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes 1❑'No
12. Crop type c. d / J�n� L(
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes [moo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes BNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes QoNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes [9<o
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there'a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17.. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20- Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
0; 1c� yii�l;�iit¢njs'o� ij1)�f c�e�c,7es •ware 000. dol ig tb1S'vjsjt! • You' wi11.0eeOye 40 WOO
ctirresnoricience:ahout this visit: ..::.... . ..................:.:..::: .
❑ Yes GWo
❑ Yes 21To
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes O T�O
[Yes El No
❑ Yes [�'l�o
❑ Yes (PTS
❑ Yes 2<o
❑ Yes 51- O
❑ Yes Io
❑ Yes PI°
O©vdy ge r.W , JV,,s er. �j�o�A� G ]�-Jdls Nec.dS '- 6---Cc. -
� R 1? t w ! 6 PJ5
5
cQp�.trU,6 -zp reol,e 6J ttild jr-e-e-P (of
,
-0$a f:7*fn1. Ov, Fre-4VAr4 rcc.crds
Reviewer/Inspector Name W07- k �-i1S r ..-:
� .�Reviewer/Inspector Signature: A ► e- Date: �p �a

`Va—ility Number: 26— te of I11spection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below 2 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 WIKO
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application'? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes 41'4"
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 All,
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 E Noif/,
31. 'Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑Yes [•
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? 9'fes ❑ No

R
h (Routine O Com laint O Folio w-ug of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number / . Date of Inspection Vd -121. e'g i o n a # rl
Time of Inspection 1 4A 24 hr. (hh:mb
Permitted 12/certitied © Conditionally Certified [j Registered JE3 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
��►� L�R... . t y:... 1QAr►1.r.L14�l.......................... Farm Name: .. -. 4.. t / r 5 5 ._...... Count
OwnerName:......1N..........c...1kG....................................•............................. Phone No:..36 ....... 9�?....�.........................
Facility Contact: 4 ....................................................... Title:
.... ............. Phone No:
Mailing Address: ,.?r.1 ................................4A1............ /V.�r...... ..........................
Onsite Representative:..... VA 1....: ....e........................................ Integrator:. 1 4�1 .. ^f.................................
Certified Operator:..............k.......................................... Operator Certification Number: ...... cq.�.6Q.r..............
Location of Farm: f_..n' ,, / /- / •,. , D.. 11 Lr- iiw .` .. � _ _ _ 17 .. J ! e - .4 i t E 7—
r.. ..,.. ..ice
Latitude ®•=]' ®" Longitude ®' =1 =11
... . , : Desesi ,....RitStCurrent
Current , frsi�r...,rr F
, k ,
iCa acr ! Po F > Poaltr At, Ga act ula4an%� Cattle Capacity! ace ���P-o ulation
.ulat,on ,sc;Po Ilna 1K,�c
Wean to Feeder �N O
ft�� w
❑ Feeder Finishto ❑ NoneLayer �_ ❑ No Dairy sJ
i.
c
x
f
, :.t.,, ... ":��xe i::�e:x ci:tc ,-.r.s , u E 1 t t :
icp f
Farrow to Wean , ri F !Other
°'
4•
, y
❑ Farrow to Feeder SxM..4, k`...7S�
5
6
Farrow to Finish �.
Natal Design Capacity'MCI
❑ Gilts I a'a i�lt+t �� a'� l' a,���`I ,�i� , �
�Arz�
l'za�
w�
5 jJ
❑ Boars"t• �, ```.,s,:; E ��TotaI,SSL�W;r"
.Y.: tf�,:LSC.:<.tCi:..':sks4i�.7.rtii•:1.:RSt4iK,' IY[
eiySi.-3b r�1 n��r { Y $q
51
.Number of,Lagoons , �� ��`
i�`
�� rI La goon Area Spray Feld Area
❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ to ❑ P y
"�t,illdldinglPonds/ SoladTra s
�
; ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System t r
i 'a.3Iit
ulCu�A 6=�$`3�.��sU>.,it.•.•fh!�.::Fl)°�":>n:�6.`�3Si ....7.v..,:.l. .SL �<:,,.3.u, ... ......,.... .,.
.1 i�,t
`� } � 1� I'�,e�a.,. .x•.5(k�:.1�.
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes �o
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) 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 DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑, ,N�o
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes t 240
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes UVo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes 21 0
Structure I} Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure G
Identifier: Pr/G M +4 f1Lt1
if
Freeboard (inches): ......�� ..:. ............. .........................I..................... .......
.......................................................................................................... ....................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes (I NO
seepage, etc.)
3/23199 Continued on back

Fac�Lty Number: % — • �of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes [+ 'C
(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? Prl�es ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes G3, o
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ,�
elevation markings? ❑ Yes g o
Waste Annlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
I944
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
/o
2110
12, Crop type (l, f (J
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
1240
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[Ko
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
U-No'
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
9<o
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? a
❑ Yes
,-4b
L eo
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
UWcs
❑ No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
�1V4
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
Yes
❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
EW60
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
Io
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
o
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
041"0
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
2<0
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
2 No
1cj YiQl i�gs:o� dgrcieticies rare pQtea Olrt`ing his'visjt; Yoj>E w�flj t ee iye o fut r
corresparirienct ab6 f this visit'
/i/o �11IIn/i��ls Ai c C.i� r tc►J+a/�o +k,' s FA-r r, , P11d 4­ 5Tvr 4­ 4W r+ Operatlo,N bV-
J 7 r�iw� /SOT /"GLG r ✓� �I /-e�t/t v �_ I / t T
��/11CA� iJG714-
C�Y141�[r8/'� DN �l�/J��c pnld/►ti a
Al. NUJ WAAre__ AA-3lJL� �p/, L , Wft�iVe! �'!f� f NO rL Go
PA-5 AID Freebok d re-Lo(A
Reviewer/Inspector Name WIM—)4 , 1� A r . 5T?' �, €di . � �. �._ rw L'
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: , �� Date: Z-4A-49 -C3d

Facility Nuinber:'76 ja of Inspectidn
Odor Issues •
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below 0 y s [J 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 ® ]a
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes U4110
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? 9'" ❑ 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 ro
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes R<O
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? R<s ❑ No
J

DIVISION OF L\VIRONMENTAL � 'AGElDrNT
WINSTO N+SALEX REGIONAL OFF 4kAT,E. OVz,
NAME OF CALLER:
ADDRESS • ...
TELEPHONE
POINT OF POLLUTION:
TIME • am
3)1
I.1 &-r Ml to rn 1f .�� , � ern; ley d �w a S de
DIRECTIONS: ` i 0
SOURCE OF POLLUTION: JK
NATURE OF CALL:
:c
REPORT REFERRED T0:�(,��� --
ITMDIATE ACTION TAKEN:
r.
rrn
W ,•
oe�� Ca-r��� } o� co��fe coo►-1 y�
and 4* 4e'q lai o e j ASSIGNED TO -
t.AAc4 ha�pm5 � IL
`� I�Q e 1 �' 1� � °� DUE DATE � - ;r3 " = c� C7
q- e6u(d ea use �ii�A

10 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other J
Facility Number 76 12 Date of Inspection 1110911999
Time of Inspection 1000 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Permitted 13 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered JCJ Not Operational Date Last Operated: ..........................
Farm Name: lam tks: )airy.Exftrpe ........................................................................... ..... County: RARdjQjPjj ......................................... WSW ........
Owner Name:Arlin ........................................ Rul ft.
Facility Contact: Wayl e.Ruttke ..............................
Mailing Address: ..7.9(..W..all��f.lYl�ll.liAald........
Onsite Representative: Y.Y.Aynt.j$.ukttkt:......
....................................... Phone No: 49,14392 ....................................................................
Title: leasix ................................................... Phone No: 33.6 49S.-1.39.3.......................
............................. I.............. IAnd!<cm".N.C..................................................... 2.7.3.1.7...............
................ Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:.WAym.L........ ....................... HIAM9 ............................................... Operator Certification Number: 221.Q1..............................
Location of Farm:
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ A6
laA.hallelA;...3. t1xi�e.nta�rxlA revst..a�.ai�dleglt.N..QIt.`?Nalls�l .mill.ltsl............................................................................................................................
Latitude 35 • 50 ( 36 66 Longitude 79 • 50 6 36 LL
Design Current
Swine Canacity Ponulatinn
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current
Design Current
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
® Dairy
1200
500
❑ Non -Layer
❑Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
1,200
Total SSLW
1,680,400
Discharees 8& Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes ® No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ® No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ® No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection,& Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: Upper #I Upper #2 Small side #3
Freeboard (inches): ................ 1.2................. ....1.44................. 7..2..................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back
Printed on 11/9/99

Facility Number: ' 76-12 *We
f Inspection 11/09/19996. Are there structures on -site which are nperly addressed andlor managed through a management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
® No
12, Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
IN 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?
Rcqui[gd Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
®: 10 violations:or de iciencies Were noted :dur. ing this: visit. ;Y60;Will Ncei:v&ih6ttirther-
. 1 . . co rresporidence: about this :visit:.... • . . ........... .
- Vegetation to be removed from upper lagoon soon.
* Formerly 12(A) and 12(B) to be combined as just 76-12
Reviewer/Inspector Name 1W. Corey. Basinger.;
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes CO No
❑ Yes ® No
A.
w
on 1119/99

Facility Number Date of Inspection // 9
F_ /2
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Registered KCertified 0 Applied for Permit 0 Permitted 10 Not Operational I Date Last Operated: ....................
Farm Name: .547-:E� P�./.1I� ?'i�'��Si ................ County: ....�.�1�JGZ3c-t�!`f......................(c1SF'[�....
Owner Name•..........4fzd!:'�........................ ?1rt F......................................... Phone .. .-=sy 3 ci.3.............
Facility Contact: ...... %/' x ... 5k r*k; . Title .... Phone No:.�... .I.,......
Mailing Address: J796 �iIJQ l l %ut ( �r1c��El n AlC- 7.
Onsite Representative: ......�R .................................................Integrator: .................................... .... Certified Operator:..04 L- p 211
...?. :.......................... k.................................... O orator Cert�ficaEion Number:..... Z...d....................
Location of Farm:
C
ME
Latitude ='=`=11 Longitude •®' 3G46
Design
,` Current
Design Cerrent'x �r esign ` ' Current
D
$wine .Capacity Population
Poultryg .,
Capacity Population] Cattle � Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
airy /Z40
�1,0
❑Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑Farrow to Wean
��� A
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Feeder
',
❑ Farrow to Finish`
W
Total Design Capacity: � a
❑ Gilts
,
(/►� !p� ►STr BQ �� (�
S 1T_
❑ Boars
...:. ..., : .,.::. .
.... .. ..
..
- a- ..�
Number of Lagot►ns / Holdrng PntidS ©',
❑Subsurface Drains Present
❑ Lagoon Area
❑Spray Feld Area
.j
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
�No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
Wo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
5jNo
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
WNo
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
&J'No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
'�"o
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
J�o
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
QNo
. maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
VEKo /
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
JRFNo
7/25/97
\

Facility Number: -J& — / Z
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on Stte which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes JA No
' Structures (Lagoons,flolding Ponds, Flush Pits. etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes XNo
Structure l Structure Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: { +2 W -i� S&
ram............................................................ ...............
Structure 6
do 1-1 i2' �,
Freeboard(ft)=..............................................................................................................................................
........................................................................ .
10.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
[�No
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
11 % No
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
I3.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
allo
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
ji�'No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
......4C.'..iae�wt. • �
Crop type ..... '� ..........I..................J.............................
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
[XNo
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
M�No
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
9No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ITNo
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
WNo
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
B No
22. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes Mo
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes F3,No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes [RNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit? ❑ Yes 10
hio.violations°or. ddicieilcies.viwere-rooted-during this; visit.�You:will ireceive',noltirih:er,;.
:. egrrespbAdence about tltes: visit: ::::.: :: :.:. : . : ...:: .
7/25/97
Reviewer/luspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: —II A 1! `h/ Date: 9 i

A
i
1-�
10 KOUtInC p Complaint 0 holluw-up 01 I)WQ nlspectron O t'ollow-up of 0SWC review O V(her
Facility Number 1),ov, of, Inspcciiolr
Filnc of Insl1E'etioll ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Registered p Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted In Not peratrona Date Last Operated:
Farin Name: Huttke.Dair.y.E trxpX................................................................................ County: Randolph WSRO
OwnerName: Alrlia....................................... BuUke...... ................................................... Phone No: 4957.1.3.93...................................................................
Facility Contact: Stexx.:flit mpsaa...........................................Title: Leasee ................................................. Phone No: 336-495-641fa.......................
Mailing Address: 5391..8attke.Dtairy-Lixop.................................................................. Randlu an.XC..................................................... 2731.7 ..............
Onsite Representative: Stt v.e.ash. mpsolu...................................................•................... Integrator:.......................................................................................
Certified Operator:Steven.H.............................. :1',hlRpolpson....................................... Operator Certification Numher:21646.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ©a ® Longitude
esign Current
Swine Capacity Population
13 Weanto Feeder
p Feeder to Finish
p Farrow to Wean
p Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finis
p Gilts
p Boars
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
(3 Layer ® arry1200
13 Non -Layer p on- arry
O ter
Total Design Capacity 1,200
Total SSLW 1,6M0,000
Number of Lagoons / Holding Ponds EO
cl u sur ace rains resen
p agoonArea
in Spray re
rea
,.
EI No Liquid waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
M No
2. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
(3 Yes
® No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon 13 Spray Field p Other
a. I I'dischargc is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
p Yes
®No
b. It'd ischar2le is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (ll'yes, notify DWQ)
p Yes
® No
c. II'discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (Il'yes, notily DWQ)
0 Yes
®No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
p Yes
®No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
13 Yes
®No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
p Yes
®No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes
®No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
13 Yes
®No
7/25/97

act >I y Number: 7 _ 1),►tc E10peci inn
f 8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
1 Structiu-es (La oons,l-ioldin g Ponds, Fh►sh fits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Suucunc I Siruchnre 2 Structure 3
Idcntit icr:
Freeboard(fi):............. 2.5............... ................................... .................................... ......
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
p Yes M No
p Yes M No
Structure 4 Structure 5 StruCture 6
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(if any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Wade Application
14; Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ....... C.ar t.4Si1agc.&.aaia)....... ......................... Ky. e........................... Small.Cixaitt.4W.ht~at-BulAy.......
Milo ats)
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted F:tciiitieti poly
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
U..,'N:oy><a4tions.or i�cienc><es were.na a wring is visit . ou wi .receive nou er. .
' : �oi�xes�ion�lene� abut a�.iis•v�s+t: ; ........... ... •.::.: ' .. • ..............
no
16. SWCD HAS NOT COMPLETED PLAN,
WELL KEPT.
...............................
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes N No
® Yes p No
p Yes ® No
p Yes
Cl No
p Yes
®No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
®No
p Yes
®No
p Yes
®No
p Yes
®No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
Reviewer/inspector Name JW. Corey Basinger
ReviewerAnspector Signature: Date:

Date of Inspection la 2q �8
Facility Number Z b Time of Inspection I O:3b 24 hr. (hh:mm)
tRegistered © Certified © Applied for Permit 0 Permitted 03 Not Operational Date Last Operated: ..........................
Farm Name: ...... .��,VW 0•4.i� �iE'RPRtSi�S Count . ��Az&PW - UP
..... ....... Y'.......................................................I...........I....I............
Owner Name: �' t - 9
................t....................................�-.�:.��............................................... Phone No: ..,..�'tO .�....�......�.'�..-�.�....:.........3.......3..................................
Facility Contact: ......SeV2 7�wv„tp�c. j........... Title:.... QSeG Phone No: .......................................................
Mailing Address: ...... G..-1.E...... 16.W-EW- ✓ ['.. ! I iMa �►.................... .a Sri'....... ....... ......... ..... ...... 11..........................
Onsite Representative:....e ve. "o�u�................................................ Integrator:.................... . ..................
Certified Operator; ....5kxs!� !....... . :................1... ►"L sa ......................... Operator Certification Number,..... .�. b. ...............
Location of Farm:
1z..MU.. s t k..... as�.....LA ...... .... ............i............................ ................................
:.....
Latitude • Sc� 6 {G Longitude • Sa 6 3G {L
Design: Current 4>".T Design' Current Design :. r.
Capacity Population Poultry "Capacity Population Cattle Capacity
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
10 Non -Layer I I 1 10 Non-Dair.
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes 1-irNo
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gaUrnin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagood system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes WNo
❑ Yes PCNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes EkNo
❑ Yes WO
❑ Yes 4 No
❑ Yes .E(No
❑ Yes 19 No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
❑ Yes ['No

Facility Number:lip—
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes zP40
Structures (Lagoons,Ilolding Ponds. Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes Wo
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(fit): ........ _+1Z..............................................................................................................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes E�`No
11. is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses '
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste ApRlication
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(if in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ......... ..�......... �!.
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
[]• No.vWaitionsor. derciencies.were-nated-durin' thkvisit.- You,wiII rece_ive,no-fartt er•.
:. correspOddeJaO about
[3 , Ma+rlc VqSka—1 U-4 r Skr-D se�f3 e—
I(" .
P4,0,,,A, ,,]IeAAI
❑ Yes J"No
❑ Yes 5 No
WYes ❑ No
❑ Yes to No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ( No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes PNo
❑ Yes i rNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ' ` Date:

•r
Facility Nirnther Date (it' Inspec:tiori
f itnc of Inspeclion ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
M Registered p Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted in of Operational I hate Last Operated:
Farm Name: Buttke.Dair.y.Enterpr................................................................................. County: Randolph WSRO
OwnerName: Arlin. BuUke ......................................................... Phone No: 495439.3 ...................................................................
Facility COntaet: �1a]nkS",11xnm�+".1klitchell .........................Title: Lejuce ................................................. Phone No: 33fi 495-SS7.8.......................
Mailing Address: 3811Q.Ciaopau.Mtau:taia.Rd..........
Onsite Representative: M.Adk-Wh te.................................................
Certified Operator: ............................ I .....................
Location of Farni:
Martinsville..V.a................................................... 24.1.12..............
Integrator: .......................................................................................
Operator Certification Number:..
Latitude ©0 ®, ®•, Longitude ®0 ®1 ®•,
Swine Capacity Population
13 Wean to Feeder
13 Feeder to Finish
13 Farrow to Wean
(3 Farrow to ee er
p Farrow to Finish
13 Gilts
p Boars
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
p ayer g airy 1200
p Non -Layer p on -Dairy
p Other
Total Design Capacity 1,20
Total SSLW 680,000
Nutuber of Lagoons Holdtn Ponds
g E3Subsurface rains Presentp Ca -goon rea ® pray ie rea
/
0 o LiquidWaste _ Management System
General
I. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
g No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
(3 Yes
g No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
p Yes
g No
b. It discharge is observed, did it reach Sut•Face Water? (*If ycS, notify DWQ)
(3 Yes
g No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon sysiein? (Ii'yes, notify DWQ)
p Yes
g No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
p Yes
g 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/holding ponds) require
p Yes
g No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes
®No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
g Yes
p No
7/25/97

ae 1 y um er: 76_.12 Dude of, I burl ® •
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
p Yes
R No
. Strtletures (1-15yoons,l-loldlllt: Ponds, Fltlsh Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
I& Yes
p No
Structure l Structure 2 Structtrr'e 3 Structure d Strucnn'e 5
Structure
6
Identifier: Upper Lower
Frechoard(It) : .............. 111................. ............... 5................ ........... .......................... ................................ •... ...................................
......•............................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
p Yes
® No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
p Yes
® No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
N 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?
M Yes
p 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,C.arn.4Si11agr..&.CLratin.)....... ......................... Rye ........................... Stn 11.Cixa,in.kWhrat«.Ilarl�y.,............................................................
Milo pat )
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan AWMP)? p Yes 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?
p Yes
®No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
p Yes
®No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
p Yes
® No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
p Yes
®No
22,
Does record keeping need improvement?
p Yes
®No
For Cerlified or Permitted Facilities iLIL
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
p Yes
p No
24,
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
.p Yes
p No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
p Yes
p No
Q ...o_vlar
ions.or even. 0e.s-were.no e . uring is visit., . You. wt .retceive no: further .: .
. .
�ox�esjio��e�i£� ��4R� X�'ItS •1'iSi>�:. • . . • . - - - - - � - . • . • . .
Comments(referato question #) a Explain,,any Y S,answers and/or any;recommendationsgor any'ot e1r comments
t _e.fa
. t�( .�� i {..,', 9 I ! t...l;..€3.,.....3 •r, ', !:Fi@9 ?°•1„�>""�, o i : - q ... P.,.{ € 3 id.>.:I,(,S Fr f.f.. I _..d.,
Use,drewmg's ©f,facility,to, better,explamisituatrons. �us.e addl#io>:al,pages,asF,necesspry)...,_,�__
UPPER LAGOON WILL BE EMPTIED INTO LOWER LAGOON AND THEN IRRIGATED• SHOULD BRING
UPPER LEVEL DOWN ABOUT 2 FEET IN NEXT FEW DAYS.
3. SWCD HAS NOT SET MARKERS YET. SHOULD BE DONE SOON.
6. NO PLAN YET. SWCD WORKING ON IT.
HOULD BE CERTIFIED BY DEADLINE.
A NUMBER 540-638-7408
Reviewer/Inspector Name .W..@arey?Basi`nger "
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:

Date of Inspection l0 24 %P
Facility Number 12.0
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Registered 13 Certified © Applied for Permit © Permitted JE3 Not Operational Date Last Operated: ..........................
Farm Name: �1,�'CttcE is�`5 ...... County:....�n-L�U�.-iQ►��p
�!.....................-DA..R-j.....��� R��.................................,................................................
Owner Name:....... A-P-.... tik 3 wci c ..... ........... .. Phone No:......� .� 9 - 13 9 3
........................................................
Facility Contact:.....A'"'t�S r.►11 1 it �Title:.............� ..�...:„.0 S e- Phone No: 33�,).4q5...:.. ............................ .....`..........................................
Mailing Address: CQ S ...`................................... 2�..................
1 .................... !vI�LS......,.........I.
.lt"nti I'�� tell Nia �lC ti'� ..... Into a Onsite Representative:...................... .......................,e..............................................gr:itor:......
....................... .........................................................
Certified Operator,................................................................................................ .... Operator Certification Number ......................
Location of Farm:
Latitude • 4 ®64 Longitude ®' ®° ®"
Design Current Design Current"'- Design Curren
p y p y apaeity Population Cottle `Ca0acityaPopulatE ;Ca acit ' Po elation Pouitr , C .
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Subsurface Drains Present j[1 Lagoon Area #❑ Spray Field Area
No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes RrNo
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes RNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes [KNo
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes Q'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
3, is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
ffNo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
E'No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
;RNo
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
KNo
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
oYes
❑ No
7/25/97

Facility Number: — 0
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes No
g g p p P Y
�trtictures (Lagoons 11oldine Ponds. Flush Pits. etc,(
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No
tructure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: do:f �JQF_
�Qi!� .......i.tt?... f.................................................................................. ...............................
Freeboard(ft): ................i .......•...•............3...................................................................................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes '�No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 0 No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop hype ................ �.1..O,.. F:'`�.................................... R .Y.�......................... 5m P, ( i .... r 2! � �n
0................................................................................
16, Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
(3 No
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
JR No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
KNo
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
ff No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
JR No
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
6a No
For Certified 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 noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 No.violatians or deF'; ncies.we re Roted during this:visit: You:will receive no further
. correspttdetice atiou� tnis:visit: ; ; ; . ... .
-:F. TEV, .e r OR-01 u-•..F
`l. Uppar 1000.- e..8 44.0-K i r,r�&J$ -
sk c �.s ��1 b c : •.� uQtet ka-ve l A_o,4.n adn &__t 2. - f- +-w me l+
i3. ��C,►� l•w�s v-.c{� �' rv�rVlr3 .,la?�"; Sl..t�-c`C�d 1ae. cC4M� �uv,-..
Y a, 7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

r
je tcouune p t-ompiamr p ronow-up of uwt2 inspection p ronow-up of ubwu review p utner
Date of Inspection
Facility Number Time of Inspection ®24 hr. (hh:mm)
■ Registered p Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted in Not 0pera Iona Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Ruttka.Dairy.Emterpr................................................................................. County: Randolph WSRO
OwnerName: Arlin. ....................................... Buttke ......................................................... Phone No: .9.QS-.1.39.3...................................................................
Facility Contact: Sxexe.Thom.psmnk...........................................Title: Leasce ................................................. Phone No: 9,XB . 95-A.4tf.......................
Mailing Address: 5796..i al ux..MiB.Road.................................................................... Rajadl=ua.NC ..................................................... 27al.7 ..............
OnsiteRepresentative: Steyeffli mpsm....................................................................... Integrator:.......................................................................................
Certified Operator:Strmeia.R............................... : bumpsoxt....................................... Operator Certification Numher: 2.1.646.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ©0 ®1 ®« Longitude ®� ®� ®ic
II,
13 Wean to Peeder
13 Feeder to mis
t3 Farrow to Wean
13 Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finis
p Gilts
p Boars
aCa#tle �i
p Layer
p Non -Layer
13 Other
Total Design Capacity L
Totar�asLw=
s
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: 13 Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gai/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
urren
]�O]]Ulation,
I�
n Area
113 Spray Field Area
I�
h• �
p Yes
® No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
® No
p Yes
Ig No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
�\4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
\\ maintenance/improvement?
facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
\ the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
p Yes ® No
p Yes E No
Yes ® No
p Yes N No
13 Yes ® No
p Yes p No

^Facility um er: 7 _ 2
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons,Hold_ing Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Freeboard (ft): ..............2.2...........................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes a No
❑ Yes ®No
Structure 5 Structure 6
15. Crop type .......Corn..(SiJagA.&,.C.ra.in.)....... Small.Grain.(WheaL.Bariey.............................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in t ' Animal Waste Management Plan (A WMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21, Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
1(..'o'viar ions.or �crencies,were.no a uring is visit.. You will .receive nnfurther. :.
iQor�e$06nde6ce aWtjt :t is.yiSi�: ............ . • ............:... .
❑ Yes ® No
p Yes N No
M Yes ❑ No
M Yes p Na
❑ Yes H No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
M No
❑ Yes
®No
❑ Yes
®No
❑ Yes
®No
❑ Yes
®No
p Yes
®No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Gortu men�in
reter tti'pes�tion )�IEUpUiI 5tanswersEan /or y recomtneii s [i`ira_ws
of facility tolbetteations. fuse add�ttonal rages as necessary,):
VIJ7 -Currently operating under the temporary dairy certification.
# 1►2 - Lagaon area needs to be cleared of brush and trees.
13 - NRC•S/SWC to set elevations and install markers prior to certificaiton.A.. r`. �-
16 Na plan yet. NRCS/SWC working on it.
*** Facility is leased EN Mr. Steve Thompson 539! Buttke Dairy Loop, Randleman NC 7�317" ..
'� 7I25197
T
C
Reviewer/Inspector Name Corey B*sfnger ' '
IYIIIf
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:i�Z
if

M
❑ DSWC AniM Feedlot Operation Review S
QDWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
outine O Complaint O Follow-up of 1)
Facility Numberu 12
registered © Certified [3 Applied for Permit 0 Permitted
Farm Name l7/-t-t R.J
•...........& l r1ce .............................................................................................
Follow -tip of DSWC review O other l
Dale of inspection l �W
Time of Inspection // `oQ 24 hr. (hh:mm)
10 Not Operational p Date Last Operated:
C:ounty:.......I'.A:.*..1.0aG t, 1+ W5 k-0
Owner Name: ...........%e,, a aTlc ........................................... Phone No4416),..41<- -./. 3 .�-'..,..,....................
........................ .......................
Facility Contact.: ........ Title; Phone No: ) �%$. 6414
Mailing Address: 1— 910.....4,JA -1ti�.. 14it,L-...+0,4,�..........�................ ......�/1/�%l�t t'�"1�,�-r.a...A` C....................... .?-3)-�-..
..... ... .. ..... ..... .... , ..
Onsite Representative:........ 5�.', ....... 7°r?Ps°"� ........... Integrator: ..............
Certified Operator .......`.S ........... 77• Vtq FAD Al Operator Certification Number, ...... 2. �Le ko
.......................
Location of Farm:
...................................................................................................... .......
.
Latitude 35�10 4 . 4� Longitude s 41
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Design Current Design ` Current,
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity, Population
❑ Layer WD5airy / ZCIO f Od
❑ Non -Layer I ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
/Zee
/. - 8Q ae0
Nurnberof Lagoons / Holding Ponds ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes jj�'No
2, Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes RNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes X1 No
b. 1f discharge is observed, dill it reach Surface Water? (11' yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes 0 No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated now in gal/min?
d. Does discharge byp,,ss a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
tgNo
3. Is there evidence of 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
EIK No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
13 No
maintenance/improvement?
G. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
MNo
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
E�-No
7/25/97
Continued an back

Facility Number: qe,, — /;2 0 46
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons.lioldint?_Ponds. Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Freeboardtft): ......... C+).......................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
I3. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
❑Yes �BNo
❑ Yes R) No
Structure 5 Structure 6
................................. I..............................
❑ Yes CR�o
❑ Yes RNo
15. Crop type ......................................................
`.................. ..
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)'?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certirted or Permitted Faeilities Qnly
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP'?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit`!
No.violkions or deficiencies were noted during this -"visit. You will receive no further
c6rres066dertce about this:visit.-' -' .. .
,5Yes ❑ No
_IR'1'es ❑ No
❑ Yes ZNo
......................................
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 19'fi'o
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes Z No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes e`LNo
❑ Yes b"No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments (refer to„question.#): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or°any other�'nts comme.,
Use drawings opl f facility to better exain situations (use. additional pages as'necessary} k` <�
iZ - �Qgoa.t &4j-a. rr¢e�ts �a he o - P 6 6rusat t {-�e.e.5 •
J Ltd
4 t3 --• is�-c_S/ 8 c�1 c. -ib �" � �2r�� �''t,_s
7/25/97 f
11-
ReviewerllnspectorName t7
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

MA
.1
p Division of Soil an ter Conservation p Other Agencys'
Division of Water Quality
IgHoutine p omp am p Follow-up ofDWQ inspection p o ow -up ofDSWC review 00ther
Facility Number
Registered o Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
in Not Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Rulikc.D.a4.Entexpr................................................................................ County: Randolph WSRO
OwnerName: Arlin.......................................Buttke ......................................................... Phone No: .495-J393 ...................................................................
Facility Contact: dames",limmy:'..Ik?izchell .........................Title: Leasee ................................................. Phone No: 9.10.-:495-5578 .......................
Mailing Address: 5796..Wa1kie-NIIll.Road.................................................................... Rand1c=a.XC .................................................... M1.7...............
Onsite Representative: Jim my..lYlatcb&........................................................................ Integrator:.......................................................................................
Certified Operator: DavidM. ...............................Inmain ................................................ Operator Certification Number.2.1.01.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 01 � ®�� Longitude ®• ®®4f
;Capacity =?iPopt
p Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
p Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finis
❑ Gilts
p Boars
" Velgn:irtr 4urrell Le7 lleblll4t �.0 rren[
i ti d tt ,d€i�r t i41 , z
Capacity Popul ition Cattle Capacity Population
lrn�d¢ t¢ana� e
® airy 1200 75
„".
i 13 N on- airy
F #TotalDesigm.Capacitya
1,200
8
„Total SSLW-,, 1,68o'000
�, Ff
�.iF-�:. Id,), �;.3,�E.�fd .itl�i�h�t.3zJa« F.S.. .. �. I -.1 - •.
I. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
® No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
p Yes
® No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
p 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
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
p 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 lagoons/holding ponds) require
p Yes
®No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes
®No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
p Yes
®No
7/25/97

t'acility Number: 6_12
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site Ahichneed to be properly closed?
Structures (La2oons,Holdine Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: Upper Lower
Freeboard(ft):..........1..5..f=t.......... ............. 3,JL............. .................................... ............................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(if any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
•
Structure 5
15. Crop type ........Uran.4Silagr..&.Jamin.)................................Rye.......................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19, Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
R . Ixopr;rrgt4ttps.orxieucretnticile•vs-�ws ere•..II•.•t:ea:.during tnis visit.. Y.n.II.W..11..receive no surttier . - .
.............. ............... .....
c'..:...
...........s. •.•.. .
p Yes H No
Cl Yes ® No
Structure 6
...........................
p Yes U No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
® Yes p No
p Yes H No
........I ..................
p Yes p No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ®No
(3 Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
`Gomtnents {refer taqueshgnE#) xp ain any answers nud/dr any irecommendattans oranypttier Commcnts} ;�;�,� , .��;�} ,e;�
iUse>drawin'siaf+"fac 1'st sta'liretter exa fain situatias, use�Yu[lditia�al, as 'es as necC'ssa"r 1 °, a'a`"'f F`' "'x'k'', €i�;
13 - Markers to be installed'by NRCS SWC when certification is completed:
Ak
16 - No plan yet. NRCS/SWC working on it.
23-25 - Not certified yet. NRCS/SWC working on int.
2, 4, & .12 .from operation -re view have been corrected.
*** Operation is leased by Mr. James'Mitchell', 3800 Coopers Mountain Road, Martinsville, Va 24112 (540) 63877408.
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name Corey�BasmgerMI
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

5� DSWC Anima edlot�
x m, Operation Review
� WQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
WRoutine O Complaint Q Follow-up of D%V0 inspection O Follow-up of DSWC: review O Other I
Facility Number
Date of Inspection
/Z
Time of Inspection D:o c 24 hr. (hh•mm)
Registered © Certified 0 Applied for Permit El Permitted JE3 Not Operational Date Last Operated: ..........................
Farm NamE � ��•� l�Alily/ �/�li�2P�ZtSir3 County: L�- IDCI.P0 wsp�,o
Name: ...................................................................................................................................,.......,.........,.,......,.................................
Owner Name:.....................I...,..,............... ........., q. Phone No:`/��.-...../:3�.........................
.,....K..................................
Facility Contact: �A•vt63 .... tiZN�t.� Title: �„iiy� Phone No:S' SS .A...........
................... ................................................. .,......,.....,..........,..
TMailing Address: -� q4O WWZ� XeL Ram .�DL i.,......fG -............................................................................................................... .......................
Onsite Representative :.,..JaM...... H.I
Certified Operator ......... 7),f V l/7 /�:*f*A(
. ........................................................................................
Location of Farm:
I ntegrator:...............................
' Operator Certification Number... ..............
3 •%s............................................. .VI W... ..-... ..../I�.....P�......... lkDy 1W11...A4W.........................................................................................
F
............. ..0..................................................I........
Latitude • 4 ®44 Longitude • ®° (L
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity,, Population '
❑ Layer Dairy
❑ Non -Layer 10 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 2 00
Total SSLW gp p�
Number of Lagoons I Holding Ponds JE1 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area I0 Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need niainten:uice/improvement? ❑ Yes ®'No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ,ffNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ff No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water'? (If yes, notify DV1 Q) ❑ Yes 'fNo
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated now in pl/min9
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑Yes I?No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes UNo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge'? ❑ Yes ifNo
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes R No
mai nten once/i nip rovement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes JffNo
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes 23�No
7/25/97
Continued on back

Facility Number:
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
ANo
Structures tLagoons,11olding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
ZNo
I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
.Structure
Identifier: VP.I?............. .......t-0 t
Freeboard (ft): ...........!..:.r�.. !................34.................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
,� No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
;'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?
XYes
❑ No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
fi;�lVo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .....'4........... .......... ............................................. ....................... ...............................................................
:.............
15. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
RNo
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
DkNo
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
f R No
20,
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
WNo
21,
Did ReviewerAnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
iNo
22.
Does record keeping need improvement'?
❑ Yes
VNo
For Certified 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 noncompliance of the Permit'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
No.violations or. deficiencies were noted -during' this.visit..You,will receive no further
correspondence about this:visit..: .
Comments (refer to:question #) Explain`any: YES answers"' and/or any recommendations or a! other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional ages as necessary)
�,
r 3. I�k••+�s � b�- �-�� 67 r�G�s�JG � �iFi �,�..is c�,�� �a d.
Zj-?�' flat c.Q.�{7,�d y,� l��`Sr.JG� c�1a/►.�c�-� � tf.
2 q, r z �rn�, o�ca t .��rw flea`ttr� t>Qaf, c orv,Pc
` &4, szd 4, c /,d�+r�s Nt/ +ta-�/ 3600
Cvvlse rr �e w a
a,geftn-.SoIU/ LA ZAiIZ . [-`40) t:38 - g408
7/25197
Reviewer/Inspector Name W -ol �'S�.•lGcl271
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: ?�f�0- h,

5-15-01 .'LM

lord^& . F:cla

�x-nd f
Division of Water Resources �—�—"—
Facility Number ®- • Division of Soil and Water Creation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit:
Reason for Visit:
Compliance Inspection 0
Routine Q Complaint
Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation
Q Follow-up O Referral O Emergency
O Technical Assistance
O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: 9r]� Arrival Timer Departure Time: S County: Region: L05
Farm Name: T6 Q j`1Le- _Do t r y E R+erp ri Se-S Owner Email:
Owner Name: J� t � 1 T_DWYI �C Y Phone: Q t iG� 71-5 — 1313
Mailing Address: _'j`' 74 11 7Q �L� 1 t 1 P,d • , n j [e- M a rt N �. a- 7 .3 ( 7 _
Physical Address: 6 02- Z VJ 0. l 1LC✓ M0,-A , NC_ 9 7 3 1 7
Facility Contact:AJ M0.V1 Title: Phor�e�
Onsite Representative: Integrator: /
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: J I Wk 5Lj to 70 4 — 6 8 Z — O 1 fp Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
U 5 31 l S fo P.�� n d �-IN ex c -I-- �-u r n R iu a
Design C*urrent
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wet Poultry
I La er
I INon-Layer
Design
Capacity
Iow
I
C*urrent11
Pop.
Cattle
alf
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
166 7
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Urr Poultr,
Design
Ca acit
C**urrent
P.o
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
-70
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
ILayers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layer
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
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:
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters ol'the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If'yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'?
❑ Yes
jx�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - l 7- •1N 1 Date of Inspection:
7
Waste Collection &Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
ENo
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
I `
Identifier: (� ; 5icy -C 0-6n C re-+e— 5 r.
Spillway'?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): lzu
5. Are there an immediate threats to the integrity of an o the structures observed`?
Y g Y Y
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i,e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan`?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental threat,
notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
14 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?
7�
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes JeNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[] PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
A
12, Crop Type(s): 6t w n S 1 tQ4 P_ , Srn 00 ) 4 r--4 I r)
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes ; No D NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No 0 NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment'?
❑ Yes
[�o
T�
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records &_Doc_uments
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
NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. oes record keeping need improvement'? ❑ Yes N0 o [] N ❑ NE
Waste Application ['Weekly Freeboard Waste AnalysisYonth
An rs �eather Code
[�Kaainfall [D5tocking Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes bd No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment'? ❑ Yes ❑ No ,gE?NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - 1 Z Date of Inspection: ']
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applicaion 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 C&-K'A ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? if yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑Yes
�' o
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
P3, No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 01 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes )KfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ,M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes Zo
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft 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).
S j l e, I eaxh &Ae_ o n l Q,rj-, czki ce.r n? D+ a ramYl_,_J t vl�
7. rn aA !A-r e,C 5 u+ o r) d. a M o -e.. w 5
P
02 sot al u_.) O.5 f e_I 5 1 u r r I fa-n le- &GL r r r 13
5(urr4 clueir, ;?.o►-7. 01,b " l-e.A eA1 aUe-, ��a�V\'C.,(Di9e
P F- Zl C L)= 3710 C T ,2-131 1
IL CL t+ 1� h
o h n Sa n w1 5 w C lj COun h�[ P d �4 2n G 4 F- u 0
r et t r1 5 l l l l 4Vlb ►ram tJul s-� }-g p I e 0 41 -c IL re -co rd s P e-y-+ v 151
]
MSS f k��, , A►- 5 &--'c &rr1 d(aw� L5� 5 e,� - lea e� 60tj4 n Oe e%a
4<1 t s-}' e,5 � 5 (n m o k� -ass a n all [� alrn 5 ES Q �' b 11 5 i ale 1 c�5 P
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/inspecttorSignature: ` j [ ,oe
Page 3 of 3�
✓ b Ra'
e QuI nmQn-1--.
Or- e 5`1
Phone: [phone] ._ � 61°
Date: r l7
21412015
ns,��;o �, of—

Type of Visit: O Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation p Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: O Routine O Complaint O Follow-up p Referral O Emergency Q Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: p jr� Arrival Time: Departure Time: ; County: RQ"/Q wegion: 05RC
Farm Name:
- &*krU Er r 1 Se-5 Owner Email: """T
Owner Name: 10A t Phone:J t �.�.�%Q 425 3 1
Mailing Address: 67 1 & W O-1 lt&r- M"! 11 P01. , /�'�NQ (Q.IrY�0. Y) I N[� x 7 3 f 7
Physical Address: �0 01� ��� �ei� M 6� ( �a.nd lwrtia�.ln 1 NL. a 7 3 l 7
Facility Contact: A r6[ ILDOR M a.r) Title: Phone:/
Onsite Representative: �_
Certified Operator -
Back -up Operator:l
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
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)
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
0 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facilit Number: , - Z Date of Ins ection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes Uj,�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
I a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
5
i Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
' ; f Identifier: S i ale fie_ Ste ms,
S Spillway?:
Dog d Freeboard (in): _
Observed Freeboard (in): Z
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 16 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 XNo ❑ NA ❑Nl
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? 0 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? it
Waste Application , [
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes Q�J No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
/�'
11. is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drill ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): ,E-ya
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ Nip
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No �? A ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ,�vo ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Reuuired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. 10
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. 96es record keeping nee�im rovement? i Yes No NAy ❑ NI-LV ste Applicat' n kly Freeboard �gaste Analysis Soil Analysis �]��j'W/eather Code
rRainfall Stocking Crap Yield 6�20 Minute Inspections Ionthlyand l" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility faii 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 )R'5A ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No "�A ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes N.Vo
❑ Yes >'K0
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ,C�'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes , '1 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
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 D?*510 ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes I
No [] NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Us wings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
a a O 15 Solari er it r� � on e�u►{� mP..n�' �..it bt-». 7
Soi [ -�5 p�.uQ,
`rree5 Cu+- o n C.p nC re�f� a- 5 M. 5 1 W 5 Ps
ai . c�- ��41U 1�Lj10
G �-
�;
4/17 /,;-o/ � t4t'r ssL = 1. & � 16c,-./moo 4.6%.p �351
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatui
Page 3 of 3
Phone: / 7k16
Date:
2/4/2015

Type of Visit: 9 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 9 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Timer DepartureTime:
County: i"1( o-1 h Region: LkD,5 Q.Q
Farm Name: bual(_P tr�j Owner Email:
Owner Name: kr ii n Et j{- k_ ? Phone: -3
Mailing Address: .5 � q la Vi0.1 ILQ r "III (IO 1 IC�C� 4'1� lQ�vl r�yZ _ a 7 J 1
Physical Address: 6 0 a �L \�1,3 alk 1_ee_ (\k1 i i 94 • �6L4,N(1 leyyyo 0 4 N C . - 31 7 .
Facility Contact: A rd Zdp Doran Title: Phone: (? C d 4 - p !pyq
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
v3o- � Y-4_r
Longitude:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
an to Finish
Wet Poultay
Layer
Design
C*apaclty
Current
Pop.
Cattle
Dai Cow
Design
Capacity
QQ
Current
Pop.
an to Feeder
Mon -Layer
D . P.oultr,
Layers
Design
C•a acit
Current
P■o
DairyCalf
der to Finish
DairyHeifer
row to Wean
row to Feeder
row to Finish
!Gilts
D Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Non -La ers
rs
Pullets
Turke s
Turke Poults
er I IOther
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA
[] NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: - . Date of Inspection: I j
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes >(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
1 � Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): ino
W in
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes O '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 j� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan? T�
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes jRNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [�[No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XN o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
'0
12. Crop Type(s): � M AAJ PAIJ�/ ls1� _.
13. Soil Type(s): 4
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? Yes gf1Go ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No ` ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes No P NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑ Yes D4 No
❑ Yes PQ No
❑ Yes n No
❑ Yes CR"No
❑Other:
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
21 oes record keeping need i provement? ❑ Yes ONO ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Applica 'on [Weekly Freeboar Waste Analysis Soil Analysis eather Code
infallStocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rainfall lns ections��Rc � d 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 NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: -7 Date of inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes J�rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [:]No 19NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
[:]Yes
O/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
IX
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes 2� No
❑ NA 0 NE
❑NA ❑NE
3 1. 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? �j Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? /❑' Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any;other comments.'', ;
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use'additional pages as necessary).
mowc c>t
a! . fall ,fib l y i {p� ra r�5 ? Ne.5,
t bf-a-4ion co" 1e_+2d T�r a 03&44 ttd�t pl",C_4 U4- &_JzLi� otj
P
T- 1a57q F 6 -4.-F- u P.
�Pt
� ids °' tADs P. -small
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
.11 rN .. I m
Phone: -76 4 — 9 eo q 9
Date:
21412014

�10 --b
7 tkkv
`6

v - "
Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number: 760012 Facility Status: Active
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection
Permit: AWC760012
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Complaint County: Randolph Region:
Date of Visit: 09/19/2014 EntryTime: 01:15 pm Exit Time: 2:30 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Buttke Dairy Enterprises
Owner:
Arlin Buttke
Mailing Address:
5796 Walker Mill Rd
Owner Email:
Phone:
Randleman NC 273177319
❑ Denied Access
Winston-Salem
336-495-1393
Physical Address: 6022 Walker Mill Rd Randleman NC 27317
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35° 50' 36" Longitude: 79' 50' 36"
From GSO, south on Hwy. 220 to Level Cross exit. Right onto Branson Mill Rd. Continue to Walker Mill Rd. and take left onto
Walker Mill Rd. Farm office is on the left.
Question Areas:
N Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Application
Certified Operator: Ard Koopman Operator Certification Number: 997080
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Ard Koopman Phone : [phone]
On-sile representative Ard Koopman Phone : [phone]
Primary Inspector- M lissa Ra brock Phone: �O
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Today's inspection of the application field on Mt. Olive Church Road was the result of a complaint received 0905/2014 alleging the
application of "heavy amounts of waste." Complainant was viewing application from Edgar Road in Sophia.
There were no concerns or violations associated with the complaint regarding waste application on fields accessible from Mt.
Olive Ch. Road. The buffers between the field and houses, waterways, and welts all looked ok. Video taken by complainant
appeared as if the tanker got stuck for a few seconds, not "opening valve and dumping it" as alleged. The waste was heavier in
this area but was not excessive. The ditch also looked ok (i.e. no waste).
t educated the complainant as to the WUP the sampling and PAN requirements, application windows, etc. Followed -up with Mr.
Koopman and remoinded him that a crop must be established within 30 days.
page: 1

Permit: AWC760012
0
Owner - Facility : Arlin Buttke
is '
Facility Number: 760012
Inspection Date: 09/19/14 Inssection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Complaint
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Waste Pond
CONCRETE WSP
Waste Pond
MAIN SIDE SM.-CLOSED
01/10/06
Waste Pond
MAIN SIDE-LG. WSP
Waste Pond
SMALL SIDE
02/16/10
page: 2

• •
Permit: AWC760012 Owner - Facility : Arlin Buttke Facility Number: 760012
Inspection Date: 09/19/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Complaint
Discharges & Stream Impacts
You No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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)
❑
0 []
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
0 ❑
❑
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 Waters of the
❑
❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Application
Yes No No No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
page: 3

k
Permit: AWC760012 Owner - Facility : Arlin Buttke Facility Number:
760012
Inspection Date: 09/19/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Complaint
Waste Application
Yee
No Na No
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
E ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
❑ ■
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■ ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
N ❑
❑
page: 4

w„.
i J
(�.y M
I i
pbs5A 6A� (C� C4Cr--k—
De -
i
s
fVe,�-
1 I
I
ice-

i
Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number:
760012 Facility Status:
Active permit: AWC760012
Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Complaint
County: Randolph Region:
Winston-Salem
Date of Visit:
05/11/2015 Entry Time: 02:00 pm
Exit Time: 2:45 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Buttke Dairy Enterprises
Owner Email:
Owner:
Arlin Buttke
Phone:
336-495-1393
Mailing Address:
5796 Walker Mill Rd
Randleman NC 273177319
Physical Address:
6022 Walker Mill Rd
Randleman NC 27317
Facility Status:
❑ Compliant Not Compliant
integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 35' 50' 36" Longitude:
79° 50' 36"
From GSO, south on
Hwy. 220 to Level Cross exit. Right onto Branson Mill Rd. Continue to Walker Mill Rd. and take left onto
Walker Mill Rd. Farm
office is on the left.
Question Areas:
Waste Application
Certified Operator: Ard Koopman Operator Certification Number: 997080
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative($): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Ard Koopman Phone : [phone]
On -site representative Ard Koopman Phone : [phone]
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Melissa Rosebrock
Phone:
Date:
Inspection Summary:
10. and 11. Received complaint alleging the application of animal waste too dose to a residence and well located at 3699 Edgar
Road in Sophia. Investigated site on 511112015. Met with Jim Swan.
An examination of Tract-1366 Fietd-1 and Tract 1381 Field-1 confirms that animal waste was applied to within 39 feet of a well
and only 93 feet from a dwelling located at 3699 Edgar Road. WSRO received a document submitted by Koopman Dairies Inc. in
which the landowner on Edgar Road states that she is "comfortable with the distance from our house and our well that is currently
observed with manure application." However, the landowner wishes for future applications of animal waste to be in accordance
with the Certified Animal Waste Management plan (CAWMP) which states that animal waste must not be applied any closer than
100 feet to wells and 200 feet to dwellings other than those owned by the permitted landowner. NOV to be sent.
In the course of investigating the above complaint, staff confirmed that Koopman Dairies Inc. applied animal waste onto
Traci-2064 Field-1. The application of waste at this site was only 123 feet from a dwelling located at the intersection of Branson
Davis Road and Will Coltrane Road. Again, this is a violation of sections 1.3 and 11.20 of the Permit. NOV to be sent.
page: 1

0
0
Permit: AWC760012
Owner - Facility: Arlin Buttke
Facility Number: 760012
Inspection Date: 05/11/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Complaint
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Waste Pond
CONCRETE WSP
Waste Pond
MAIN SIDE SM.-CLOSED
01/10/06
Waste Pond
MAIN SIDE-LG. WSP
Waste Pond
SMALL SIDE
02/16/10
page: 2

Permit: AWC760012 Owner - Facility : Arlin Buttke Facility Number: 760012
Inspection Date: 05/11/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Complaint
Waste Application
Yen No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
N
❑ ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
0
❑ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN n 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
Crop Type 1
Com (Silage)
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
0 ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
N ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
❑ 0
❑
determination?
17, Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 3

jType of Visit: 95 Compliance Inspection U Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation U Technical Assistance
`[Reason for Visit: d Routine O Complaint 0 Follow-up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Q ( Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: ��0 � P*gion: )/` 5 R 0
,
Farm Name: Own mail: Q.Yy1 �LOnp Mq v1 h„� rr�l l • CU
Owner Name: A r I i in R, At IcP— Phone: 3
Mailing Address: 57 4 to w4L l AJl i ( [ RIA • , ala_n dl e.,m an MCI 2173 1 7
Physical Address: to 0 oZ C__ VV 0-1 i(., Ar %i 1 11 RA - . a&yld le- may-1 . N G X7 3 1 7
Facility Contact: _ Ar A (4,00Q M a_A Title: Phone: U01
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
U S 311 5 . wa. I pw- A l l
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Swine
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
Design Current Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle Capacity Pop.
Layer Dai Cow O
Non -Layer Dai Calf
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Dai Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Design Current
D , P.oult . Ca aei P■o
D Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
RNon-Layers
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1, is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
ZfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
0 Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
[:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes &No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: , 5ecr,ere-!o 51n. 5 { e,
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):� t
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
L�rNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental
threat,
notify DWR
7. Do any"of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
MYes
❑ 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)
T
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
�6o
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
N
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes PS No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes &No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No �jNA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
[]Yes
[yNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
CkrNo
❑ 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 �56o
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
i Waste Application Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis
[W21. ocs record keeping need provement? llyesc o;s�
❑ Yes )ENo
[}WastwTrans€ets—
[3N
b feather
❑ NE
Code
[�ainfall Stocking ❑ Crop Yield [1] 120 Minute Inspections [Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes J�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
[]Yes ❑ No
CROF4A
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412014 Continued

Facili Number: 1p - I a- jDate of Inspection; 401
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes Of'No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No
the appropriate box(es) below,
[] Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes DeNo
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes 0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
19NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
[:]Yes
0No
❑ 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
CK"No
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
M 1'0
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
t�'No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
<0
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
�10
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to, question.#) Explain anffES answers and/or any. additionaU recommendations or,any.other comments
Ilse drawings of facility ito better'explain situationsk(use additiou as necessary)'.
S
w 7 Y"' Ve� to-�-a . S ids. r1 o wed . Cols 1 b ro
�7I- ao�3 Cr�rr� iej ?Ia- o,r a2ol�{ sm. rair� harvest-? �e�
y r vi Fall d
Cry ' brr or I fo
I � r
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature
Page 3 of 3
�- 7
b r L �' �Aon :
Date: t0 1 1 'e- d
21412014

of Visit: !" Compliance Inspection V Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
m for Visit: V1 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up Q Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: /Q aO Arrival Time:"eparture Time: ounty: tJ OI i1 Region: L-]5P—
Farm Name: V{f (�, L :I r�V t,r► ¢.ire r' j °$ Owner Email: am �+ VY�Q l •Cad
Owner Name: Arlin B u4 [Ce Phone: =/ .3 q 3 0 F
Mailing Address: 5 7 q to W0. I ILer M i tI 2d • , R&rld to- ot 4n , N a -73 [ 7
Physical Address: 6 o a ;1_ W a- I Kex K i t I �d . , 1lancd le_rn an , N L� 7 317
Facility Contact: 9r d Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Phone: 10 q Q Xq Q b
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 3 5 sa 3to Longitude: _7q SO 3 (o
Design Current
Design Current
Design
Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle
C►►opacity
Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er Dai Cow
Non -La er Dai Calf
QD
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
ay Heifer
Farrow to Wean
lDrvCow
Farrow to Feeder
D , Poultr, Ca aci P,o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turke s
Othe
j
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
[:]Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[] NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [-]No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA LINE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: 1
01
44 Date of Inspection: D p
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? [—]Yes U,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
' Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: LQ . 51*AQ Q�k_5_in`j(��
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes D6 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 ONo ❑ 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 TNo ❑ 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 �6 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes $ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? - -• _
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): % A4_)
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ Yes M"No
❑ Yes Qk No
❑ Yes j1 No
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes rXrNo
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes' . �No D NA ❑ NE
11 Yes [yNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21 Does record keeping nee;irovemcnt?,Uy@s,@h@_n_1' ❑ Yes 'M No ❑NA ❑ NE
Raste Application ekly Freeboard Waste Analysis SoiI Analysis rs ❑Weather Code
ainfall 12<ocking �rop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections edge Situ :,
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes kNo D NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No ERNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: IDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste appliZ�lfon 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 W NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes XNo
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes allo
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with ho rs and/or document ❑ Yes �No
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 MNo
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 0No
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 �rNo
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause, non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes ZNo
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes rTNo
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes fgNo
[] NA ❑ NE
fo NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
[DNA ❑ 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).
C0-�l �fr�`l!7vY� due- -aO N
ozo l d- 5ry o-i { q rai n le Ids
I. a .
J .
, c>LM of 5l&l{ Side — V10/10 aL+ed
• 17 �� rl jc� c�i of u-)4 5 f e -V) Ir 5e ve-�r'& I � e.O-V s .
Al u'W
BS BL^� - •
Reviewer/Inspector Name: 1-0C-46-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: - .5Sa $
Date:
21412011

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 760012
Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC760012
-, I_I Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance lnsoection
Inactive
or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Complaint
_ County: Randolph
Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 11 /08/2012
Entry Time: 11:25 AM Exit Time: 11:55 AM
Incident #:
Farm Name:
Owner Email:
Owner: 8Elin Buttke
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: ,§796 Walker MillRd
Physical Address: 6022 Walker Mill
Rd Randleman
NC 27317
Facility Status: ■ Compliant
❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 35°50'36"
Longitude: 79'50'36"
From GSO, south on Hwy. 220 to Level Cross exit. Right onto Branson Mill Rd. Continue to Walker Mill Rd. and take left onto Walker
Mill Rd. Farm office is on the left.
Question Areas:
W Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Waste Application
Certified Operator: Ard Koopman
Operator Certification Number: 997080
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title
Phone
24 hour contact name
Ard Koopman
Phone: [phone]
On -site representative
Ard Koopman
Phone: [phone]
Primary inspector: M
Inspector Signature:
' sa Rosebrock
Phone: l
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
ri
Page: 1

• •
Permit: AWC760012 Owner - Facility: Arlin Butike Facility Number : 760012
Inspection Date: 11/08/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Complaint
Inspection Summary:
Today's visit was the result of a complaint received by WSRO-SWP 11/08/2012 at 8:07am alleging that "Liquid waste is land applied
and is or will go into Randleman lake. The odor is bad." The caller slated that "he may call Fox 8 News."
Our investigation concluded that old corn silage had been spread on the fields in question. The silage was measured to be 108-450
feet from surface waters (UT to Randleman Lake). The area between the application field and the surface water was well vegetated
with no evidence that the silage had run-off the field. The field has been planted in small grain which was 24' tall today. Corn stubble
still remained. The odor of rotten silage was VERY strong on the site today.
Our investigation coincided with what the OIC (Ard Coopman)and farm manger (Jim Swain) stated when DWQ contacted them today
regarding the application around the edges of the field of two loads of "old feed waste" material yesterday.
In reviewing the animal waste application traffic patterns in the same fields (from two weeks ago), DWQ also determined that all set
backs and buffer requirements were met and no DWQ violations were observed. The closest waste was AT LEAST 25 feet from the
unnammed tributary. All buffers were well vegetated with no evidence of animal waste run-off.
Page: 2

•
•
Permit: AWC760012 Owner - Facility: Arlin Buttke Facility Number: 760012
Inspection Date: 111061 O12 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Complaint
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
aste Pond
CONCRETE WSP
Neste Pond
MAIN SIDE SM.-CLOSED
01/10/06
Waste Pond
MAIN SIDE-LG. WSP
Waste Pond
SMALL SIDE
02/16/10
Page: 3

•
•
Permit: AWC760012 Owner - Fatuity: Arlin Buttke Facility Number: 760012
Inspection Date: 11/08/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Complaint
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? ❑ ■ Cl ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ 0
❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than
❑ ■
❑
❑
from a discharge?
Waste Application Yes No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑ ■
❑
❑
improvement?
11, is there evidence of incorrect application? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1 Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 2
Page: 4

Permit: AWC760012 Owner -Facility: Arlin 8uttke
Inspection pate: 11/08/2012 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 760012
Reason for Visit: Complaint
Waste Application
Yes
No NA NE
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑
■ ❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Page: 5

COMPLAINT REPORT i oOE:
Division of Water Quality TIME: ° 7 a pm
Winston-Salem Regional Office
COUNTY: koi Jb i goo
Did caller ask to remain anonymous? Yes V No �
(if YES, skip to directions section)
NAME OF CALLER: D1j l ��
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE: _(, 3 3 0 3 39 - 91
DIRECTIONS: —BTnt SS• _ 6u s 31 D P(S G S (,P- I- J�t S ' Utw il4rkcC-
r 0 �h C roSS
ornroon wtt 11-LA
D � e
SOURCE OF POLLUTION: C or CO k/ llfUlojw a s r-L Jhco 1.c »+c R k G
vATURE OF COMPLAINT:
Al ►r'r1,a.�1OQS^ ©� btl.n� �Q 5�� 5 ��
n
n a #11 V-UL e14 14r14 x S {'1-c P A U e .c 11 Fe J( y n -G 4y S ��..
REFERRED TO:
kCTION TAKEN:
WE
4
RECEIVED BY: INVESTIGATOR:

_j ..
Type of Visit: ACompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: tfRoutine O Complaint 0 Follow-up O Referral O Emergency Q Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: rrival Time: Departure Time:L-L U_1 I County: ad61Itegion: NNj �a
Farm Name: B u4 LL ]Da1 r.y et) D r 1 s QS Owner Email: by-V..f_ Q Oo • C,6
Owner Name: ,, But— L.p, Phone: `>! �S� %�� 9�'3
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: U L Title:
LI-igrator:
Onsite Representative:
Ar-d1 Oun 1 ea't-$Or1$� Qom!
Certified Operator: 4/Certification Number:
Back-up Operator
Phone: ` W b 7 —.Ky YO
�f q aq - C)(c.Sq 66t
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 3 S`0 Longitude: � � s Q
44
p wY 3 11 5. L V'Je d 1� 1 l all a58��-- 3}C, a a: M s L sf
SD M S c— 9.7
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Desi,gagn Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
DairyCow Z1
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
Design Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Dr. P,oultr Ca acit P,o
Layers
Non-Dairy
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Othe
Other
Turke s
ITurkey Poults
10ther
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. 1s any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes j No NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge? �C
Pagel of 4111111 bW6:: 6-0 Di�[t�1�'�ci rn = � `.S D1�► 8iq Sid Co��inu�d'
Lomc �. ! 1poaq�p. (31-R_' _ a. n ss� -'l A. 4iq PS

1 �a e
� �o��o►�. = �. B +.es =2. 3 sass
10
D M
8s
Facili Number: - M CA Y Date of ns ection: S1I\
55 = -7. ci
`�,�
' 7!
DM 14
e-' L =
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE_-'-,.,'
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: ,j t Q WS�
Spillway?: 9 10
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
[34<0Yes
❑ 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?
KYes
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ 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
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
J�C`Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. A Yes []No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
n r
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
2�W9
es record keeping need improvement?�
ste Application
Freeboard Waste Analysis
ainfall �tocking 120 Minute Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
Soil Analysis
❑ Yes t10
❑ NA
❑ NE
O"Yes [:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Yes Qo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
�fyes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Weather Code
1" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Yes AINo
23. If selected, did the jjfacility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes [:]No
Page 2 of 3 � (1 11 5' L, ,S5 - 6 .46 O.b N G= 1, 9 13 L g ,s _ 1 S
bM,BS = S8,3 1- . DNU5 = 3&,`] DMe.)5 T7,6
❑ NA ❑ NE
'5;tNA ❑ NE
21412011 Continued

Facility Number: IDate of Inspection: d
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application 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 ❑ No PeA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes JRrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes O'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Qy No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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 ;RKo ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes [❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/.or any additional recommendations or:any other comments:
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as:necessary). , ..
k1l'No Soil t?e n4L/ y �, o,�a Jd. G90 AA�f 1�� � r a
r� •
r � /Mid ?, M__
HE
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:.. 1./� Date: Jo1-� Lo
Page 3 of 3 I!""1_ T - U Yx V14 I�t'bx) P4

F,olnr SLtR 2
Slurryarid Sludge- Applicalion Field Records
-'r
One Form for Each Field .per Crop 0
Tract
Field #
u Field Sizia etted Acres}- (A}
Facili -Nurr�ber
ty
'7 (g
71,
i Farm Owner .:
Spreader Operator
ir1 Fi
-
Owner's Address 5'Ig:4 WAR L"K'4 K 1`1( 1 LL and Address
�>�iQot>, 4�gKE i.N
S r4 C
Ova- l at$ 5 o
Owner`s Phone #3 - 1
Operator's Phone # .
3 i. "► . 3 �..ri ;.
From Animal Waste Management Plan
W+ Crap Type Q /
Recommended PAN
y
.�
Loading (Ib/acre) = (B)
c,. ' , . ,: '�.. • 01 (2) 111
(41 151 - :� .AIM
. rl1 (81 .
"; • ^ `
4'°""Ntrlriertt
;SDUrce
fate
(rnm/ddlyr)
Nurnlrer
of Loads
per Field
Volume of
each toad'
{galionsj
Total Volume
(gallons)
(2} x (3}
Vdurne per Acre
(gallons/acre)
(4) /
Waste Analysis
'PAN"
(Ib110p0 gal}
PAN;Appr�ed
(Ibfacre)
(6)'x (5)11000
Nttrogen Balance"'
(161aae}
(8) - (7)
Weather
Iota,
060
Salo
9
11
_4
ad6
LJ
1
23
ZL,2
aS
rop Cycle Total
r
Owners signature Spreader Operator's Signature � I
Cer6tic3d Operator (print} Rk z Operator Certiflc tion No.
' Can.be found in operat&s manual for the spreader. Contact a local dealer if youdo nol.have your owner s manual:
See your waste manageme.nrplan for sampling frequency. At a minimum, waste analysis is required within tit] days of land application events.
..Enteiithe value received by subtracting column (7) from (8). Continue subtractiq column (7) from column (8) following each application event.
'—Enter nutrient source (ie. Lagm lStorage Pond ID, commerical fertilizer, dry litter, etc..) 3/1412003
I-]

SLUR 2 SiiJrry and Sludge Appf'icat'son Field Records
Oita Fnrrri,.for.,Each:;Field p,,er Crop Cycle
'Tract;# 11 4) J C` 1, .. Meld #
E!00
r� Faun OWriFs ❑ Spreader Operator
Owner's:acfdress 5I W,gL4t R N1.4LL and Address e'i;s ��a ow t�.AKE Lam!
hIol
Ouvner's Phone #'� l Operator's Phone # Z 3 ` ..,.
From Animal Waste Management Plan
Chap Type J),j A' Recor,rne6ded PAN
Loading (16/wm) —.,(B)
(2) (a) (4) (5) ''(B} }
14umber Volume of Tula! Volume yoinme per Acre WastepriaEysis PAN Applied N'rtrngen Balance'"' Wealher
'"`"'Nlitnent Date of Loads each Load• (gallons) (galtonslacre) P?AN" : (Ib/a ) (ItalacFe) info.
y 'SOutre (rnrNddl r) per Field (gallons) (2) x (3) . (4)1(A) Owl QOD gaE) i6} x (5) ! 9000 tB1- (7)
--�70-I17
5e�6
21
f�
��
1 �'.
�!. s F
19 7. 9' 7
S
top CyCie Total.::
_ t
Orvn". ignature Spreader Operator's Signature
Certified Operator (print) ;j d/Y Operator Certiftion NO.
'Can be found ln`operaEor a manual r the spreader, Contact a local dealer it you•do nqt have your owner's manual:
"See your K+asle.riianageriieni pEan to 'sai.ipling frequency. At a minimum, waste ar+alysis is required within 60 days of land application events.
"'brit r the value re.ceived by subtUmn (7) from (B). Continue subtractirt� column (7) from column (8) following each application event.
—Enter nutrient source (ie. Lagoon/Storage Pond ID, commerical lertilizer, dry litter, etc.) 31t412003
•

NGDACSAgr _ on�amie Dfvisiva Pone(919)733 255x SWe6T&Ete. awww gov/agroi►mil r Grower BattT;cry{ntcrpHsc3tepmrt:1WO678C �FPage=2
-
Sample M
N
P K Ca
Afg S Pe Din Zn Cu B MO Cl C
DMCB
Waste Code:
5SD
Descriptiott:
Dairy Surface Scraped
Toro! 29457
tN-N
AM
-NO3
OR-N
Urw
4220 6014 9695
3915 2184 653 234 219 58.0 17.3
Na Ni Cd
Pb At Se Li pH SS C.•N DAM Ca% ALE(tons)
=16,11
80,26
R c acme ons.�
1fpplfiaarlan""`,iierhad x
sroaacasi
.. Nutrients Available for:Fis"st,Cro
!Y`' PaOS `- 1ia0 Ca Mg, S Fe
19.4 9:3 -9:3 9 3 x 3:8-
z
llislto�i: raet,bass
e1lr� Zn ' (aa B Mo t l
;OWer;Blementslbs/ton, wetlias[s • -
IVu 11'i CdPbA1 Se- Lf
North Carolina
Tobacco Trust Fund Commission
0
Reprogramming of the laboratory -information -management system that makes this report possible is being funded
through a grant from the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission:
Thank you for using agronomic services to manage nutrients and safeguard environmental quality.
- Steve Troxler, Commissioner of Agriculture

AtC©AS�cs omit ni€�is�io Pal one_ (91s�733-2G5s weirsite ncagr:gav/a ronomi! Report.-:V#6G 6y•
Grower guttke Dairy Enterprise-Wayne/Arl Copses lo:
�•�v, rE,aF�,; 5796 walker Mill Rd.
ft
Randleman, NC 27317
(IF F
Waste Analysis Report
Farm: 76-12
=Received: 04/7612012 Completed: M712012 Links to Helpful Information Randolph County
amelW'ormnt�on
-
i:allora#ory,Res{PPer miltionmatt er�wis einoted3
. �.?Ot
Saruple'IDr
N
F % Ca Mg S Fe Mn Zn Cu B No C! C
CpRC ;.
Total 719
123 1087 359 147 99.4 12.8 2.95 5.22 1.43 0.67
IN-N
Waste Car%:
-NH4
An
No Ni Cd Pb At Se Li pH SS C•N DM% CCE% ALB )
LSD
NO3
426 7.52
Description:
OR-N
Dairy L1 . Slu
Urea
R pnmell on : _
9—'
Nu[tlents Av$ilahle;far i+ist Cri .� ~ 1bsJ1000" llans`�`
10f1ter>6kments.:: lls/100D' allorts ---
�Btmdcast�
2-`6 6 8 7 2 1� O Sfi' 0 58 o.a7 Q2 a Q3� .' 9 QI T 411'"
ya
`.
'lifi-r"Y?'4'I' S illt"•�
Competed +Apiil25, 201
- f. --Kj - Siy4 _. - S rP�"�°rt�.'}i° T4a
RT
.r_r-
asxt'?-•a{- �w�caca--- -
nple I�nt'ora�tlon�
mr-:�rze,--•��z3� K;rs �:zx�'- s�a�x--,oa...�*—�-xv�'�:•arx. - �� xc - -
�1L;aborstaty Resnhs�ii�� ice!' �liou��feoti�er�wisnote�.d�j � n,�` ° s ��.
Sample m
N
P A Ca M8 S Fe Ain Zn Cu B Afo Cl C
ggg
Total 646
155 821 413 178 69.6 28.6 3.34 5.55 2.31 0.67
s4v
Waste Conde:
NH4
Na Ni Cd Pb Al Se Li pH SS ON DM% CCB% ALE( )
LSD
NO3
325 7.38
Description:
OR-N
Daig Lia. Slum
Urea
-..�... - 's=—�trc_ -'
n ..�fl��"'
.. �-
�'' �":�%�`�N�iltiienA;vailahlefw;•Fixst,Cro,._.,��.�
•--s r� *:ae� 2— - .��, y.... -a--^ ..s-��y,T-'.:ac. �.
- �?>�:'Yb3;7I0a0T1ons- ���
�-'•rz,r-.z�¢ �-�� rt.....--_..,ra•:r,- -c-sis
Other=Eiements T6s/IDODaliarrs�_
_
-7", '�,�
NOWN

':.'�itYd-,a.w.v'4:"
�L�CflAs�CS;}y�yYronnmi��Divis'iou"
w„�
'P""�`.•. .� �� 1biF,' 'S'S"�'r' ta�r{?.�7!_`fs�'it?.:L'R- tF$�."=.�:iYSs+. il��X 'YS�F-'.>e.+'.x':�`""�'-ni�."9rs_' ;�' . �5 "L
Phone ��n/191733 2655,{5�:�=}`Web,site.n�awauc.govl�lgra�a�l�Gra�er Buttse�da€�g�Enterprlse�_epartcyWOb7(s9„���-�P��p�2s
iI'9E' '-� `S1" Nh
�1LtOrn18tI0Yl
�-'-T-r-me.H-��,.,«:;--.Y��,��4��.:^.
T"'� �Gv� LR N�' Lhi�.cp Y�.s�`�5
- '�"rdto ItCS�15 m#ti#oQ ►�teS5�atherarise RatC � � _
�,,:a��*.,.w�.r�,....�Cw.x��•..:s .fLrs., z..�>u+:!3'�;-.- mn '. -: .'t` ��..�.-��- .axw"�.iiSr,c'•'..--"-"��i':.
Sample M.
N
P K Ca Mg S Fe Mn Zn Cu B MO C! C
6LSS ,;
Told 395
79.0 549 282 ill 34.5 8.44 1.37 2.22 1.84 0.78
Waste Cade:
-NH4
LSD
-NO3
Na N1 Cd A Al se M pH SS ON DAM ccff% ALE )
208 7.15
Deserlpfian:
OR4V
Dairy Mg. Slurry
Urea
'--i�^Cl-14YEX^h<"'_u Sr"•fG�T-�� �'r'
y�. `3� �_ �"""]Yd:S�•e. i a7y ..4„i� ': J2M"' ?s ,1�?
r �4C..... ��e, �.� ���. '�"� "�l�
MOW Afefbod � ..
tl �Apr Yar;�Slfi�i
' �fSi�"S'�'S^ _, ^�P�3���` :.X�. �L���''i: �I�.p .Fz '�;Fe: •"'ili,�ii k � le�y�i �Y48 �'1- IS'ip� .��}�S
�L� N�f�K: F�S�fidz. - t�11 �� 1ii.s {.�+y-y'3"*s��.�il ��-.�
0
oah Carolina Reprogramming of the laboratory -information -management system that makes this report possible is being funded
through a grant from the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission.
Thank you for using agronomic services to manage nutrients and safeguard environmental quality.
Tc bacco Trust Fund Coininiss0ii -Steve Troxler, Commissioner of Agriculture

MAY-11-2012 08:59 From: � To: or 714631 Paoe:1-'2
A.S.J Mathis Farms, LLC
Date: 4/19/12
TO: Mellissa
From: Luke Mathis
SUBJECT: 2012 Burn Down
NO. OF PAGES (2)
PHONE NO. [phone]
FAX. NO, [phone]

ASJ Chemical Application 2012 Bumdown
30 Gal Per Acre
33 Acre Per Load
Product Rate per Acre Amount Per Tank
12.
Gramoxone Inteon 3 Pt Per Acre 5 Gal
LeadOff 11.5 Oz 49.s OZ
dcGal
25GalPerAcre
40 Acre Per Load
-
1 IT6
60 Oz
---120GWPer Acre
SO Acre Per Load
18.75 Gal
75 Oz
5 Gat
lAtrazine 4L
1.5 Qt
-12-5 —Gal —15 Gal
"Affix Phis
4 QT/I 60 —Gil- -4-0G—a—I P-'e- —r1-0-O"'O-" Gal Tank
50 Pt
!****2-4,D Ester 1:1 Pt
t3-3
40 Pt
14D Ester used where hard to control broadleaf weeds
-I"Nurtisphere N
1/2 gal per 100 g 130% N or 5 Gal
Tank
:MTM
-fB —Oz
4.75 Gal
15.75 Gal
-7 Gal
Karate 12 Oz
66 Oz
80 OZ
100 Oz
Adept Surfactant '1 Ot Per 100 Gal or 2.5 Gal per Tank
'Affbc can be omitted when bumdown is with Liquid N as carrier
'Affix Plus (Event) Liquid to Relace Dry Affix has Adept in Li uid
***Nurtisphere N Left out of Mix when Using MTM
'***Add �A5WJ16-iWr, enbft is 6 In Tall and Thick will Aid in Burridown
­"'-—e4
:1
D
r6
ru
0
-u
Qv
ro
ru

•
0
Rosebrock, Melissa
From: Luke Mathis [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 12:15 PM
To: Rosebrock, Melissa
Subject: Re: FW: FAX
All the burndown is applied with H2O
On May 11, 2012 10:25 AM, "Rosebrock, Melissa" <melissa.rosebrock(a�ncdenr.y> wrote:
Got it Luke ---thanks!
Melissa Rosebrock
1;-mail Address: inelissa.rosebrock ncdenr, ov
NCDENR Division of Waler Quality
Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27107
[phone]. fax (336) 771_-4630
www.ncwaterquali!y.org
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Douglas, Kristie
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 10:19 AM
To: Rosebrock, Melissa
Subject: FAX
Please see attached fax.

•Location: 1498 BEECH TREE CT, 27350 0
Randolph County
Environmental Health
N
Mr F
s t h+ch a 388 suet
12
77 1
CI 4 4 r ti 45897
L is 1558 1 0 1530 1521
y 3w" 1577 1 59 1533 q 147T 469
1 3
N��-j.
4 7 4 774 4 c ti
'•� l -r ■ �, 45�T � 7
, rr e.
�- 457 r. { ti • 214 ..,� nssa9
18 51 520 '. 3
_ W LKE MILL RA (54936
539 5 9
h.
NL
4 5& 45! � '� � C��� \�,� 774 3° ` `�l� `,.. ,� r ��� +� ISri'g4� .•rf� ,1,>r,•

♦)
NCDAMS Agronomic Division Phone: [phone] Web site: www.ncag.gov/agronomi/
Report No: 30150
,�. Fr,; A, Gmwer.•
Buttke Dairy Enterp ise-Woyne/Arlh Copies ro:
-
yJ,s
5796 Walker Mill Rd
Randleman, NC 27317
w
-� == oil Test Rport
N.5 Mnh+m
SERVING N.C. RESIDENTS FOR OVER 60 YEARS
PAr11J: 76-12
Received: 03/17/2010 Completed: 03/30/2010 Links to Helpful Information
Randolph County
Agronomist Comments
ATTENTION: This report was flagged with a "C" and/or "Z" to alert you that copper and/or zinc have accumulated in
the soil and are approaching a level that could be detrimental to crop production. The C and Z symbols are printed
on your report for soil test Index levels of 20W or more; for peanuts with zinc, the level is 300. This note is
designed to be a "trigger" that allows enough time to either reduce the rate of application or find another field for
application of biosolids and/or waste water. The CTL (critical toxic level) for W & Zn has been set at 3000 Ender;
for peanuts with zinc, the level is 500. These levels are used by DENR as a benchmark to determine when
application of waste products should be slapped The CTL for copper and zinc was set to prevent levels from
accumuWng to the point where they become toxic to crops grown on a field
David H. Hardy, Agronomist
March 29, 2010
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year Lime
N P205
K20 Mg S Ca Zn
B Mn See Note
I
1st Crap: Fes/OG/I'Im,M 0
120-200 0
0 0 0 0 0
.0 0
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/rim,M 0
120-200 0
0 0 0 0 0
.0 0
Test Results
Solt Class MM% W/Y CEC BS% Ac pH P-I K-1 Ca% Mg%
Mn-I Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2) Zn-1 Zn-A1 Cu-1 S-1
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N Na
MIN 0.22 1.01 14.3 94.0 0.8 6.1 222 144 77.0 12.0
513 323
323 428 428 310 253
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year Ltane
N P205
K20 Mg S Cu Zn
B Mn See Note
2
1st Crop: Fes/OG/rim M .8'1'
120-200 0
0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 j2
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/fim M 0
120-200 0
0 0 0 0 0
.0 0 j2
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/Y CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K 1 Ca% Mg%
Mn-1 Mn-AI(l)
Mn-Al(2) Zn-1 Zn•A1 Cn-I S-1
SS-1 NO3-N NH+-N Na
MIN 0.22 1.06 11.7 85.0 1.7 55 84 119 66.0 14.0
244 163
163 159 159 131 280
0.1

AI
NCDA&CS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: www.ncag.gDv/aVnomi/
Grower: Butdce Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
PS 2
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Cu
Zn
B
Mn See Note
3
1st Crop: Fes/OG/fim,M
.3T
120.200
100-120
50-70
0
0
0
0
0
0 J
2nd Crap: Fes/OG/Tim M
0
120-200
1W120
50-70
0
0
0
0
.0
0 J2
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I
Zn-Al
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1
NO3-N N714-N
Na
MIN 0.27 1.12
8.9 88.0
1.1 5.8 15 38
63.0
22.0
542
342
342
132
132
146
93
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Region mendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Ca
Za
B
Mn See Note
4
1st Capp: Fes/OG/Tim,M
0
120-200
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0 12
2nd Crap: Fes/OG/T1m Al
0
120-200
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
Test Results
Sail Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 1C1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zu-1
Zn-Al
Ca-1
S-I
SS-1
NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.27 1.05
11.2 94.0
0.7 6.3 123 95
66.0
24.0
838
515
515
438
438
540
129
0.2
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Line.
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Ca
Zn
B
Mn See Note
5
1st Crop: Fes/OG/TirnA
0
120-200
0
0-20
0
0
0
0
.0
0
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/Tim,M
0
120.200
0
o-20
0
0
0
0
.0
0 1�
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-Al(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1
Zn-A1
Cu-1
S-1
SS-1
NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.22 1.09
11.2 90.0
1.1 6.1 97 82
64.0
23.0
801
496
496
361
361
459
123
0.2
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Ca
Zn
B
Mn See Note
6
ist Crop: Fes/OG/Um,M
0
120-200
50-70
50-70
0
0
0
0
.0
0
2nd Gap: Fes/OG/Tim,M
0
120-200
50.70
50-70
0
0
0
0
.0
0
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Ma-1
MwAI(l)
Ma-Al(2)
Zn-1
Ztt-AI
Cu-1
S-1
SS-1
NO3-N N714-N
Na
MIN 0.22 1.00
8.6 91.0
0.8 6.1 31 37
71.0
17.0
539
339
339
102
102
201
231
0.1
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Ca
Zn
B
Mn See Note
7
1st Crop: Fes/OG/Tim M
0
120-200
0
50-70
0
0
0
0
.0
0 12
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/Tim M
0
120-200
0
50-70
0
0
0
0
.0
0 J2
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mir-AI(2)
Zn-1
Zn-AI
CO-1
S-1
SS-1
NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.22 1.06
14.9 94,0
0.9 6.4 86 39
72.0
2LO
575
356
356
209
209
308
121
0.3

NCDWS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: ww-ucagr-gov/agronomi/
Grower: Buttke Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Ag 3
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
No Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lfine
N
P2O5
K2O
Mg S
Cu
Zu
B Ma See Note
s
Ist crop: Fes/OG/r"
0
120-200
0
10-30
0 0
0
0
.0 0 12
2nd Crop: FffA)G/rhn M
0
120-200
0
10.30
0 0
0
0
.o o L 2
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1
K I
CA Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zu-1 Zn-AI
Cu-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N NH3-N
Na
MIN 0.22 1.12
14.0 91.0
I.2 6.1 81
63
65.0 24.0
454
288
288
203 203
138
106
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Ma Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P2O5
K2O
Mg S
Cu
Tar
B Mn See Note
9
151 Crop: Fes/OG/rlm,M
AT
120-200
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0 a
2nd Crap: Fes/OG/rim,M
.0
120-200
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0
AW
Test Results
Im
Sol! Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I
K-I
Ca% Mg%
Mu-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zx-I Zn-AI
Cu-1
S-1
SS-1 1VOj-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.36 1.16
11.9 87.0
1.5 5.8 215
112
66.0 17.0
207
141
141
343 343
95
88
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Line
N
P2O5
K2O
Mg S
Cu
Zn
B Mu See Note
10
Isl Crop: Fes/OG/rim M
AT
120-200
0-20
0-20
0 0
0
0
.0 0 Z
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/fim,M
0
120-200
0.20
0-20
a 0
0
0
.0 0
Test Results
Sollclass HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I
RI
Ca% Mg%
Mu-1
Mu-AI(1)
Mn-Al(2)
Zn-1 Zu-AI
Cu-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N AWN
Na
MIN 0.18 1.02
11.9 87.0
1.5 5.8 63
70
66.0 19.0
538
340
340
156 156
141
182
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Line
N
P2O5
K2O
Mg S
Cu
Tar
B Mu See Note
11
1st crop: Fes/oG/rim,M
.5T
120-200
80-100
40-60
0 0
0
0
.0 0
2nd crop: Fes/OG/rIm M
0
120-200
80-100
40-60
0 0
0
0
.0 0
Test Remits
Soft Class BM W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I
K-I
Ca% Mg%
Mn-I
Mn-Al(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-A1
Ca-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.05
13.3 88.0
1.6 5.7 20
45
62.0 24.0
1041
642
642
105 105
98
112
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P2O5
K2O
Mg S
Cu
Tar
B Mn See Note
12
lst Crop: SmaQ Grains
0
80-100
10-30
0
0 0
0
0
.0 a 1
2nd Crop: Soybeans
0
0
10-30
0
0 0
0
0
0 1
Test Results
Solt Class 11a►I% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I
&I
Ca% big%
MU-1
Mn-AI(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zu-AI
Cu-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N AW4-N
Na
MIN 0.13 1.05
10.6 95.0
0.5 6.4 53
93
63.0 28.0
262
161
161
195 195
160
193
0.2

NCDABCS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: www.neW.gov/agronami/
Grower: Bunke Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Pg 4
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Croft
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P201
K20
Mg
S
Ca
Zn
B Mn
See Note
13
1st Crop: Smal! Grains
0
80.100
40-60
60-80
0
0
0
0
.0 pH$
2nd Crop: Soybeans
0
0
40-60
60-80
0
0
0
0
pH$
Test Results
Soil Class MM% W/V
CPC BS%
Ac pH P-1
K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zu-1
Zn-A1
Ca -I
S 1
SS-1 NO3-N
NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.13 1.22
21.3 94.0
1.3 6.5 37
35
73.0
20.0
400
242
242
277
277
247
31
0.1
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
No Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P20s
K20
Mg
S
Cu
Zn
B Mn
See Note
14
1st Crop: Small Grains
0
W100
30-50
0.20
0
0
0
0
0 pH$
2nd Crop: Soybeans
0
0
30-50
G-20
0
0
0
0
pHs
Test Results
Soil Class mn W/V
CPC BS%
Ac pH P-1
K1
Ca%
M8%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-A►(2)
Zn-1
ZnAI
Cn-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N
NrH4-N
Na
MIN 0.22 0.94
11.1 96.0
0.4 6,5 40
77
66.0
27.0
396
240
240
315
315
252
169
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P20s
KsO
Mg
S
Ca
Zn
B Ma
See Note
15
1st Crap: Smafl Grains
0
80-100
30-50
50-70
0
0
0
0
.0 0
1
2nd Crop: Soybeans
0
0
30-50
50-70
0
0
0
0
0
1
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CPC BS%
Ac pH P-1
K-1
Ca%
Mg96
Ma-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1
Zn-AI
Co-]
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.09 1.29
14.7 94.0
0.9 6.4 44
40
59.0
33.0
196
122
122
206
206
W
87
0.2
Field Information
Applied 13me
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P203
K20
Mg
S
Ca
Zn
B Mn
See Note
16
151 Crop: Small Grains
0
80.100
0-20
0.20
0
0
0
0
.0 pH$
2nd Crop: Soybeans
0
0
0-20
0-20
0
0
0
0
pH$
Test Results
Soil Class BM% W/V
CPC BS%
Ac pH P-1
K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I
Zn-AI
Ca-1
S 1
SS-1 NO3-N MI4-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.01
11.7 97.0
o.4 6.6 63
84
66.0
27.0
436
262
262
390
390
301
138
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P203
K20
Mg
S
Cs
Zn
B Mn
See Note
19
lst Crop: Small Grains
1.2T
80-100
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0 0
2nd Crop: Soybeans
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CPC BS%
Ac pH RI
K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-I
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn I
Zn-AI
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.32 1.09
7.2 74.0
1.9 5.0 99
91
45.0
23.0
326
206
206
210
210
86
89
0.1

NCDAKS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: inm.ncaV.gov/agronomi/
Grower: Buttim Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Pg 5
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
LMae
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zu
B Mn See Note
20
1st crop: small Grains
0
80-100
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0 -1
2nd Crop: Soybeans
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 1
Test Resnits
Solt Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I
K 1
CA A;g%
Mu-!
Mn-Al(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zu-1 Zn-Al
Cu-I
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N NM4-N
Na
MIN 0.36 1.11
10.1 90.0
1.0 6.1 148
90
55.0 30.0
593
364
364
564 564
100
60
0.0
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zu
B Mn See Note
21
1st Crop: Small Grains
1.3T
80.100
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0 -
2nd Crop: Soybeans
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 1
Test Results
Son Class Mt1I% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac p H P-I
K-I
Ca% Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(Z)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn Al
Cu-I
S I
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.66 1.23
8.5 76.0
2.0 5.0 216
141
41.0 28.0
1328
807
807
362 362
67
117
0.1
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lbw
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zu
B Mu See Note
22
lst Crop: Small Grains
0
80-100
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0 -1
2nd Crop: Soybeans
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 1
Test Remits
Soil Class Mf% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I
K-1
Ca% Mg%
Mn-1
Ma-AI(l)
Mn-Al(2)
Zu-1 Zn-Al
Ca -I
S I
SS-1 NO3-N N714W
Na
MIN - 0.36 1.11
11.3 92.0
0.9 6.4 154
114
54.0 32.0
1386
836
836
492 492
95
-52
0.0
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
"5
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zu
B Mu See Note
23
1st crop: Fes/OG/Pim,M
LIT
120-200
120-140
60-80
0 0
0
0
.0 0
2nd crop: Fes/OG/flm,M
0
120-200
120.140
60-80
0 0
0
0
.0 0 12
Test Results
Soil Class BM% W/V
CEC BS%
As pH P-I
K-1
CA Mg%
Mu-1
Mn-Al(l)
MN-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-Al
Cu-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.13 1.04
9.3 78.0
2.0 5.2 5
33
41.0 35.0
352
228
228
57 57
75
155
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
_ Mg S
Cu
Zu
B Mn See Note
24
lst Crop: Fes/OG/Pim,M
.7T
120-200
30.50
20310
0 0
0
0
.0 0 J2
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/flm,M
0
120-200
30-50
20-40
0 0
0
0
.0 0 JL2
Test Results
Soil Class lllrl% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P I
K-1
CA h"
Mn-1
Mn-Al(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-Al
Cu-1
SI
SS-1 NO3-N A714-N
Na
MIN 0.09 1.16
As 90.0
1.5 5.5 43
60
50.0 37.0
278
184
194
83 83
113
104
0.5

NCDA&C4 Agronomic Msion
Phone: [phone] Web site: ry m.neagr.gov/agronomi/
Grower: Buttke Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Pg 6
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Line
N
P205
K20
Mg S
CO
Ztt
B Mn See Note
25
1st Crap; Fes/OG/Tlm M
IT
120-200
0
0.20
0 0
0
0
.0 0 12
2nd Crap; Fes/OW7[m M
0
120-200
0
0-20
0 0
0
0
.0 0 12
Test Results
soil class HM% W/v
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I KI
Ca%
Mg%
Ma-1
Mn-AI(1)
Ma-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-AI
Ctt-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.09 1.02
18.2 89.0
2.0 5.4 200 70
63.0
25.0
179
124
124
366 366
222
200
0.3
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
130
Mg S
Cu
Zu
B Mn See Note
26
1st Crop: Fes/4G/ Irn M
1T
120-200
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0 _12
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/Tim M
0
120-200
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/v
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 .fit
Ca%
Mg%
Mu-1
Mu-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Ztt-Al
Ctt I
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N A64-N
Na
MIN 0.09 1.08
12.3 85.0
1.8 5.2 186 86
65.0
17A
156
111
111
297 297
181
319
0.2
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Line
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zn
B Mn See Note
27
151 Crop: Fes/OG/Tim M
1T
120-200
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0 12
2nd Crop: Fes/OWiTnX
0
120-200
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0 12
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/v
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-AI
Ca-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N A7H4-N
Na
MIN 0.09 1.09
11.9 85.0
1.8 5.2 190 88
66.0
16.o
181
126
126
314 314
179
324
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Line
N
P205
K2o
Mg S
Ctt
Zn
B Mn See Note
28
1st Crop: Fes/OG/Tim,M
0
120-200
30-50
2040
0 0
0
0
.0 0 12
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/Tim M
0
120-200
30-50
20-40
0 0
0
0
.0 0 12
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/v
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Ztt-AI
Ctt I
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.22 1.09
9.7 88.0
1.2 6.1 41 55
61.0
25.0
781
484
484
141 141
131
152
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lima
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Tat
B Mn See Note
29
1st Crop: Corn,Silar
.37
180-220
100-120
80-100
0 0
0
0
.0 0 1
2nd Crop: SmGrain Sil/ m Sit
0
80-100
90-110
80-100
0 0
0
0
0 -1
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/v
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Ma-1
Ma-AI(1) .
Ma-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-AI
Cu-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.13 1.04
8.4 88.0
1.0 5.8 16 54
62.0
23.0
286
189
182
139 139
593
251
0.1

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: www.naigr.gov/agronomi/
Grover: Buttke Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Pg 7
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr TIA
Crop or Year
LMre
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Za
B Ma See Note
30
1st Crap: Fes/OG/IYm,M
0
120-200
0
0-20
0 0
0
0
.0 0 J.9
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/f1m M
0
120-200
0
0-20
0 0
0
0
.0 0
Test Results
Soil Clans HN% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
MnAI(l)
Mx-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn AI
Cu-1
S 1
SS-1 NO3 N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.06
10.3 91.0
0.9 6.1 67 72
69.0
19.0
791
490
490
229 229
603
192
01
Field Information
Applied lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
No Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Ctt
Zn
B Mn See Note
31
1st Crop: Fes/OG/ 1m,M
1.6T
120-200
100-120
30-50
0 0
0
0
.0 0 _U
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/FIm,M
0
120-200
100-120
30-50
0 0
0
0
.0 0
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zu-I Zn AI
Ctt 1
S-I
SS-1 NO3 N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.09 1.10
6.1 61.0
2.4 4.9 13 49
40.0
17.0
144
103
'103
90 90
103
300
0.0
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P20s
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zu
B Mn See Note
32
lst Crop: Corn,SdW
.9T
180-220
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0 .1
2nd Crop: SmGraln SWCom SH
0
80- too
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 -1
Test Results
Soil Class "N W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K-1
Ca%
MS%
Mtt-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zu-1 Zn-AI
Co.]
S-I
SS-1 N0s-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.36 1.09
15.1 87.0
2.0 5.5 172 177
54.0
27.0
1480
905
898
368 368
935
107
0.3
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr VA
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
CU
Zn
B Mn See Note
33
Ist crop: Fes/0G/flm M
0
120-200
0
10-30
0 0
0
0
.0 0 J,
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/flm,M
0
120-200
0
10-30
0 0
0
0
.0 0 J2
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K1
Ca%
MB%
Ma -I
Mn-AI(l)
Mu-AI(2)
Ztt-I Zn-A!
Cn-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3 N AWN
Na
MIN O.t8 1.20
14.6 94.0
0.9 6.3 71 62
59.0
33.0
633
392
392
300 300
703
132
0.4
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Ca
Zn
B Mn See Note
34
Isl crap: Fes/OG/rim M
0
120-200
50-70
10-30
0 0
0
0
0 0 J2
2nd crap: Fes/OG/r1m,M
0
120-200
50-70
10-30
0 0
0
0
.0 0 J2
Test Results
Soil clan 1L!i % W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-Al
Cn-1
S-1
SS-1 N05-N AWN
Na
MIN 0.27 1.25
10.6 91.0
1.0 6.3 31 65
56.0
31.0
t421
865
865
133 133
215
79
0.2

NCDAMS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: www.neag.py/agronomi/
Grower. Buttke Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Pg S
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P203
K20
Mg S
Cu
Za
B
Mu
See Note
35
1st Crop: Fes/Oc/F1m M
0
120-200
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0
0
1u
2nd Crop: Fes/O Alm M
0
120-200
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0
0
Z
Test Results
Sall Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1
K-1
CaN
h4%
Ma-1
Ma-A1(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn 1 Zn-A1
Cu-1
S-1
SS-1
NO3-N AW4-N
Na
MIN 0.32 1.09
12.4 91.0
1.1 6.1 68
157
55.0
30.0
718
446
446
329 329
589
144
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lbw
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zn
B
Mn
See Note
36
1st Crop: Fes/OC✓ Im M
0
120-200
20-40
10.30
0 0
0
0
.0
0
12
2nd Crop: Fes/0G/fim,IM
0
120-200
20-40
10-30
0 0
0
0
.0
0
Test ReWts
Solt Class HMI6 W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1
K-1
CA
Mg%
Mu-1
Mu-A1(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-Al
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1
NO3-N AZf14-N
Na
MW 0.32 1.20
15.8 89.0
1.7 5.9 45
66
51.0
36.0
325
214
214
212 212
149
82
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No, last Crop
No Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zu
B
Mu
See Note
37
Ist Crop: Fes/OG/ 1m,M
0
120-200
50-70
2040
0 0
0
0
.0
0
1u
2nd Crop: Fes/O Atm,M
0
120-200
50-70
20-40
0 0
0
0
.0
0
Test Results
Solt Class IIM% W/V
CEC BSA+
Ac pH P-1
K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Ma-AI(I)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zu-Al
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1
NO3-N
NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.04
10.4 92.0
0.8 6.2 34
59
62.0
28.0
351
225
225
159 159
331
262
0.3
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zn
B
Mn
See Note
38
1st Crop: Corn,S112ge
0
180-220
0
30-50
0 0
0
0
.0
0
1
2nd Crop: SmGrain Sd/Corn A
0
80- 100
0
30-50
0 0
0
0
0
.1
Test Results
Solt Class RM W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1
K-1
CA
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zs-1 Zn-Al
Cu-1
S-1
SS-1
NO3-N
ArM-N
Na
MIN 0.27 1.00
13.2 92.0
1.1 6.0 207
84
71.0
18.0
243
163
156
355 355
1444
258
0.3
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Za
B
Ma
See Note
39
1st Crop: Fes/OG/fim,M
V
120-20D
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0
0
A
2nd Crop: Fes/O irn M
0
120.200
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0
0
-JI
Test Results
Soil Class RM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH Rl
1R1
Ca%
Mg%
Mu-1
Ma-AI(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-A1
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1
NO3-N
NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.27 1.04
10.5 86.0
1.5 5.6 77
92
62.0
19.0
426
273
273
Igo 190
335
299
0.1

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: www.ncap.gov/agronond/
Grower: Battke Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Pg 9
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sampk No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
M3
K20
Mg S
Cu
Za
B Mn
See Note
40
1 st Crop: Cam SilW
.97
180.220
0
40.60
0 0
0
0
.0 0
1
2nd Crap: SmGrain SIVCom Sil
0
80. 100
0
40-60
0 0
0
0
0
-3
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K1
Ca% Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn I &W
Cu-1
S4
SS-1 NO3-N AW4-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.08
13.1 87.0
1.7 5.4 160 77
65.0 19.0
132
96
89
243 243
880
296
0.3
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sampk No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
KrO
Mg S
Ca
Zn
B Mn
See Note
41
1 s1 Crap: Corn,Si V
0
180-220
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0
1
2nd Crap: SmGrain SMm Sil
0
80- 100
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
.1
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca% Mg%
Mn-1
Ma-AI(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Za-AI
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.22 1.05
15.5 95.0
V 6.4 261 167
75.0 15.0
143
97
90
243 243
645
230
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zn
B Mn
See Note
42
1st Crop: Cam,Silw
0
IW220
0
40-60
0 0
0
0
.0 pH$
I
2nd Crop: SmGraln SMm S9
0
80. 100
0
40-60
0 0
0
0
pH$
J
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
tZC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca% Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(l)
Mx-AI(2)
Zm! Zn-A1
Cu-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3 N
AW4-N
Na
MIN 0.27 1.03
12.9 96.0
0.5 6.5 133 80
72.0 21.0
481
298
291
279 279
829
186
0.3
Field Information
Applied lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr r/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zn
B Mn
Sae Nato
43
lst Crop: Fes/OG/flm M
0
120-200
30.50
20-40
0 0
0
0
.0 0
12
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/rim M
0
120-200
30-50
2040
0 0
0
0
.0 0
AM
Test Results
Is
Soil Class IIM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca% Mg%
Mn4
Mn-AI(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-A1
Cu-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N
NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.27 1,04
10.6 92.0
0.9 6.1 44 61
63.0 26.0
674
420
420
181 181
268
173
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop,
Mo Yr VA
Crop or Year
Lb"
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zn
B Mn
See Note
44
1st Crop: Fm/OG/rim,M
•3T
120-200
0-20
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0
J2
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/rim,M
0
120-200
0-20
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0
J2
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 IGI
Ca% Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-A!(1)
Mu-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-AI
Cu-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N AW4-N
Na
MIN 0.32 1.01
10.4 88.0
1.2 5.8 57 90
63.0 21.0
292
192
192
240 240
166
247
0.1

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: www.naW.gov/agronomi/
Grower: BuWw Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Pg 10
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P=O3
Ks0
Mg
S
Ca
Zn
B Mn
See Note
45
1st Crop; Fes/OG/fim,M
0
120-200
0-20
50.70
0
0
0
0
.0 pH$
1.2
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/rim M
0
120-200
0-20
50-70
0
0
0
0
.0 pH$
Test Results
Soil Class Mn W/V
CEC BS%
Ac PH P-I K-1
CA
Mg%
Mn-I
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I
Zn-AI
Ca -I
S-1
SS -I NO3 N MI4-N
Na
MIN 0.46 1.09
10.7 93.0
0.8 6.5 63 39
72.0
19.0
1025
624
624
186
186
240
97
0.2
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Ca
Zn
B Mn
See Note
46
1st Crop: SG/SB- DC
1.3T
80-100
110.130
130-150
0
0
0
0
0
-3
2nd Crop: SG/SS- DC
0
80-100
110-130
130-150
0
0
0
0
0
-1
sea
Test Results
soil Class I M% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
bhn-AI(2)
Zn-I
Zn-Al
Cn-I
S I
.SS-1 NO3-N NH#-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.10
7.9 73.0
2.1 5.0 •20 27
49.0
23.0
548
339
339
72
72
83
298
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lkne
N
P203
Ks0
Mg
S
Ca
Zn
B Mn
See Noce
47
1st Crop: SmGrain Sii/Com Sd
0
80-100
0
0-20
0
0
0
0
0
-1
2nd Crop: SmGrain S1U m Sit
0
80-100
0
0-20
0
0
0
0
0
1
Test Results
Soil CIMU MM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 RI
Ca%
Mg%
MU-1
Mn-AI(1) .
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I
Zn-AI
Ca-1
S-I
SS -I No3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.13 1.08
12.0 90.0
1.2 5.9 70 128
57.0
28.0
974
596
596
273
273
1260
297
0.3
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sampk No. Last Crop
No Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K10
Mg
S
Ca
Zn
B Ma
See Note
48
1st Crop: SmGrain SWCom Sil
0
80-100
0
60-80
0
0
0
0
pH$
.1
2nd Crop: SmGrain SWCom Sit
0
80- 100
0
6"0
0
0
0
0
pH$
.3
Test Results
Soil Class Mn W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K1
CA
Mg%
Mn-I
Mn-AI(I)
Ma-AI(2)
Zn-1
Zn-AI
Ca -I
S-I
SS -I NO.i-N
NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.11
12.5 95.0
0.6 6.5 107 62
62.0
31.0
307
187
187
277
277
951
154
0.4
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Ca
Zn
B Mn
See Note
49
151 Crop: SmGrain SiKam S€l
0
80- 100
0
80-100
0
0
0
0
pH$
2nd Crop: SmGraln Sii/Com Sil
0
80- 100
0
80-100
0
0
0
0
pH$
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac PH RI K 1
Ca%
Mg%
MA-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I
Zn-AI
Co -I
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N
NM4-N
Na
MIN 0.13 1.14
14.5 96.0
0.6 6.6 98 52
61.0
33.0
220
133
133
282
282
756
154
0.4

NCDAACS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: *%m.neog.gov/agronomi/
Grower: ButWe Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Pg 11
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lfine
N
P2O5
KjO
Mg S
Cn
Zn
B Ma
See Note
50
lst Crop: SmGrain SilpCom Sll
0
80-100
2040
50-70
0 0
0
0
0
-1
2nd Crop: SmGrain SWC)m Sll
0
80-100
20-40
50-70
0 0
0
0
0
-3
Test Results
Soil Cuss HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K 1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-I
Mn-AI(1)
Afn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-AI
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N NH3-N
Na
MIN 0.27 1.15
14.3 93.0
1.0 6.4 48 68
59.0
32.0
598
363
363
257 257
576
114
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P2O5
K2O
Mg S
Cu
Zn
B Mn
See Note
51
1st Crop: SmGrain SMm Sfl
0
80-100
20-40
20-40
0 0
0
0
0
1
2nd Crop: SmGmIn SII/Com SO
0
80. 100
20-40
2040
0 0
0
0
0
1
AN
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH RI K-I
Ca%
Mg%
Ma -I
Mn-AI(1)
A&-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-Al
Ca-1
S I
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.07
11.0 95.0
0.6 6.4 46 94
63.0
27.0
907
548
548
237 237
797
l74
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Llme
N
P2O5
K2O
Mg S
Cu
Zu
B Mn
See Note
52
151 Crap: SmGrain SWm Sll
0
80-100
0
0
0 0
0
0
pH$
2nd Crop: SmGrain S1I/Com Sll
0
80-100
0
0
0 0
0
0
pH$
Test Results
Solt Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K 1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn.AI(2)
Zn I Zn-Al
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.07
12.6 100.0
0.0 6.8 117 130
68.0
27.0
555
331
331
353 353
1490
142
0.3
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crap
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lune
N
P2O5
K2O
Mg S
Cn
Zn
B Mn
See Note
53
ist Crop: SmGrain Wom Sil .
0
80-100
0
0-20
0 0
0
0
0
-1
2nd Crop: SmGrain 5i1/Com Sll
0
80-100
0
0-20
0 0
0
0
0
-3
Test Results
Im
Solt Class LW% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K I
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn•1 Zn-Al
CO-1
S 1
SS-1 NO3-N NH¢N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.01
12.1 90.0
1.2 6.0 81 129
55.0
30.0
217•
140
140
255 255
867
188
0.3
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P2O5
K2O
Mg S
Cn
Zn
B Ma
See Note
54
151 Crop: SmGraln S11/Com Sil
0
80-100
0
70.90
0 0
0
0
pH$
2nd Crop: SmGratn SVom Sll
0
80-100
0
70-W
0 0
0
0
pH$
Test Results
So# Class 1t211% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K 1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-A1(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-AI
CO-1
SI
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.13 1.09
14.9 97.0
0.5 6.7 70 59
62.0
33.0
284
170
170
254 254
847
140
0.3

NCDARGS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: www.ncaVVY/agronomi/
Grower: BuWw wiry Enterprise
Report No: 30150 Pg 12
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
No Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lino
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zu
B Mn See Note
55
ist Crop: SmGrain SMm Sil
.3T
80-100
40-60
30-50
0 0
0
0
0 -3
2nd Crop: SmGrain SiVCom Sll
0
80-100
40-60
30-50
0 0
0
0
0 3
Test Results
Soil Class IiM% W/V
CPC BS%
Ac pH P-I K I
Ca%
Mg%
Mit-1
Ma-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-AI
Cn-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.22 1.03
9.8 88.0
1.2 5.8 38 84
0.0
22.0
314
198
198
180 190
675
274
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
No Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P203
Ks0
Mg S
Cu
Zn
B Mn See Note
56
tst Crop: SmGrain SWCom Sil
AT
80-100
100-120
30-50
0 0
0
0
0 -1
2nd Crap: SmGraln SWCom SO
0
90- 100
100.120
30-50
0 0
0
0
0
Test Results
MN
Soil Class HM% W/V
CPC BS%
Ac pH P-I K 1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-Al
Co -I
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.03
9.8 98.0
1.2 5.7 15 82
56.0
27.0
805
493
493
124 124
565
295
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lhne
N
P203
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zu
B Mn See Note
57
1st Crop: SmGmin Sll/Corn Sll
0
80. 100
30-50
60-80
0 0
0
0
0 -1
2nd Crop: SmGrain SIVCom A
0
80-100
30-50
60-80
0 0
0
0
0 3
Test Results
`
Soil Class HM% W/V
CPC BS%
Ac pH P-I K-I
Ca%
Mg%
Mn I
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-Al
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MN 013 1.16
15.2 95.0
0.8 6.4 43 63
65.0
28.0
509
309
309
180 180
751
254
0.5
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Za
B Ma See Note
58
1st Crop: SmGrain SiMm Sll
0
80- 100
30.50
90-110
0 0
0
0
0 1
2nd Crop: SmGmin SiVCom Sd
0
80-100
30-50
90-110
0 0
0
0
0 -1
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CPC BS%
Ac pH P-I K-1
Ca%
ft%
Mn-,[
Mn-AI(i)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-Al
Cad
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N NHs-N
Na
MIN 0.22 1.14
19.9 95.0
1.0 6.4 40 50
59.0
35.0
503
306
306
169 169
827
158
0.3
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lithe
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zu
B Mn See Note
59
Ist Crop: SmGrsin SWCom Sll
0
80-100
2040
30-50
0 0
0
0
0 -3
2nd Crop: SmGrain S1VCom Sll
0
80-100
2040
30-50
0 0
0
0
0 }
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CPC BS96
Ac pH Ri K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Ma -I
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn Al
Ca-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N AWN
Na
MIN 0.27 1.05
1o.4 94.o
0.6 6.4 48 85
60.0
30.0
153
96
96
176 176
215
194
0.1

NCDA&C5 Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: www.ncW.gov/agmuomi/
Grower: Buttile Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Pg 13
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P203
K20
Mg S
Ca
Zn
B Mn
See Note
60
1st Crop: Wrain SO/Com SO
AT
80. 100
60-M
50-70
0 0
0
0
0
.3
2nd Crop: SmGrain 5iVWm SO
0
80- 100
60-80
50-70
0 0
0
0
0
1
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac PH P-1 K-I
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Ma-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-Al
Ca-1
S 1
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.13 1.06
7.7 86.0
1A 5.6 28 69
53.0
28.0
164
108
108
87 87
84
237
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop .
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Za
B Mn
See Note
61
lstCrop: Fes/OG/Tim,M
0
120-200
0
10-30
0 0
0
0
.0 0
J2
2nd Crop: Fes/001m M
0
120-200
0
10-30
0 0
0
0
.0 0
JI
Test Results
Soil Class MM W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-I
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-AI
Ca-1
S-1
ST-I NO3-N AWN
Na
MIN 0.27 1.17
13.7 92.0
1.1 6.2 179 69
65.0
24.0
249
163
163
320 320
141
79
0.1
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zn
B Ma
See Note
62
151 Crop: Fes/OG/Tim,M
0
120-200
0
50-70
0 0
0
0
.0 0
J2
2nd Crop: . Fes/OG Tim,M
0
120-200
0
50-70
0 0
0
0
.0 0
12
Test Results
Soil Clau HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn4 Tar -Al
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3 N
NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.15
16.8 93.0
1.1 6.3 79 37
58.0
35.0
330
210
210
207 207
195
80
0.4
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zn
B Mn
See Note
63
151 Crop: Fes/OGMMIM
0
120-200
0.20
20-40
0 0
0
0
.0 pH$
_U
2nd Gray: Fes/OG/rim M
0
120.200
0-20
20-40
0 0
0
0
.0 pH$
1$
Test Results
Soil Class BM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K 1
CA
Mg%
Mn-1
Ma-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-AI
Co-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3 N NZf4-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.1E
18.7 96.0
0.8 6.5 61 59
54.0
40.0
347
218
218
243 243
253
67
0.8
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Ca
Zn
B Mn
See Note
64
Ist Crop: Fes/OG/Tirn,M
AT
120-200
90-110
30-50
0 0
0
0
.0 0
2nd Crop: Fes/OGIT1m,M
0
120-200
90.110
30-50
0 0
0
0
.0 0
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K I
CA
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-Al
Cu-1
S I
SS-1 S03-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.22 1.12
10.7 90.0
1.1 5.6 is 51
52.0
35.0
411
264
264
192 192
219
185
0.2

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: www.neW.goVagronomi/
Grower: Bunke Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Pg 14
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lhne
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Ca
Za
B
Mn
See Note
65
1st Crop: Fes/OG/rim M
.6T
120-200
80.100
20r40
0
0
0
0
.0
0
_U
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/r1m,M
0
120-200
80.100
20.40
0
0
0
0
.0
0
12
Test Results
Soil Class HM% . W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K I
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-AI
Cra
S-I
SS-1
NO3-N
NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.03
7.2 81.0
1.4 5.5 19 59
49.0
27.0
423
271
271
132
132
326
246
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Cu
Za
B
Mn
See Note
66
1st crop: Fm/OG/r1m,M
0
120-200
100-120
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
-9
2nd Crap; Fes/OCAm M
0
120-200
100-120
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
Test Results
Soil Chew BM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-I
CA
Mg%
Ma-1
Mn-AI(1)
Ma-AI(1)
Za-I
Zn-Al
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1
NO3 N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.27 1.12
9.2 92.0
0.7 6.0 I3 103
55.0
31.0
1116
687
687
t93
193
225
260
0.2
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Ca
Zu
B
Mn
See Note
67
Ist crap: FeWOG1r1m,M
0
120-200
100-120
30-50
0
0
0
0
.0
0
J2
2nd crop: Fes/OG/f1m M
0
120-200
100-120
30-50
0
0
0
0
.0
0
11
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-I
Mn-Al(1)
Mir-AI(2)
Za-I
Zn-A1
Cu-1
S-1
SS-1
NO3-N AWN
Na
MIN 0.22 1.13
9.8 94.0
0.6 6.0 14 52
56.0
35.0
646
405
405
137
137
222
212
0.3
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
LMu
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Ca
Za
B
Mn
Sea Note
68
1st Crop: Fes/OG/rim M
0
120-200
100-120
0.20
0
0
0
0
.0
0
_U
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/rim,M
0
120-200
100-120
0-20
0
0
0
0
.0
0
Test Results
Sall Class HM% W/V
CSC BS%
Ac pH P-I K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mu-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I
Zn-AI
Cu-I
S-I
SS-1
NO3-N Mlt-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.14
9.0 90.0
0.9 5.9 12 71
54.0
32.0
490
313
313
204
204
214
244
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
LMme
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Cu
Za
B
Ma
See Note
69
1st Crop: Fes DWim,M
.5T
120-200
80-100
10-30
0
0
0
0
.0
0
12
2nd Crop: FmW,/rim M
0
120-200
80.100
10-30
0
0
0
0
.0
0
J2
Test Results
Solt Gees HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K-I
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(l)
Mu-AI(2)
Zn-I
Zn-AI
CO-1
S-I
SS-1
NO3 N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.32 1.09
9.0 87.0
L2 5.6 19 68
60.0
24.0
742
462
462
218
218
353
199
0.2

NCDAKS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: wim.neaV.gov/agronami/
Grower: Buttke Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Pg 15
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Same% No. last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P105
K10
Mg S
Cry
Zn
B Mn
See Note
70
1st Crop: Fes/OG/r1m,M
0
120-200
0
2040
0 0
0
0
.0 pH$
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/f1m M
0
120-200
0
20-40
0 0
0
0
.0 pH$
17,
Test Results
Solt Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I
K-I
Ca% Mg%
Mn-I
Mn-AI(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-AI
Cu-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N N714-N
Na
MIN 0.36 1.34
6.1 93.0
0.4 6.8 239
57
61.0 28.0
249
154
154
271 271
493
55
0.1
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Line
N
P205
K10
Mg S
Cn
Zn
B Mn
See Note
71
1st Crop: Fes/O6/rim M
0
120-200
10.30
80-100
0 0
0
0
0 0
12
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/rim M
0
120-200
10-30
80-100
0 0
0
0
.0 0
12
Test Results
Solt Close HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I
KI
Ca% Mg%
Mn-I
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-AI
Cu I
S-1
SS -I NO3-N
AW4-N
Na
MIDI 0.41 1.42
3.4 85.0
0.5 6.3 55
23
58.0 24.0
140
96
96
159 159
109
27
0.0
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Line
N
P20s
K20
Mg S
Cn
Zn
B Mn
See Note
72
1st Crop: Fes/OG/fbnX
0
120-200
0
30-50
0 0
0
0
.0 pH$
2nd Crop: Fes/OGIF"
0
120-200
0
30.50
0 0
0
0
.0 pH$
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac PH P-I
K 1
Ca% Mg%
Ma-1
Mn-AI(2)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-AI
Cn-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N
NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.32 1.34
5.7 95.0
0.3 6.8 241
52
62.0 28,0
214
133
133
263 263
471
35
0.1
Field Information
Applied lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Line
N
P105
K20
Mg S
Cis
Zaa
B Mn
See Note
73
1st Crop: Fes/OG/fim M
0
120-200
50.70
70-90
0 0
0
0
.0 0
12
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/rirn M
0
120-200
50-70
70-90
0 0
0
0
.0 0
j2
An
Test Results
Soil Class NM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I
&I
Ca% Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-Al
Cu-1
S-1
SS -I NO3 N
ANH4-N
Na
MIN 0.41 1.40
3.4 82.0
0.6 6.3 32
27
57.0 22.0
130
90
90
124 124
38
26
0.0
Field information
Applied lime
Recommendations
Sampk No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Line
N
P205
Kz0
Mg S
Cn
7a
B Mn
See Note
74
151 Crop: Corn Grain
1.6r
120.160
90-110
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0
1
2nd Crop:
0
Test Results
Soft Class HM% W/V
CEC AA
Ac pH P-1
K-I
Ca% Mg%
Mn-I
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-Al
Ca-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3 N
NH4-N
Na
MTN 0.27 1.09
10.2 76.0
2.4 4.8 18
132
44.0 26.0
1291
792
74 74
177
162
0.1

NCDARCS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: www.acaV.gov/agronomi/
Grower: Bunke Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150 Pg 16
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Ma Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Ca
Zu
B Mn See Note
75
1st Crop: Corn Grain
7T
120-160
0
0
0 0
0
0
,0 0
2nd Crop:
0
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1
K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Ma-1
Mn•A!(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn I Zn-AI
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N AWN
Na
MIN 0.76 0.91
14.8 89.0
1.6 5.5 198
309
53.0
25.0
498
N6
515 515
1434
113
0.5
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lbw
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Ca
Zn
B Mn See Note
76
151 Crop: Corn,sllap
LIT
180-220
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0 -1
2nd Crop,
0
Test Results
Soil Class "% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1
K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-A1{l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zo-AI
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1 MD3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.36 1.14
17.8 89.0
1.9 5.2 138
141
57.0
28.0
1019
628
371 371
828
68
0.3
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Ma Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P20t
K20
Mg S
Ca
Za
B Mn See Note
77
1st Crop: Com,Sdage
0
180-220
0
50-70
0 0
0
0
.0 0 -1
2nd Crap;
0
Test Results
Solt Clans RH% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1
K-I
CAMg%
Mn-1
Mn-Af{l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-AI
CO-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3 N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.32 1.16
14.0 94.0
0.8 6.4 Ho
69
62.0
30.0
1234
751
321 321
775
67
0.3
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Ma Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lone
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Ca
Zn
B Mn See Note
78
1st Crop: Fes/OG/fim,M
0
120-200
0
0-20
0 0
0
0
.0 0 12
2nd Crop: Fes/OGITIm,M
0
120-200
0
0-20
0 0
0
0
.0 0 J
Test Results
Solt Gass HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I
K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-A!(1)
Ma-0(2)
Zn-1 Zn-Al
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.32 1.19
12.6 91.0
IA 5.9 85
74
59.0
30.0
455
292
292
222 222
425
57
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
time
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Ca
Zn
B Mn See Note
79
1sl Crop: Small Grains
IT
W100
10-30
30-50
0 0
0
0
.0 0 11
2nd Crop: Small Grains
0
80-100
10.30
30-50
0 0
0
0
.0 0 .1
Test Results
Soil Chas HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1
K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(i)
Mn-AI(2)
Za-1 Zit -Al
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.51 L09
8.1 78.0
L8 5.2 55
53
53.0
22.0
883
540
540
133 133
127
46
0.1

NCDAKS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: www.ncagr.gov/agrononli/
Grower: Bnttke Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Pg 17
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P2O3
K10
Mg S
Ca
Zn
B Ma
See Note
80
1st Crop: Cam Grain
1.47
120-160
0
0-20
0 0
0
0
.0 0
1
2nd Crop: small Grains
0
80-100
0
0-20
0 0
0
0
.0 0
.3
Test Results
Soil Class HM% Will
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I
K I
CA
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-AI
CO-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.27 1.10
6.8 71.0
2.0 4.6 99
81
44.0
21.0
639
400
393
79 79
96
292
0.1
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. last Crop
Ma Yr T/A
Crop or Year
lime
N
P2O5
K2O
Afg S
Ca
Zn
B Mn
See Note
81
1st Crop: Cam Grain
.5T
120-160
0
0-20
0 0
0
0
.0 0
-1
2nd Crap: small Grains
0
80-100
0
0-20
0 0
0
0
.0 0
1
Test Results
Soil Class Mf% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac PH P-I
K 1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-A!(I)
Ma-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-Al
Ca-1
S I
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MINI 0.27 1.22
9.2 85.0
1.4 5.7 91
79
54.0
27.0
659
412
405
143 143
400
168
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P2O5
K2O
Mg S
Ca
Zn
B Mn
See Note
82
ist Crop: Small Grains
V
80.100
0-20
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0
-1
2nd Crop:
0
Test Results
Soil Class MM% WIT
CEC BS%
Ac pH RI
K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-Al
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.22 1.10
9.0 84.0
1.4 5.5 63
90
52.0
28.0
863
528
I09 109
362
217
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Me Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P2O5
Ks0
Mg S
Cu
Zo
B Ma
See Note
83
1st Crop: Soybeans
AT
0
2040
20-40
0 0
0
0
0
1
2nd Crop: small Grains
0
80-100
20-40
20-40
0 0
0
0
.0 0
j
Test Results
MW
Soil Class MM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1
K-I
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-Al
Ca I
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N
NH3-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.15
9.2 88.0
1.1 5.6 46
60
62.0
23.0
561
347
347
63 63
127
146
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
No Yr T/A
Crop or Year
LMu
N
P2O5
Kz0
Mg S
Ca
Zn
B Mn
See Note
84
Ist Crop: Soybeans
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
-3
2nd Crop: Small Grains
0
80-100
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1
K 1
Ca%
Mg%
Ma-1
Ma-AI(I)
Mn-AI(2)
&4 Zn-AI
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N
AWN
Na
MIN 0.22 1.13
8.8 88.0
1.1 6.0 66
128
54.0
27.0
777
476
476
153 153
285
151
0.1

NCDABCS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: www.neW.gov/agronomi/
Grower: Bunke Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Pg 18
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P2O3
K2O
Mg
S
CO
Zn
B Mn
See Note
85
Ist Crop: Wrain SIVCorn SO
0
80-100
0
so -too
0
0
0
0
0
-3
2nd Crop: SmGMn SWCom Sil
0
W 100
0
80-100
0
0
0
0
0
,3
Test Results
Soil Class MI% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K-I
CA
Mg%
Mn-1
Ma-AI(I)
bbr-AI(2)
Zn-1
Zn-AI
Car -I
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N AW4-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.28
13.5 90.0
1.4 5.5 80 53
63.0
24.0
517
322
322
184
194
1061
132
0.3
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Smxp% No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Line
N
"5
K20
Mg
S
Ca
Zo
B Mn
See Note
86
Ist Crop: SmGrain SWCom Sil
0
80-100
0-20
20-40
0
0
0
0
0
-1
2nd Crop: SmGrain SWCom Sit
0
80-100
0-20
2040
0
0
0
0
0
-3
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I 1e t
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I
Zn-Al
Cn I
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N VH4-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.t7
10.3 90.0
1.0 5.9 65 91
65.0
21.0
378
238
238
225
225
1164
209
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P2O3
K10
Mg
S
CO
Zu
B Mn
See Note
87
Ist Crop: SmGrain Sil/Com SH
0
80-100
40-60
50-70
0
0
0
0
0
-3
2nd Crop: SmGrain SWCom Sit
0
80-100
40-60
50-70
0
0
0
0
0
-1
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-I
CA
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I
Zn-AI
Ca-1
S I
SS-1 NO3-N
AWN
Na
MIN 0.13 IA5
7.3 85.0
1.1 6.0 39 69
53.0
27.0
1133
690
690
129
129
278
220
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Line
N
P2O5
K2O
Ng
S
Cu
Zn
B Mn
See Nate
88
Ist Crop: Wrain Sil M Sa
.ST
W 100
10-30
130-150
0
0
0
0
0
11
2nd Drop: SmGraln Sll/ m Sll
0
80-100
10-30
130-150
0
0
0
0
0
,3
Test Results
qm
Soil Class IM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K-I
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-N(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I
Zn-Al
Cn-I
S I
SS-1 NO3-N N714-N
Na
MN 0.22 1.27
7.9 81.0
1.5 5.4 51 29
59.0
20.0
347
218
218
148
148
494
t05
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P2O5
K20
Mg
S
Cu
Zu
B Mo
See Note
89
Ist Crop: SmGrain SO/Corn SH
.6T
90. 100
40-60
140-160
0
0
0
0
0
2nd Crop: Wrain SWCOM Sd
0
80-100
40-60
140-160
0
0
0
0
0
Test Results
Soil Glass . HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-I
Cad
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn I
Zn-Al
Cu-1
S-1
SS -I NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.13 1.31
7.5 81.0
1.4 5.5 36 27
59.0
20.0
250
160
160
102
102
456
65
0.1

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: www.ncap.pv/agronomi/
Grower: Buttke Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Pg 19
Field Information
man Applied Li
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
hate
N
P20t
K20
Mg
S
Cn
Zn
B
Mn
See Note
90
Ist Crop: Fes/OG/rirnA
0
120-200
0
0
0
0
0
0
A
pH$
12
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/fim M
0
120.200
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
pH$
j2,
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CBC BS%
Ac pH P-I 1C I
CA
MSS
MU-1
MA-4I(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I
Za-AI
Ca-1
S-I
SS-!
NO3 N AW4-N
Na
MIN 0.13 1.03
10.4 94.0
0.6 6.5 115 89
68.0
21.0
586
361
361
246
246
300
150
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P203
K20
Mg
S
CO
as
B
Mn
See Note
91
Ist crop: Fes/OG/fim,M
0
120-200
10-30
0-20
0
0
0
0
.0
0
-12
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/IYm M
0
120-200
10-30
0-20
0
0
0
0
.0
0
A
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CBC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I
Zn Al
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1
NO3-N N714-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.05
11.2 90.0
1.1 6.0 53 85
59.0
27.0
567
357
357
194
194
423
205
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P201
K20
Mg
S
Ca
Zn
B
Mn
See Note
92
131 Crop: Fes/OG/fim M
.3T
120-200
60.80
30-50
0
0
0
0
.0
0
J2
2nd crop: Fes/OG/fImA
0
120-200
60-80
30.50
0
0
0
0
.0
0
-12
Test Results
Soil class HM% W/V
CBC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K I
CA
Mg%
Mn-1
MwAI(i)
Mx-N(2)
Zn-I
Zn AI
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1
NOS-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.21
8.4 86.0
1.2 5.8 29 52
60.0
23.0
398
256
256
122
122
60l
145
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lhne
N
P20s
K20
Mg
S
Ca
Za
B
Mn
See Note
93
Ist Crop: Fes/OG/firn M
0
120-200
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
_a
2nd Crop: Fes/OW im M
0
120-200
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
_U
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CIC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K I
Cad;
Mg96
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn AI(2)
Zn-I
Zn-Al
Cu-I
S-1
SS-1
NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.22 1.07
10.9 89.0
1.2 5.9 75 177
57.0
24.0
327
215
215
389
389
311
216
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lhne
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Cu
Zu
B
Mn
See Nate
94
Ist Crop: Fes DWim,M
0
120-200
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
]�
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/rim,M
0
120-200
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
_U
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CBC AS%
Ac pH P-1 JC I
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I
Zn-AI
Ca -I
S-1
SS-1
NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.22 1.08
10.3 92.0
0.8 6.2 91 163
61.0
24.0
684
424
424
398
398
476
163
0.1

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: www.ncagr.g(w/agmomi/
Grower: Buttke Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Pg 20
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Za
B Ma
See Note
95
1st Crop: Fes/OG/PirnX
0
120-200
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/rim,M
0
120-200
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0
Test Results
soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K 1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-Al
CO-1
S I
SS-1 NO3-N
NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.32 1.02
14.0 94.0
0.8 6.4 238 175
63.0
25.0
915
560
560
680 680
1337
90
0.1
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Ca
Zn
B Ma
See Note
96
Ist Crop: Fes/O im,M
0
120-200
50-70
60-80
0 0
0
0
.0 0
11.
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/fim,M
0
120-200
50-70
60-80
0 0
0
0
.0 0
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K-I
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-A!(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zre-Al
Ca -I
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0,13 1.06
8.0 91.0
0.7 6,1 35 34
60.0
29.0
527
332
332
350 350
578
230
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
,1(g S
Cu
Zn
B Mn
See Note
97
151 Crop: SmGrain SUm Sfl
0
80. too
0
0
0 0
0
0
pH$
2nd Crop: SmGrain Mom Sil
0
80- 100
0
0
0 0
0
0
pH$
Test Results
Solt Class M" W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-I
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-AI
Ce-1
S-1
SS -I NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.05
13.5 99.0
0.2 6.8 84 156
67.0
27.0
744
444
444
349 349
1753
203
0.4
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Line
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zu
B Mn
See Note
98.
1st Crop: Fes/OG/11m M
0
120-200
20-40
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0
-!
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/Pim,M
0
120-200
2D-40
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0
dW
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-I
Mn-AI(l)
Ma-AI(2)
Zn-I Zb-Al
Cu-1
S1
SS-1 NO3-N AN4-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.12
10.0 93.0
0.7 6.2 49 120
60.0
27.0
876
540
540
220 220
421
113
0.1
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lie
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zu
B Ma
See Note
100
151 Crop: SmGrain SWCom SH
0
80-100
0
0
0 0
C
0
pH$
.3
2nd Crop: SmGrain Mom Sit
0
80- Wo
0
0
0 0
C
0
pH$
I
Test Results
Soil Crass IIM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-Al
CO-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N
AM-N
No
MIN 0.22 1.06
13.0 97.0
0.4 6.6 172 166
66.0
24.0
519
312
312
477 477
2267
229
0.3

NCDABGS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: www.natgr.gov/agmemi/
Grower: Bunke Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Pg 21
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zu
B Mn
See Note
lot
1st Crop: Fes/OG/rIm,M
0
120-200
70.90
60-80
0 0
0
0
.0 pH$
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/flm,M
0
120-200
70-90
60-80
0 0
0
0
.0 pH$
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K-1
CA
Mg%
MO-1
Ma-Al(I)
Mx-AI(2)
Za-I .Zn-AI
Ca -I
S-I
SS -I NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.22 1.06
8.8 95.0
0.4 6.5 23 35
67.0
26.0
632
389
389
203 203
337
115
0.1
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Ca
Zn
B Ma
See Note:
102
1st Crop: Fes/OG/tim,M
0
' 120-200
30-50
40-60
0 0
0
0
.0 0
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/fim,M
0
120-200
30-50
40-60
0 0
0
0
.0 0
Test Results
Soil Class Ht'1'I% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-I
Ca%
Mg%
Ma -I
Mn-AI(I)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-AI
Cu-I
S-I
SS -I NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.22 1.18
11.9 93.0
0.8 6.3 42 47
63.0
28.0
533
332
332
279 279
594
125
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sampk No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P20r
K20
M8 S
Ca
Za
B Mn
See Note
103
lst crop: Fes/OG/rtm,M
.5T
120-200
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/rtm M
0
120-200
0
0
0 0
0
0
.0 0
j
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-I
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-I
Mn-AI(I)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn AI
Cu-I
S-I
SS -I NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.32 1.04
10.1 85.0
1.5 5.7 122 92
58.0
23.0
315
206
206
386 386
474
224
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P203
K20
Mg S
Ca
Zu
B Mn
See Note
104
1st Crop: SmGrain Sil/Corn Sd
.37
80- 100
0
10.30
0 0
0
0
0
1
2nd Crap: Wrain SiMm Sli
0
80- 100
0
10-30
0 0
0
0
0
j
Im
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K-I
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-I
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Za-I Zn-AI
Ca -I
S-1
SS -I NO3 N
AW4-N
Na
MIN 0.27 1.11
10.9 89.0
1.2 5.8 169 98
57.0
27.0
372
233
233
528 528
799
178
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zu
B Mn
See Nose
105
1st Crop: Fes/OG/fim M
0
120-200
50-70
30-50
0 0
0
0
.0 0
12
2nd Crap: Fes/OG/fim,M
0
120-200
50-70
30-50
0 0
0
0
.0 4
JI
Test Results
Solt Claus HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K-I
Ca%
Mg%
Ma-1
Mn-AI(I)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-AI
Ca -I
S-I
SS -I NOkN
NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.22 1.09
6.4 8&0
0.9 5.9 33 53
57.0
2EO
639
402
402
127 127
236
158
0.1

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: www.oaW.gov/agronomi/
Grower: Bunke Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Pg 22
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zu
B Mn
See Note
106
1st Crop: Fes/OG/rirn M
0
120-200
30-50
20-40
0 0
0
0
.0 0
J2
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/Pirn M
0
120-200
30-50
2040
0 0
0
0
.0 0
J 7
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca%
big%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-A1
Ca-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N KH4-N
Na
MIN 0.22 1.16
7.3 90.0
0.7 5.9 42 56
62.0
24.0
598
377
377
172 172
648
189
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
No Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Line
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Ca
Zn
B Mn
See Note
107
13t Gmp: Fes/OG im M
AT
120-200
130.150
60-80
0 0
0
0
.0 0
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/fim,M
0
120-200
130-150
60-80
0 0
0
0
.0 0
Ali
Test Results
14
Soil Class 11M% W/V
CEC BS916
Ac pH P-1 K-I
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Ma-AI(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-AI
Cu-1
S-I
SS-1 NO,1-N
NH4-N
Na
MIN 0,13 1.I4
6.2 87.0
0.8 5.5 4 33
64.0
21.0
475
302
302
48 48
97
129
0.1
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Line
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zn
B Mn
See Note
108
1st Crop: SmGrain SWCom Sit
0
80-100
20-40
90-110
0 0
0
0
0
-3
2nd Crop: SmGraln SU/Com Sit
0
80-100
20-40
90-110
0 0
0
0
0
-1
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Ma-1
Mn-AI(I)
bin-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-AI
Cn-I
S-1
SS I NO3-N AWN
Na
MIN 0.27 1.12
8.1 91.0
0.7 6.1 49 46
63.0
25.0
722
442
442
174 174
396
101
0.2
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Ca
Za
B Ma
See Note
109
1st Crop: SmOrain SIMm SO
0
80-100
20-40
go -Ito
0 0
0
0
0
.1
2nd Crop: SmGrain SiKom Sit
0
80-100
20-40
90-110
0 0
0
0
0
Test Results
Soil Claw HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
CA
Mg%
Ma-1
Mn-Affl)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-Al
Cu-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3 N Nile-N
Na
MIN 0.27 Lit
7.8 91.0
0.7 6.1 47 46
63.0
25.0
709
434
434
195 195
365
100
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zn
B Mn
See Note
110
1st Crop: SmGrain SMM So
0
80-100
0
40-60
0 0
0
0
pH$
2nd Crop: SmGrain SWCom Sit
0
80-100
0
40.60
0 0
0
0
pH$
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-A!(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-Al
Cry-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N Mle-N
Na
MIN 0.27 1.24
12.8 95.0
0.6 6.5 99 76
64.o
28.0
1388
835
835
302 302
1830
111
0.4

NCDAKS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: wwv.nmgr.goy/agronomi/
Grover: Butike Dairy Rntergrise
Report No: 30150
Pg 23:
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Ma Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Line
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cyr
Zn
B Mu
See Note
111
1st Crop; SmGraln SMm SO
0
80- 100
0
130-150
0 0
0
0
pH$
2nd Crop: SmGrain SO/Com SO
0
80. 100
0
130.150
0 0
0
0
pH$
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
CA
Mg%
Ma-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn4 Zn-Al
Cad
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N
AW4-N
Na
MIN 0.27 1.23
14.8 96.0
0.6 6.8 92 31
66.0
29.0
356
211
211
387 387
1744
56
0.4
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Samp% No. Last Crop
Ma Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lbw
N
P203
K20
Mg S
Ca
Zn
B Ma
See Note
112
1 st Crop: SmGrain SIVCorn SO
0
80. 100
0
0
0 0
C
0
pH$
-3
2nd Crop: SmGrain SO/Com SO
0
80- 100
0
0
0 0
G
0
pH$
.3
Test Results
Soil Class MN% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K-I
CA
,fig%
Mn-1
Mn-Al(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-Al
Ca!
SI
SS-1 N09-N AW4-N
Na
MIN 0.27 1.06
13.1 96.0
0.5 6.6 231 199
67.0
22.0
995
598
598
523 523
2367
122
0.3
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Ma Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P203
K20
Mg S
Ca
Zu
B Mn
See Note
113
1st Crop: SmGrain SIVGom SO
0
80- 100
0
60-80
. 0 0
0
0
pH$
I
2nd Crop: SmGrain Sil/Com SO
0
80- 100
0
60-80
0 0
0
0
pH$
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH RI RI
Ca%
Mg%
Ma-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-Al
Cn-1
S 1
SS-1 NO3-N N714-N
Na
MIN 0.27 1.26
15.2 95.0
0,8 6.5 78 65
0.0
31.0
1319
794
794
270 270
1522
115
0.5
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Ma Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P203
K20
Mg S
Ca
Za
B Ma
See Note
114
1st Crop: Wrain SWCom SO
0
80- 100
0
0-20
0 0
0
0
0
-1
2nd Crop: SmGrain SIVCorn SO
0
80- 100
0
0-20
0 0
0
0
0
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CRC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-I
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-AI
Ca -I
S 1
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.32 1.15
12.1 93.0
0.8 6.2 103 108
65.0
24.0
745
454
454
322 322
1145
157
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Ca
Zn
B Ma
See Note
115
1st Crop: StnGrain SMm SO
0
80- 100
0
0-20
0 0
0
0
0
-1
2nd Crop: Wrain SJMm SO
0
80- 100
0
0.20
0 0
0
0
0
-3
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH RI K-I
Ca%
Mg%
Ma -I
Mn-Al(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-AI
Cu-1
S 1
SS-1 NO3-N A714-N
Na
MIN 0.32 1.03
10.9 94.0
0.7 6.4 88 119
66.0
22.0
411
251
251
710 710
1148
206
0,2

NCDAKS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: www.naigr.gov/agronomi/
Grower: 8attke Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Pg 24
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Cu
Tan
B Ma
See Note
116
1st Crop: SmGrain Sll/Corn Sd
0-
W 100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2nd Drop: SmGraln Sli/ = S11
0
80-100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-3
Test Results
Soil Class life!% W/V
CEC B5%
At pN P-I &I
CA
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-A1(2)
Zn-I
Zn-A!
Cu-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.32 1.10
12.9 93.0
0.9 6.3 148 157.
660
21.0
503
307
307
401
401
1830
211
0.3
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Line
N
"I
K20
Mg
S
Cu
Zn
B Ma
See Note
117
Ist Crop: SmGrain SWCom Sll
0
80-100
0
0
0
0
C
0
pH$
2nd Crop: SmGraln SWCom Sil
0
80-100
0
0
0
0
C
0
pH$
Test Results
Soil Class Am W/V
CEC BS%
Ac PH P-1 K I
Cd%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I
Zn AI
Ca-1
S I
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.36 1.11
12.4 95.0
0.6 6.6 200 196
65,0
23.0
ia14
609
609
432
432
2051
131
0.3
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
No Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
1ri0
Mg
S
Ca
Zn
B Mn
See Note
118
1st Crap: SmGrain 5i!/Com Stl
.3T
80-100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2nd Crop: SmGr21n Sd/Gom Sil
0
80-100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
Test Results
Soil Chus HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 B-I
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-A►(i)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1
Zn-N
Cn-1
S-1
SS-1 M03-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.32 1.07
io.6 89.0
1.2 5.8 128 154
55.0
27.0
694
426
426
341
341
I767
201
0.3
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample Na Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Cu
Zn
B Mn
See Note
119
1st Crop: Wraln Sll/Cam Sll
0
80-100
0
0
0
0
C
0
pH$
2nd Crop: SmGraln SiKom Sll
0
80-100
0
0
0
0
C
0
pH$
Test Results
Soil Class IM W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn AI(2)
Zn-1
Zn-AI
Cu-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.32 1.12
13.3 95.0
0.6 6.6 244 193
67.0
22.0
998
600
600
516
516
2479
120
0.3
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Ca
Zn
B Mn
See Note
120
1s1 Crop: SmGraln Mom Sll
0
80. 100
0
2040
0
0
0
0
0
-3
2nd Crop: SmGraln Sil/Com Sll
0
80-100
0
20-I0
0
0
0
0
- 0
-3
'Pest Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I
Zn-AI
Cu-I
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.27 0.99
19.0 95.0
0.9 6.4 91 89
61.0
32.0
448
273
273
395
395
1739
201
0.5

NCDABCS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: www.ncag.gov/agronoml/
Grower: Buttke Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 3O150
Pg 25
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sampk No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lire
N
P203
K20
Mg S
Ca
Zu
B Mn
See Note
121
1st Crop: SmGraln S€Kom Sit
0
80- 100
130-150
110-130
0 0
0
0
0
1
2nd Crop: SmGWn S€Mm Sit
0
80- 100
130-150
110-130
0 0
0
0
0
-1
Test Results
Soft Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca%
Mg%
My-1
Ma-AI(l)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 ZnAI
Ca-1
S4
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.13 1.11
8.9 94.0
0.5 6.4 3 39
67.0
26.0
510
310
310
461 461
318
130
0.1
Field Information
Applied Lime
Retonnitendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
PsOs
K20
Mg S
Ca
Zu
B Mn
See Note
122
lst Crop: Fm/OG/F1m,M
0
120-200
0-20
0
0 0
0
0
0 pH$
12
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/flm,M
0
120-200
0-20
0
0 0
0
0
.0 pH$
Test Results
14
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-Al
Ca-1
S4
SS-1 NO3-N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.18 1.00
12.6 95.0
0.6 6.6 58 171
58.0
31.0
683
418
418
300 300
568
121
0.2
Field Information
Applied lame
Recommendations
Sample No. bast Crop
Mo Yr VA
Crop or Year
Lire
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zu
B Mn -
See Note
123
1st Crop: Fes/OG/firn,M
0
120-200
2040
0-20
0 0
0
0
.0 0
�Z
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/f1m,M
0
120-200
20.40
0-20
0 0
0
0
.0 0
j2
Test Results
Solt Class Hx1!% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac PH P-I K-I
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-AI
Cu-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3 N NH4-N
Na
MIN 0.27 1.13
11.7 91.0
1.1 6.1 46 72
58.0
29.0
1308
800
8W
206 206
462
too
0.2
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P201
K20
Mg S
Ca
Zu
B Ma
See Note
124
1st Crop: Fes/OG/fitn M
0
120-200
90.110
90.110
0 0
0
0
.0 0
L
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/fim M
0
120-200
90-110
90-110
0 0
0
0
.0 0
Test Results
Soil Class BM W/V
CEC Ba
Ac pH P-I K-1
CA
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-AI
Cu-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N N714-N
Na
MIN 0.32 1.42
3.1 84.0
0.5 6.4 18 19
62.0
21.0
168
112
112
123 123
44
30
0.0
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P205
K20
Mg S
Cu
Zn
B Mn
See Note
125
1st Crop: Fes/OG/I'im,M
0
120-200
90-110
90-110
0 0
0
0
.0 0
12
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/f€m,M
0
120-200
90.110
90-110
0 0
0
0
.0 0
12
Test Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-I K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(I)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-AI
Cu-1
S I
SS-1 NO3 N
NM4-N
Na
MIN 0.36 1.40
3.0 87.0
0.4 6.3 17 20
62.0
21.0
151
103
103
119 119
40
31
0.0

NCDABCS Agronomic Division
Phone: [phone] Web site: www.ncagr.goy/agronond/
Grower: Buttkc Dairy Enterprise
Report No: 30150
Pg 26
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Ma Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P2O5
DO
Mg S
Cn
Zn
B Mn
See Note
126
1 st Crop: Fes/OG/i'im M
17
120-200
130-150
3o-50
0 0
0
0
.0 0
Z
2nd Crop: Fes/OG/ ImA
❑
120-200
130-150
30-50
0 0
0
0
.0 0
J2
Pest Results
Soil Class HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac pH P-1
K 1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
rZu-I Zn-Al
01-1
S-I
SS-1 NO3-N NH4.N
Na
MIN 0.04 1.04
5.5 71.0
1.6 5.0 3
49
47.0
20.0
93
73
73
75 75
50
369
0.1
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Ma Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N
P2O5
K2O
Mg S
Cu
Zu
B Mn
See Note
127
1st Crop: SG/SB- DC
0
80-100
110.130
30.50
0 0
0
0
pH$
-1
2nd Crop: SG/SB- DC
0
80-100
110-130
30-50
0 0
0
0
pH$
Test Results
sail Ck" MM% W/V
CK BS%
Ac pH P-1
K-1
Ca%
Mg%
Mn-1
Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1 Zn-AI
Cu-1
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N
AWN
N4
MIN 0.13 1.14
9.0 98.0
0.2 6.7 21
57
65.0
29.0
178
106
106
173 173
77
136
0.1
Field information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lhne
N
P2O5
K2O
Mg S
Ca
Zn
B Mn
See Note
128
1st Crop: SG/SB- DC
0
80-100
9o-110
50-70
0 0
0
0
0
-1
2nd crop: SG/SB- DC
0
80-100
90.110
50-70
0 0
0
0
0
-1
Test Results
Soil Clan HM% W/V
CEC BS%
Ac PH P-1
K 1
CA
Mg%
Mn-I
Mn-Al(1)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-I Zn-Al
Ca-1
S 1
SS-1 NO3-N
NH4-N
N4
MIN 0.36 1.34
7.5 91.0
0.7 6.2 27
49
61.0
26.0
547
335
335
172 172
148
102
0.1
North Carolina
Tobacco Trust Fund Commission
•
Reprogramming of the laboratory -information- management system that makes this report possible is being funded
through a grant from the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission.
Thank you for using agronomic services to manage nutrients and safeguard environmental quality.
- Steve Troxler, Commissioner of Agriculture

NCDAM Agronomic Division Phone: [phone] Web site: www.nesgr.gov/agronomV
Report No: 03302
,
Grower.
Hattite Dairy Enterprise-Wayne/Arlii
Copies To:
!
5796 Walker Mill Rd
T
Soil
Randleman, NC 27317
Test Report
SERVING N.C. RESIDENTS FOR OVER 60 YEARS
Farm 7612
Received: 08/16/2011
Completed: 08/23/2011 Links to Helpful
Information
Randollib Coun
Agronon>isrt Comments
Field Information
Applied Lime
Recommendations
Sample No. last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lune
N P203
K20
Mg
S
Ca
Zn
B Ma
See Note
SP
1st Crop: Small Grains
0
W100 0
0
0
0
0
0
.0 pH$
-3
2nd Crap: Soybeans
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
pH$
-1
Test Results
Soil Class HM%
W/'V CHC BS% Ac pH P-1 ICI
Ca% Mg96
Mu-1 Mn-A1(I)
Mn-AI(2)
Zn-1
Zn-AI
Ca-1
S 1
SS-1 NO3-N NM#-N
No
MIN 0.41
0.92 15.0 96.0 0.6 6.9 115 121
61.0 31.0
122 70
70
961
961
238
35
0.1
Field lnformation
Applied Lime li
Recommendations
Sample No. Last Crop
Mo Yr T/A
Crop or Year
Lime
N P203
Ka0
Mg
S
Ca
Zn
B Mn
See Note
SH
1st Crop: Small Grains
0
80-100 0
0
0
0
0
0
.0 pH$
.3
2nd Crop: Soybeans
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
pH$
Test Results
Soil Class HM%
W/Y C1sC BS% Ac pH P-1 K 1
Ca% Mg%
Mn-1 Mn-AI(1)
Mn-AI(1)
Zn-1
Zo-AI
Ca I
S-1
SS-1 NO3-N
AM-N
No
MIN 0,27
1.05 16.0 93.0 1.1 6.5 1 t6 182
60.0 28.0
469 284
284
533
533
295
35
0.1
Is
North Carolina Reprogramming of the labomtoryanfonmtion-mmnagement system that makes this report possible is being funded
��`;:•`� through a grant from the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission.
Thank you jor using agronomic services to manage nutrients and safeguard environmental quality.- Steve Troxler, Commissioner of Agriculture
Tobacco Trust Fund Commission

N.C. of Ely"
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Req(an; j
WASTE STORAGE CLOSURE SPECIFICATIONS FOR BUTTKE
DAIRY ENTERPRISES
RANDOLPH COUNTY, N.C.
DWQ FACILITY I.D. # 76-12
LAND QUALITY SECTION DAM I.D. # RANDO - 155 - LOW
Prepared for : Buttke Dairy Enterprises, Inc.
c/o Mr, Arlin Buttke
5796 Walker Mill Road
Randleman, NC .27317
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
Report Prepared By: Larry F. Graham, P.E.
Environmental Engineering Services
P.O. Box 426
Aberdeen, N.C. 28315
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
Copy Of Report To: Barton Roberson - District Conservationist
.c/o NRCS s,n1u1118"It,
Federal Building Room 105 •�.• ��� GAR!? "'�+,
241 Sunset Ave. �.•r� t ��':,
Asheboro, N.C. 27203 SEAL
Phone: [phone]
Report Completion Date: January 12, 2006 ••.,ANCIS ��..•
Date of Review:
i M
d Review By:
Larry F. Graham, P.E.
"gistration Ni6mber 11602
/2

11
1
1
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
Water • Wastewater • Sludge a Agricultural • Industrial • Civil
Buttke Dairy Enterprises, Inc.
c/o Mr. Arlin Buttke
5796 Walker Mill Road
Randleman, NC 27317
January 12, 2006
Re: Waste storage pond closure specifications for Buttke Dairy Enterprises, Inc. - Randolph County,
N.C. Land Quality Section Dam I.D. # RANDO - 155 - Low.
Dear Mr. Buttke,
This package contains all of the details about your waste storage pond closure. I put it all into one
package so all the information would be well organized. Please remember that we had to work with
both the Land Quality Section on breaching your dike and with the NRCS on the waste removal and
closure paperwork. These separate work efforts and packages are contained within the enclosed master
package. Also note that I have divided the master package into sections so you can easily find the
different work efforts. The following persons will get the following documentation:
• You are receiving two complete copies of this document
• Mr. Barton Roberson with the Randolph County NRCS will get one copy of the complete package.
• Ms. Melissa Rosebrock will also receive a copy of the package.
After reviewing the enclosed information let me know if you have questions. Thank -you for your time in
this matter and allowing Environmental Engineering Services to be of assistance.
enclosures
cc: Barton Roberson (Randolph Co. NRCS)
Melissa Rosebrock (DWQ - Winston Saleni)
Best Regards,
1
Engineering Services
Ljl�
P.O. BOX 426, ABERDEEN, N.C. 28315 • PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

WASTE STORAGE POND CLOSURE
PACKAGE FOR BUTTKE DAIRY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
SECTION 2 - WASTE STORAGE POND DIKE BREACHING SPECIFICATIONS DEVELOPED
FOR THE LAND QUALITY SECTION OF NCDENR.
SECTION 3 - WASTE STORAGE POND RECORD DRAWINGS AND CLOSURE PAPERWORK
DEVELOPED FOR THE LAND QUALITY SECTION OF NCDENR.
SECTION 4 - WASTE UTILIZATION DETAILS
SECTION 5 - MISC. FORMS, LETTERS AND SUPPORT INFORMATION
ii

' WASTE STORAGE POND CLOSURE
PACKAGE FOR BL=Z DAIRY
1
WARNING
' The material contained in this package was developed specifically
for the named client on the title page. This material shall not be
copied by private individuals for personal use or distribution. Only
persons authorized by the client should copy or reproduce the
material within this report. Regulatory officials may however copy
and/or distribute this document according to departmental policy
1 and according to the laws of the State of North Carolina.
I
1
1
iii

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WASTE STORAGE POND CLOSURE
SPECIFICATIONS FOR BU TKE DAIRY
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
1
C1T�
M

' WASTE STORAGE POND Ci,OSURE
SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUTTKE DAIRY
' WASTE STORAGE CLOSURE SPECIFICATIONS FOR BUTTKE DAIRY ENTERPRISES
RANDOLPH COUNTY, N.C.
DWQ FACILITY I.D. # 76-12
' LAND QUALITY SECTION DAM I.D. # RANDO -155 - LOW
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
Buttke Dairy Enterprises, Inc. (hereafter called Buttke. Dairy) is a well established Randolph County
dairy business near the town of Randleman. The farm is registered with the NCDENR, Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) under the facility I.D. number 76-12. Mr. Arlin Buttke is the land owner where
rthe waste storage ponds and dairy infrastructure are located. The Buttke Dairy farming operation (i.e.
milking infrastructure and cows) is currently being leased to a producer other than Buttke Dairy.
Due to the new Randleman Dam and Randleman Lake being built, and the associated setbacks from this
new water supply reservoir, Arlin Buttke was required to abandon one of his three earthen animal waste
storage ponds. The waste storage pond in need of abandonment was located on the southern side of
I
Walker Mill Road and was often identified as the "LOWER" pond. It is also the most eastern waste
storage pond on the farm.
' This dairy has a Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP) describing its waste holding
structures, storage capacities, waste utilization practices, crop plans, etc. The abandonment of this waste
storage pond will not altered the farm's CAWMP. According to the engineer's understanding, Buttke
' Dairy is certified for 1,200 cows with a combined a Steady State Live Weight (SSLW) of 1,680,000
pounds. The engineer has assumed the new farm managers (renters) have kept the same herd sizes, but
this issue is not relevant to the waste storage pond closure details.
1
11
1
Based on some sketchy historical records, the pond and dike identified for abandonment were likely
designed by the N.C. Soil and Water Conservation Service in conjunction with the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS). According to records obtained from the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Land Quality Section (LQS), the structure slated for
abandonment was built in 1981. When this pond was designed and built, Mr. Jimmy Mitchell was listed
as the producer and Mr. Arlin Buttke as the landowner. Due to its volume and dike height, the structure
fell into the jurisdiction of•the North Carolina Dam Safety Law of 1967. According to information
supplied by others, the structure in question was duly registered in the Dam Safety inventory under
structure number RANDO-155-Low.
Environmental Engineering Services (EES) was hired to provide technical assistance to Mr. Arlin Buttke
for the closure of the pond described above. When possible, the specifications related to waste storage
pond closure will follow the U.S. Natural Resources Conversation Service (MRCS) conservation practice
standard number 360, called "Closure Of Waste Impoundments".
PACKAGE ORGANIZATION
For simplicity, EES has included all of the waste storage pond closure documentation into a single
package. This package is divided into 5 distinct and separate sections. These sections are described
below.

1
WASTE STORAGE POND CLOSURE
SPECIFICATIONS FOR BUTTKE DAIRY
1
1
1. SECTION I - INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE. This section serves as a brief introduction to
the closure project (the section you are now reading). It describes the overall purpose of the work
and identifies the subsequent sections.
2. SECTION 2 - WASTE STORAGE POND DIKE BREACHING SPECIFICATIONS DEVELOPED
FOR THE LAND QUALITY SECTION OF NCDENR. This section contains the dike breaching
specifications package developed for this project. The enclosed package was sent to the N.C. Land
Quality Section or LQS for approval. Many details about the project are provided within this
package. The reader can review this package to obtain farm information as well as detailed site
drawings.
3. SECTION 3 - WASTE STORAGE POND RECORD DRAWINGS AND CLOSURE
PAPERWORK DEVELOPED FOR THE LAND QUALITY SECTION OF NCDENR. This section
contains the record drawings associated with the pond closure as well as the forms and certifications
that were sent in to Dam Safety.
4. SECTION 4 - WASTE UTILIZATION DETAILS. This section contains the details related to how
and where the animal waste contained within the abandoned pond was land applied.
5. SECTION 5 - MISC. FORMS, LETTERS AND SUPPORT INFORMATION. This section
contains the forms and misc. letters associated with the closure of this structure.
PROJECT SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Waste Removal. Between 4/16/05 and 7/26/05 Grassy Knob Farms, the waste hauling contractor for
Buttke Dairy, removed the stored liquid animal waste from the pond to be abandoned. The waste
was removed by a pumping and hauling. For all practical purposes, the contractor removed all of the
liquid and slurry animal waste contained in this pond. According to the contractor's records, a total
of 4,523,400 gallons of waste was removed and land applied to growing crops. EES has compared
this number to some estimated values developed via topographic measurements of the pond, rainfall,
etc. - and found the volume described by Grassy Knob Farms to be a reasonable number. EES has
also estimated the amount of soil/waste that was removed from the pond once all liquids were
removed. Details about the waste removal can be seen in Section 4 of this package.
2. Pre -Dike Removal Work. The earthen dike of the waste storage pond in question was registered
with the NCDENR, Land Quality Section, Dam Safety under the registration number RANDO - 155.
EES visited the pond site on several occasions to collect measurements and to view work being
conducted. A complete package of dike breaching specifications was developed for the Land Quality
Section's review and approval. Details about the dike breaching specifications before the work took
place can be seen in Section 2 of this package. This section also contains details about the sediment
and erosion control measures, seeding recommendations, etc.
3. Dike Removal and Record Drawings. EES visited the site before, during and after earth moving
was complete. EES collected topographic measurements, inspected the sediment control structures,
etc, in order to document progress. Ultimately EES proceeded to develop record drawings of the
final grade contours at the site. The record drawings can be seen as part of Section 3. With the old
dike removed, the pond will no longer impound water and the earthen slopes are more or less
stabilized with mulch and seeding. In addition to the drawings, EES assisted Buttke Dairy in filling
out the paperwork associated with dike removal. This included the final cost analysis of the dike
removal.
Oa

WASTE STORAGE POND CLOSURE
SPECIFICATIONS FOR Kr= DAIRY
E
1
1
fl
4. Conclusion. In the opinion of the engineer, the waste storage pond has been closed in accordance
with the U.S. Natural Resources Conversation Service (MRCS) conservation practice standard
number 360, called "Closure Of Waste Impoundments". With the pond no longer impounding water
and the soils mulched and seeded, the engineer believes the project to have been successfully
completed and the pond now closed.
PROCLAMATIONS AND REMINDERS
1. Any person or company owning or controlling the property upon which an animal waste disposal
system is in operation shall be responsible for all aspects of the disposal system. The system must be
maintained at all times to prevent direct seepage and/or discharge of effluent to the surface of ponds,
rivers, streams, or to any type of surface or ground waters.
2. Buttke Dairy Enterprises is hereby notified that he/she/they must operate or maintain this site in
accordance with state and local laws and regulations. Problems should be reported to the N.C.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) ASAP. Changes in animal steady state live weight, operations,
ownership, and/or waste management must first be discussed with DWQ before proceeding. The farm
owner should keep a copy of this certified report in the farm files. Any future problems with the dike
or impoundment issues with the other waste structures at the farm shall be addressed with the LQS.
3. The project engineer can not take responsibility for the accuracy of all information or conclusions
made by others and referenced herein. Much of the information presented above is based on
information supplied by others. "Reasonable estimates" were made on occasion in this report. Such
estimates were made based on typical situations or average data that was available to the engineer.
4. All vegetation receiving animal waste or within the zone of disturbed soil shall be kept in peak
condition at all times. This means the proper fertilization, mowing, cutting, and liming. Overly wet
or overly dry conditions can cause vegetative stress or death, therefore the operator shall be careful to
monitor vegetative performance. All disturbed soils shall be kept from eroding.
S. The abandoned pond shall not be made to impound stormwater or manure.
6. The engineer takes no responsibility for changes made to the above plan and or specifications before,
during, or after construction/implementation without his knowledge. Nor does the engineer take any
responsibility for human losses or property damages .which should occur due to poor workmanship,
improper use of machinery, unknown conditions above or below ground level, legal problems with
boundary lines or easements, acts of nature, "short-cuts" the owner or contractor may take in
construction/implementation, improper waste application activities, legislative rule changes during or
after plan development, improper system operation, lack of site maintenance, etc. Information given
to the engineer by the owner or others and used in these specifications shall be taken as truth if it can
not be verified otherwise.
7. Agents from DWQ or LQS may visit the old pond site to view final shapes, soil stability, etc. The
land owner will be obligated to adhere to any future requirements of the LQS agents.
8. This document does not contain all specifications, rules, and laws associated with the land application
and management of animal waste. Copies of such guidelines and documentation can be obtained at
the local NRCS office, the regional office of DWQ, or from the Cooperative Extension Service.
* * * END OF SECTION I * * *

WASTE STORAGE POND CLOSURE
SPECIFICATIONS FOR BUITKE DAIRY
SECTION 2
WASTE STORAGE POND DIKE BREACHING
SPECIFICATIONS DEVELOPED FOR THE LAND
QUALITY SECTION OF NCDENR
1

1
1
WASTE STORAGE POND EARTHEN DIKE BREACHING
SPECIFICATIONS FOR BUTTKE DAIRY ENTERPRISES
RANDOLPH COUNTY, N.C.
LAND QUALITY SECTION DAM I.D. # RANDO -155 - LOW
Prepared for : Buttke Dairy Enterprises, Inc.
c/o Mr. Arlin Buttke
5796 Walker Mill Road
Randleman, NC 27317
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
Report Prepared By: Larry F. Graham, P.E.
Environmental Engineering Services
P.O. Box 426
Aberdeen, N.C. 28315
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
Copy Of Report To: Mr. Max Fowler, P.E.
c/o NCDENR - Land Quality Section
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1612
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
Report Completion Date: August 26, 2005
Date of Review: IVII v/,4,77��6 ,
P,eview By:
Larry F. Graham, P.E.
11602

�► ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
' Water • Wastewater • Sludge • Agricultural • Industrial a Civil
' Mr. Max Fowler, P.E. -� -��- August 26, 2005
c/o NCDENR - Land Quality Section
' 1612 Mail Service Center ......w.__
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
' Re: Waste storage pond earthen dike breaching specifications for Arlin Buttke (Buttke Dairy Enterprises,
Inc.) - Randolph County, N.C. Land Quality Section Dam I.D. # RANDO - 155 - Low.
' Dear Mr. Fowler,
Please find enclosed the design information related to the breaching of the above referenced structure.
'. This pond has been emptied of all. liquid and solid animal waste and is now ready for breaching, Please
review the enclosed information and. let us know as soon as we can proceed with the breach. Because it
is.empty, I do not anticipate any problems with moving forward with the project. To avoid additional
pumping expense for my client, I am in hopes we can breach the'structure before heavy rains come and
add water to the pond.
' For the record you are being sent two complete copies of the engineering package along with this letter.
In addition you are being sent a check for $200 to cover the cost of this request. The check is # 79609
and is made out to NCDENR. Upon your approval I will provide copies of the plans to Mr. Buttke and
' his contractor.
.Thank you for the numerous questions you have answered about this project over the Iast several months.
' I think the package should now be complete per our conversations. However, if you have any questions
about the design, please give me a call if possible since I do not wish to delay this project any longer than
it has already been. Your help and attention in this matter is greatly appreciated.
' enclosures
cc: Arlin Buttke
P.O. BOX 426, ABERDEEN, N.C.28315 • PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

DIKE BREACH SPECIFIATIONS
FOR BU ME DAIRY
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION..................................................................................1
1 REPORT OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................................... 2
VICINITYDETAILS.................................................................................................................. 2
SiteLocation...................................................................................................................................2
Topographyand Drainage...............................................................................................................2
' Down Slope Structures ....................................... ..............................3
STORAGE POND AND DIKE DETAILS.................................................................................. 3
EARTHEN DIKE BREACHING INSTRUCTIONS.................................................................... 4
Pre -construction Meeting................................................................................................................4
' Impounded Water Release...............................................................................................................4
BreachingThe Dike...................................................................................................4
1-1
DISTURBED SOIL STABILIZATION....................................................................................... 5
SitePreparation: .......................................... __ ......... ......... ......... .................................................5
SeedbedPreparation: ......................................................................................................................5
SeedingSuggestions: ..................................................................................................5
Fertilizing And Lime Suggestions: ........................... ......................................................... ....... ..... 6
MulchSuggestions:......................................................................................6
MaintainingVegetation: ................................................................................................................... 7
SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES........................................................ 7
General........................................................................................................................................... 7
Flow Through The Dike Breach or Trapezoidal Notch....................................................................8
TemporarySediment Traps.............................................................................................................9
Temporary Sediment Trap Maintenance........................................................................................
10
Down Stream Concerns With Sediment.........................................................................................10
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND NOTICES.....................................................................10
M

DIKE BREACH SPECIFIATtONS
FOR BU ME DAIRY
WASTE UTILIZATI N PLAN EXHIBIT LIST
FOR BUTTKE DAIRY
Exhibit 1. County road map (vicinity map).
Exhibit 2. Topographic map of the farm location,
Exhibit 3. Aerial photograph of the farm site.
Exhibit 4, Pond topographic information and proposed dike breaching details (EES drawing).
iii

' DIKE BREACH SPECIFIATIONS
FOR BLTfTKE DAIRY
n
1
WARNING
' The material contained in this package was developed specifically
for the named client on the title page. This material shall not be
' copied by private individuals for personal use or distribution. Only
persons authorized by the - client should copy or reproduce the
material within this report. Regulatory officials may however copy
and/or distribute this document according to departmental policy
' and according to the laws of the State of North Carolina.
IV

' DIKE BREACH SPECIFIAMNs
FOR BLn-M DAIRY
WASTE STORAGE POND EARTHEN DIKE BREACHING SPECIFICATIONS FOR BUTTKE
tDAIRY ENTERPRISES - RANDOLPH COUNTY, N.C.
LAND QUALITY SECTION DAM I.D. # RANDO - 155 - LOW
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
' Buttke Dairy Enterprises, Inc. (hereafter called Buttke Dairy) is a well established Randolph County
business near the town of Randleman. The farm is registered with the NCDENR, Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) under the facility I.D. number 76-12. Mr. Arlin Buttke is the land owner where the
waste storage ponds and dairy infrastructure are located. The Buttke Dairy farming operation (i.e.
milking infrastructure and cows) is currently being leased to a producer other than Buttke Dairy.
' For reference, the Buttke Dairy farm complex is split into two sections; the complex north of Walker
Mill Road (which is a relatively small operation) and the complex south of Walker Mill Road (which is
the larger of the two operations). Both sections are considered (i.e. permitted) as one in the existing
' CAWMP but the two complexes have their own waste handling and storage facilities. Waste is not
transferred between the northern complex and the southern complex.
' Due to the new Randleman Dam and Randleman Lake being built, and the associated setbacks from this
new water supply reservoir, Arlin Buttke was required to abandon one of his three earthen animal waste
storage ponds. The waste storage pond slated for abandonment is located on the southern side of Walker
' Mill Road and is typically identified as the "LOWER" pond. It is also the most eastern waste storage
pond on the farm.
This dairy has a Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP) describing its waste holding
structures, storage capacities, waste utilization practices, crop plans, etc. Because Mr. Buttke has
already replaced the pond slated for closure, the overall CAWMP will not be altered by the closure
measures being taken. According to the engineer's understanding, Buttke Dairy was certified for 1,200
' cows with a combined a Steady State Live Weight (SSLW) of 1,680,000 pounds. The engineer has
assumed the new farm managers (renters) have kept the same herd sizes, but this issue is not relevant to
' the waste storage pond closure details,
Based on some sketchy historical records, the pond and dike scheduled for abandonment were likely
designed by the N.C. Soil and Water Conservation Service in conjunction with the Natural Resources
' Conservation Service (MRCS). According to records obtained from the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Land Quality Section (LQS - hereafter called Dam
Safety), the structure slated for abandonment was built in 1981. When this pond was designed and built,
' Mr. Jimmy Mitchell was listed as the producer and Mr. Arlin Buttke as the landowner. Due to its volume
and dike height, the structure fell into the jurisdiction of the North Carolina Dam Safety Law of 1967.
According to information supplied by others, the structure in question was duly registered in the Dam
' Safety inventory under structure number RANDO- 15 5 -Low.
Environmental Engineering Services (EES) has been asked to provide technical assistance to Mr. Arlin
' Buttke for the closure of the pond described above. This also includes documentation on how to safely
breach the earthen dike on this structure. When possible, the specifications related to waste storage pond

' DIKE BREACH SPECIFIATIONS
FOR BUrrKE DAIRY
' closure will follow the U.S. Natural Resources Conversation Service (NRCS) conservation practice
standard number 360, called "Closure Of Waste Impoundments".
REPORT OBJECTIVES
' I. To provide the reader a brief background about the relevant waste storage pond history at Buttke
Dairy. This will include general farm and vicinity details associated with this pond.
2. To provide details about the waste storage pond slated for closure, liquid handling details, and
' breaching information related to the earthen dike.
3. To provide information on the site stability, sediment and erosion control, etc. once the earthen dike
has been breached.
' 4. To provide a package of details to both the Dam Safety engineers and to Arlin Buttke that will satisfy
the criteria for waste storage pond closure and earthen dike breaching.
' VICINITY DETAILS
Site Location
The physical location of the farm parcel is in the northwestern corner of Randolph County approximately
2 miles north west of Randleman, N.C. Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 show various views of the property.
' The farm property is bordered by mostly farm land except for the new Randleman Lake which will
eventually be along the east side of the farm. The Randleman Lake property has already been logged and
' is more or less ready for filling. There are no historical sites noted within I mile of these farm parcel.
Coordinates for the dairy facilities are approximately Longitude 79 degrees, 50 minutes, 24 seconds;
Latitude 35 degrees, 50 minutes, 40 seconds.
' Topography and Drainage
' In general, the topography at and around Buttke Dairy consists of rolling hills with all of the drainage
from the site eventually going to Deep River (soon to be part of Randleman Lake). A USGS topo map
of the area can be seen as Exhibit 2. The USGS topographic map containing this information is the
' Randleman Quadrangle map (1981).
There is no stormwater drainage routed into the pond slated for abandonment. Earthen berms, grass
waterways, and drainage pipes divert stormwater around and away from the pond interior. There is a
' fresh water pond located south of the dairy complex. This fresh water pond has been taken into the
buffers for the Randleman Lake according to Mr. Buttke. There is an emergency overflow from the
' "UPPER" waste storage pond that is routed into the Lower pond, but this overflow would only be used
in an emergency condition within the Upper pond.
The normal pool elevation of the Randleman Lake is said to be 682 feet above sea level. Based on the
USGS topographic quadrangle map for this area, water from Randleman Lake will approach the toe of
the Upper storage pond. The pond to be abandoned will be partially submerged by the new lake. This
new reservoir will be a public water supply for several towns and will thereby be very sensitive to any
' animal waste discharges. The area will be considered a critical water supply watershed.
2

DIKE BREACH SPECIFINOONS
FOR BUME DAIRY
1
1
1
The discharge of animal waste to the surface waters of N.C. is prohibited. Therefore no effluent should
be allowed to make its way into the nearby streams and rivers. This means Buttke Dairy must make
every effort to remove all animal waste from the pond to be abandoned.
Down Slope Structures
There are no residences or bridges immediately adjacent to the dike to be breached. Since the pond will
be completely void of liquids when the dike is breached, there is no possibility of flooding damage to
down stream structures. .
STORAGE POND AND DIKE DETAILS
1. EES visited the impoundment in question to take topographic data for estimating waste volume. A
drawing of the empty pond can be seen as Exhibit 4.
2, Table 1 shows a summary of the waste storage pond slated for abandonment. Some of this
information was taken from Dam Safety records and some was taken from on -site measurements.
TABLE 1
BUTTKE DAIRY WASTE STORAGE POND SUMMARY
1. T e of iMpoundment.
Liquid and slur a daig waste from Buttke Dairy,
2. Dike iype,
Earthen
3. Year impoundment was constructed(per recoL41s2
1981.
4. River Basin
Cape Fear
5. Normal Freeboard
2 feet
6. Crest length of eastem dike northern dike
225 feet 210 feet
7. roximate inside dike sloe
2.75 : 1
8, Approximate outside dike sloe
2.5 : 1
9. Average dike top width
12 feet
10. Estimated height of existing dike
28 feet(estimated,may vary from this value
11. Pond surface area er records).
1.6 acres
12. T e of spillway
Emergency illwa is earthen.
13. Area of drainage into impoundment (currently).
No exterior drainage goes into the pond. The pond
catches only rainwater falling onto surface. Pond
surface drains a area is approximately 2.65 acres.
14. Maximum Pool ca,Lac'y from records
19.3 ac-ft.
15. Is impoundment and dike registered with Land
Quality Section under Dam Safety?
Yes. I.D. # RANDO - 155 - LOW.
16. Assigned hazard class of dike
Low
17. Estimated volume of liquids in the pond to be
removed during abandonment procedures - by
calculation.
This information is not needed for dike breaching.
Pond is currently empty.
18. Estimated volume of solids in the pond removed
during abandonment pr res - by calculation.
This information is not needed for dike breaching.
Pond is currently em
19. Recorded volume of liquids in the pond removed
during abandonment procedures.
This information is not yet available.
20. Recorded volume of solids in the pond removed
during abandotuuent procedures.
This information is not yet available.
3

1 DIKE BREACH SPECIFIATIONS
FOR HiJTI KE DAIRY
' EARTHEN DIKE BREACHING INSTRUCTIONS
Pre -construction Meeting
' 1. Before dike breaching begins, the engineer, the land owner, and the earth moving contractor must
hold a pre -construction conference to discuss dike breaching details, soil stabilization, etc.
Impounded Water Release
1. Buttke Dairy had removed all liquid and sludge from insider the waste storage pond as of 7/27/05,
t Any additional water inside the pond will only be rainfall which falls directly into the pond while
waiting for the dike breach.
' 2. The pond interior shall be inspected for water accumulation prior to breaching. Any water that has
accumulated inside the waste storage pond more than 24 inches deep and has mixed with any type of
animal waste shall be removed and land applied according the farm's CAWMP. Any sludge or animal
' waste that can be practically recovered from inside the pond shall be removed and land applied
according the farm's CAWMP.
3. No animal waste contaminated water from the waste storage pond in question shall be allowed to
' reach surface water sources.
Breaching The Dike
' NOTE: The following dike breaching specifications are minimums. The contractor, land owner, or
engineer may exceed these specifications should the need arise. This is often the case when a land owner
wishes to restore the site to a more original condition for farming, pasture, aesthetics, or for easy mowing
access.
1. All woody vegetation within the work area of breaching shall be removed from the dike so the
contractor can have a clear view of his zone of operation. Areas not scheduled for disturbance shall
be left with native vegetation for sediment and erosion control.
' 2. All topsoil shall be stockpiled to use as cover once the excavation work is complete.
3. The contractor shall start by cutting off the top of the eastern dike and pushing the disturbed soil into
' the interior of the pond. As a minimum, the contractor shall cut a trapezoidal notch into. the dike
which corresponds to the lowest point of the outer dike toe. Most likely this trapezoidal notch will be
close to the Longitudinal midpoint of the dike.
' 4. The side -slopes of the trapezoidal notch shall not be steeper than 4.1. This will aid in the future
maintenance of the side -slope vegetation. The bottom of the trapezoidal notch shall be made a
minimum of 30 feet wide and level from side to side. Exhibit 4 shows a much wider dike breach and
' best matches the fill required inside the pond.
5. The contractor shall construct the trapezoidal notch, or breach, sufficiently deep so that rain water
can not pond inside the old impoundment. A combination of cutting the dike and filling the pond will
take place so water can drain from the pond's interior. The earth pushed inside the old impoundment
should be spread out, to fill in low spots and to construct a relatively uniform fill. The objective is to
make an earthen surface inside the old pond that will allow a uniform slope for rain water egress
toward the outlet of the trapezoidal notch without encouraging erosion. Soil compaction using earth
moving equipment passing over the fill should be sufficient inside the pond, A sheeps foot roller is
4

DIKE BREACH SPECIFIATIONS
FOR BUTTKE DAIRY
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
recommend to achieve more uniform compaction, but his is not a requirement unless the ultimate
drainage slope inside the pond will be greater than 10%.
6. The contractor shall smooth all surfaces so they can be maintained, both inside the old impoundment
and around the freshly cut trapezoidal notch.
7, The contractor shall also create a uniform slope from the outlet of the trapezoidal notch to the
undisturbed grade below the dike. This may require a combination of cut and fill. Great care shall be
taken to stabilize this section of construction to prevent sediment and erosion of the soil.
Recommendations on dike breaching can also be seen in Exhibit 4.
8. The land owner may also push in the northern section of dike to add additional fill inside the pond.
This is the owner's option. The upper pond dike should be left undisturbed during this work.
9. Sediment and erosion control structures can be seen in a later section of this report.
DISTURBED SOIL STABILIZATION
The purpose of sediment and erosion control measures is to confine sediment within the construction
area. This means the contractor should construct physical barriers, obstacles, or structures to insure
sediment and soil is retained on the construction site. This task includes repairs of disturbed soils, erosion
scars, and damaged erosion control devices. Grass planting and maintenance are also part of standard
erosion control measures. Selected suggestions and seeding recommendations below were taken in part
from the "Erosion And Sediment Control Planning And Design Manual", published by the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Land Quality Section.
Site Preparation:
1. Once excavations are complete, spread topsoil back over the disturbed areas.
2. Once all heavy earth moving is complete, smooth the site as mentioned earlier in this package.
3. Fill possible channels and depressions in the disturbed soil, making every effort to keep surface flows
spread out across a wide area. Roughen steep surfaces with equipment treads.
Seedbed Preparation:
In general, prepare a seedbed that is about 3 inches deep. Lightly roughen surfaces to disrupt
channeling and to provide a good soft seedbed. Scarify the surface of the soil. Do not cut large
channels in the soil with scarifying equipment. Typically make all soil disturbances parallel to the
surface contours (i.e. perpendicular to the direction of stormwater flows).
Seeding Suggestions:
1. There is no more important function for stabilizing a construction site than to plant vegetation soon as
possible after soil disturbance has ended. It is best to sample and test soils for liming and fertilizer
suggestions. Send soil samples to the N.C. Department of Agriculture, Plant, Waste & Tissue Lab,
4300 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, N.C. 27607. Sample containers and forms can be obtained at the
Randolph County Cooperative Extension Service in Asheboro.
5
1

DIKE BREACH SPECIFIATIONS
FOR BUTTKE DAIRY
u
1
1
2. When final grading is complete, Permanent Seeding will be required. Soil stabilization shall occur
within 15 working days of final construction or within 60 calendar days. The engineer recommends
seeding the site within a 7 days of final grading.
3. A recommended grass seeding blend is shown in Table 2. The contractor shall not use Sericea
Lespedeza, Crown Vetch and/or Weeping Lovegrass on any of the remaining waste storage pond
dams since these types of vegetation encourage burrowing animal habitat, are difficult to maintain,
and inhibit visual inspections of the dike. This seeding shall be of a nature to satisfy the soil type and
in accordance with the time of year. This seeding mix can also be of a mixture the contractor chooses
and knows to work well with the soil type and season, but shall be coordinated with the engineer in
advance of seeding.
TABLE 2
Seedina Suaaestion For The Buttke Dairy Site (Piedmont NC_ well drained clav soils)
Seed Type
Purpose
Possible Seeding Dates in
Seeding Rates Per Acre
Autumn
Kentucky 31
Permanent
September 1 to October 31
150 to 200 pounds per acre
Fescue
R(grain)
Temporary
September 1 to October 31
1 50 pounds per acre
* An equal blend of suitable grasses may be substituted for this seeding recommendation.
4. Seeded areas shall be re -seeded if necessary to insure good stands of vegetation are developed and
maintained. Fertilization and mulch shall be installed as necessary.
5. Apply seed with a broadcast method, such as a cyclone seeder, drop spreader, drill (in some cases),
etc. Hydro -seeding may be used but is not being specified.
6. Rake over all sites to assure seed has been covered and lightly packed in place. Lightly water if water
is available (only enough to moisten soil).
Fertilizing And Lime Suggestions;
1. If soil tests are not available, apply 5,000 pounds of lime per acre at or just before planting. Use
ground agricultural limestone.
2. Fertilize using 10-10-10 fertilizer at 1,000 pounds per acre at planting. Later fertilize according to
soil testing and experience.
IMulch Suggestions:
1. On steep slopes (greater than 3:1) apply approximately 100 pounds of straw per 1,000 square feet of
' surface. Cover straw with a netting or jute cover or use some other suitable adhesive material to hold
straw in place. If asphalt is used apply at roughly a rate of 11 gallons per 1000 square feet of surface.
' 2. On less steep slopes (less than 3:1) apply approximately 90 pounds of straw per 1,000 square feet of
surface. Cover straw with a netting or jute cover or use some other suitable adhesive material to hold
straw in place. Mulch may not be needed on relatively flat surfaces.
' 3. If grass lined channels are necessary, they are sometimes difficult to get stabilized because of the
velocity of flowing water. Often water velocities exceeding 2 feet per second on bare soil channels
will cause erosion scars. In many cases, the previous recommendations (shown above for mulch and
tseeding) are sufficient to get a cover established, however if not, use an excelsior mat (e.g. Curlex
6
1

' DIKE BREACH 5PECIFIAMNS
FOR BUTTU DAIRY
' Blanket) to line the channel and secure according to manufacturers recommendations. Seed all
exposed areas and mulch as necessary. Make slopes of grass lined channels as gentle as possible. Use
drop boxes if necessary to lessen steep slopes.
Maintaining Vegetation:
' 1. After final grading, and permanent vegetation is well established, maintain good covers with mowing
and fertilizing. Annually collect soil samples for analysis and follow fertilizer and lime
recommendations. Fertilize and lime native grasses around the site and keep existing ground cover in
tact as much as possible. Maintain natural water ways and ditches. Plant new cover grasses as
necessary.
' 2. If soil tests are not available, apply 40 pounds of nitrogen per acre in January or February, 40 pounds
in September, and another 40 pounds in November from a 12-4-8 or 16-4-8 fertilizer. Avoid
fertilization in warm weather since this may encourage disease.
' 3. Mow grass as desired and in accordance with accepted practices. Usually mow grass to a height of
2.5 to 3.5 inches. Typically, mow vegetation at two times per year. Grass water -way vegetation
' may need to be mowed more often if growth exceeds 14 to 16 inches tall. Grass may also be grazed
once properly established.
4. Repair mulch and seed beds as necessary if areas of dead grass develop or erosion scars occur.
' 5. Use pesticides and herbicides only as a last resort to keep grass stands healthy. Use housekeeping
techniques to control insects along with or instead of pesticides.
' 6. Vegetation should be maintained until such time as the waters of Randleman Lake reach full pool.
SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES
General
1. Silt fencing is useful in many circumstances, but very often it is incorrectly used as the only means of
sediment and erosion control. Only use silt fencing where it is appropriate. Silt fencing should be
' used on the down slope sides of disturbed areas, such as at the toe of a dam, earthen embankments,
and at piles of stored soils if wind -rows are not present, Silt fencing should not be used as the only
sediment control for large areas of soil disturbance or in grass water ways with potential for high
velocity water streams. Hang silt fencing on wooden or metal posts well anchored into the soil. Do
not allow sediment to flow under loose fitting silt fencing. Anchor the bottoms of slit fences in the
soil and clean -out small sumps or pools just in front of the fences to allow for sediment build-up.
' Liquid heads over 1.5 feet high will likely damage silt fencing.
2. Maintain 15 feet vegetative buffers between disturbed areas and property boundaries.
' 3. The contractor shall use good judgment and common sense to install- sediment and erosion control
measures where needed. The contractor's judgment will be of the up -most importance.
' 4. Grading shall take place. on the minimum amount of land necessary to do a specific task. Work
should be done in phases or sections if at all possible; sections stabilized and work started in another
portion of the site.
7
1

DIKE BREACH sPECIFIAMNS
FOR BUTTKE DAIRY
5. The grading contractor shall work on the dike in such a manor that works in cooperation with
existing topography and soil conditions. Questionable soils or rocks shall be addressed with the
owners(s) and the engineer before construction continues.
6. Exterior earthen bank slopes steeper than 4:1 are discouraged unless absolutely necessary. Slopes 3 A
' or steeper may be difficult to mow and maintain.
7. On fill slopes other than lagoon embankments leave the soil uncompacted if they are not subject to
construction traffic. Remove only large roots, stumps, or rocks from the fill on these slopes or any
Idebris that would interfere with planting or maintenance.
8. On steep slopes (more than 3:1) clean most debris, roots, stumps, etc, from the site. Incorporate soil
' test lime recommendations into the soil with a disk or tiller. Roughen surfaces on the contours.
9. On less steep slopes (less than 3:1) clean debris, roots, stumps, etc, from the site. Incorporate soil
test lime recommendations into the soil with a disk or tiller. Roughen surfaces on the contours,
' perpendicular to the surface flow of water.
10. Where applicable, apply stored top soil back to final grade over disturbed soils.
Flow Through The Dike Breach or Trapezoidal Notch
' The highest water velocity will likely occur as water passes through the trapezoidal notch (or breach). in
the dike. The discussions below are estimates only and are being supplied to offer some ideas to the
contractor on minimal breach construction. The final breach shape, amount of cut and fill, slopes, etc.
1 will be left up to the contractor as long as the minimum dimensions are met. These calculations assume a
reasonable grass stand inside the pond and in the channels of stormwater flows.
' • Water conveyance. mechanism = Grass lined channel through the trapezoidal notch in the old dike.
Area contributing to flow = 2,65 total acres.
' • Primary vegetation of this watershed = medium tall grass,
• Storm considered = 25 year - 1 hour = 2.74 in./hr. (Greensboro N.C. area)
• Calculated flow = 8.34 cubic feet per second (cfs) (only an estimate).
• Channel shape = Trapezoidal (even sides).
' • Channel side slopes = 4:1 (H: V) and 4:1 (H: V).
• Minimum channel bottom width expected = 88 feet.
' • Channel depth = 20 feet
• Channel top width = 208 feet +l-.
• Grass type recommendation = TalI Fescue (clay soils).
• Channel vegetation condition: good stand 12 inches tall.
' • Calculated water velocity in grass lined channel = 0.88 feet per second.
• Erosion potential: Bare soil before cover = medium to low.
8
1

' DIKE BREACH SPECIFIATIONS
FOR BLMXE DAIRY
' • Erosion potential: Bare soil with mulch = low.
' • Erosion potential: Well established grass cover = low.
• Grassed Channel Slope: A maximum of 0.1 feet per foot (average).
Temporary Sediment Traps
In order to control sediment transport out of the soil filled pond and through the new dike breach, the
' engineer has specified a single rock dam be installed inside the dike breach. Exhibit 4 shows details about
this structure. Design details for construction of this rock dam were obtained from Practice 6.60 of the
NCDENR publication titled " Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual".
' The rock dam is designed to allow flows from the disturbed areas to percolate through the rock dam
slowly, leaving behind sediment. Larger flows would over -top the rock dam and flow over its emergency
' overflow. Selected details of this dam can be seen below.
• Sediment trap type = Temporary rock dam, Practice number 6.60.
' • Area contributing to flow = 2.65 total acres.
• Area of disturbed soils (estimated) = 1.5 acres.
' • Primary aggregate used to construct dam = Class B erosion control stone.
• Secondary aggregate used on dam face = Number 57 washed stone, 1 foot thick.
' • Storm considered = 25 year - 1 hour = 2.74 in./hr.
•
Calculated flow = 8.34 cubic feet per second (cfs) (only an estimate).
'
•
Overflow shape on top of rock dam = Trapezoidal (even sides).
•
Overflow channel side slopes = 2:1 QT V) and 2:1 '(H: V).
•
Minimum overflow channel bottom width expected = 8 feet.
•
Rock dam top slope = more or less flat.
Overflow depth = feet
•
channel 1.5
1
•
Overflow channel top width = 15 feet
flow = feet
•
Calculated water depth through overflow at this rate of 0.7 (approximately).
'
•
Sediment storage pool depth (design value, not total depth) = 3.5 feet.
•
Total volume of sediment pool upstream from rock dam at 3.5 feet of depth = approximately
7,350 cubic feet (note: design guidelines call for 1,800 cubic feet per acre of disturbed soil).
r•
Suggested clean out depth of sediment pool = when sediment is 2.5 feet deep against the rock
dam.
'
•
Life of structure = less than 2 years.
9

' DIKE BREACH SPECIFIATIONS
FOR BUTTKE DAIRY
' Temporary Sediment Trap Maintenance
1. Due to the large storage pool in front of the temporary rock darn, it is unlikely there will need to be
' any clean -out maintenance on this structure. However, the owner should inspect the structure any
time there is a significant rainfall to make sure the rock dam is in tact. Channeling under or around
the rock dam should be repaired immediately to prevent further damage or short-circuiting.
2. The land owner may remove the rock dam structure once the site Is well vegetated and all disturbed
soil is stabilized.
Down Stream Concerns With Sediment
1. Because Randleman Lake is slated to be immediately down stream from the breached dike, there are
not immediate concerns for life or property damage due to any type of temporary dam failure.
However, it is Arlin Buttke's responsibility to keep sediment out of nearby streams. Water quality
issues associated with the new Randleman Lake are beyond the scope of this report.
' ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND NOTICES
1. Any person or company owning or controlling the property upon which an intensive livestock
operation exists shall be responsible for all aspects of the waste management. The waste management
system must be maintained at all times to prevent direct seepage and/or discharge of effluent to the
surface of ponds, rivers, streams, or to any type of surface or ground waters. Due to the removal of
all animal waste from the pond, it is unlikely that this structure would pose any future problem with
regards to water quality in the lake.
' 2. Buttke Dairy is hereby notified that he/she/they must operate this, or any, waste management system
in accordance with state and local laws and regulations. Problems should be reported to the N.C.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) ASAP. Any future problems with the dike or impoundment issues
' with the other waste structures at the farm shall be addressed with the Land Quality Section of
NCDENR.
3. The EES engineer can not take responsibility for the accuracy of all information or conclusions made
' by others and referenced herein. Much of the information presented above is based on estimated
conditions, . estimated operational capabilities, etc. that are subject to change. When dealing with so
many variables and natural elements it is impossible to predict in advance all operational conditions,
however the concepts and methodology presented above are reliable.
4. The engineer takes no responsibility for changes made to the above details before, during, or after
' construction without his knowledge. Nor does the engineer take any responsibility for human losses
or property damages which should occur due to poor workmanship, improper use of machinery,
unknown conditions above or below ground level, legal problems with boundary lines or easements,
' acts of nature, "short-cuts" the owner may take in system construction, or improper system operation.
Information given to the engineer by the owner or others and used in these specifications shall be
taken as truth if it can not be verified otherwise. h
5. DWQ officials and local health officials are authorized to inspect the system at any time.
10

' DIKE BREACH SPECIFIATIONS
FOR BUTTKE DAIRY
1 5. The farm owner must keep a copy of this certified report on the farm at all times. He or she
must adhere to these plans as much as is possible. Alterations in waste management practices
' shall at no time violate the intent of this plan.
7. The dike slated to be breached shall not be breached until approval is granted by the Dam
' Safety engineers with LQS.
8. This document does not contain all specifications, rules, and laws associated with the land
application and management of animal waste, dam regulations, etc.
fl
* * * * END OF SPECIFICATIONS * * * *
I

11
EXHIBITS SECTION

I
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
M
I
ANV
N,
I f
ell 0.1,
Acb,
ISI
'A
7
R
2
,p)
" �17 vy Y"
U IA-
GS-M
T H E - B UJT-1
NDL
A L3fA
UADRAN
"j-
ij
'7i
T
N
0,
ly
V,
1- 61
Vq
v
X
11K10,
.
I
3-1) TopoQtmds Copyright 01999 DeLorme Yarmouth, ME 04096 Soture Data: USGS 1 950 ft Scale: 1: 24,000 Detail: 13-0 Datum: WGS84

-W?',� " ".., V.44�i',--,,q 0, 'W ..., . :11�,,,��,�. :V� - - , I ., 1101 WW,Vww.�'j ��.'�T ,- ,, 0 :�,� ".,�,��"7:,F��.��'��,��Zf,.Z?,�-,'",�"",i,',',(,f'���J74"q"�,;.g!.j,�,���',�q"F,gTI , W,N�J,fr,7!� -
`qt�,� -;:W,7�r,?.,-".�Plti�i, liyi�.",.�"iL,i"�;1174,�'t�WI "j"C"7�, �R: �. -,?'O y K�, ."� "'-f., , "'14.111Y.M" ,;,Vt, , i�,,r'-'� - �- �"`. '. , . 1�"r`i , ". .
.�."l ,Il� 'A PI '19,� 11 ) . , ., ", . . " r� �-�, �,�, ,� , �11 , - .. . k , . ". ,�. . , � '. - ., , .;,. , . " -1 -1 .. ,,,, .1 gfl�j,-:J, JI.. I ,
, , � ;A , !�: � � I F, � I 4" � - �A�-,,,. I , �� ) .
. ,�4 , 1, , . j . , - , � I ... , .- , , , , :�-- -il 1- l , , .� I , -, � .- , .. - " 'I'll 11 I .. .� '. "". .��, ,.Y-.� It" I .-, v
-.,;,., qN�,,., $ 'I � �!, , � ,�. - ',�. , , ,�, � ., ,,.; -� , , 11 � ,
"I
. , , P'7
, , ,�,� I ., )i 't :� . . . 4 4m,,w'. I I , ,v, , - .
'r)',,,��-ji "� -� t.,�. " - ,�-, -,- , , . .�� . q, .,�. . 4, � .N
- � 'j.-J$wki , . .qN - ., , . ,, .. �,:. . ., , , " -1 , -i . -iV ,11" , . , - 1 ". 1- - - - "' "' " � " lll-� -;.k,." ,
�, � , I � . .. .1 I 11 . . ",_
. p - --I--�'-. . , I , , . i , I., M. r:,� It, , , ..�" , " , . � " , " , ' . . ,
,� - �- " , , .., . . - .. ` . , I' � , - - ,� -4p_�4'1. , 'I
, .�: 1. "'. , �-,�! , . . ,j . .� . � i . , 1�114 T�4. . �r% ,,, `��..?; I ,"l :, - - , � 0� I;. ,; I I , , . � . �,, .,. , I-. � .
, "', -1 . I . �6 , 1. , -11, . X " ,..�i � - , �
A:.✓A . . .1 �� � " .", .
. � 4 ,., .. � ,, . I 1 14,
.� �6 - P,�,-,` , ,,,, , �'. " . . " , . . , . . . . , j ` 'I,".. . , �
. I . I I - - I ,,�v. ,,x.��, " ��.'St,l,,, �i, ,4"! (�",!,� 4,,,,-,�,..-,� ;- ,OY�o�*f I M01 AN .1. . , "I'l , " �1, 1,�' , �". I .:. j 4 ,
0. '. ., r, , �k. �- I �:!t�,,�Z,�,F;A�..� - ��,::�,' ,:. � �iiA ..j , 1. . . "'N""", 4��ip�`� 1
.
.'-� �.. , , �4, O � -�-, , , ,. . . 0 � � I , '. 1: - .. . .. .;! r�;�,, r. I �' �" , , , , '�., l,� !"N:�y 'j', i.. ,1;. [� �, 4� �1'1 , �', � � , , �
I., .� � .41 . I .. V " , . I � .1, , ,�I;q 1�%,,I�1,1,0,I,��� ,,�VMIIA.
. - ,,,,�-7 `-�-111 �, I . �-`V'�f�,)§f(�'�,:11 �-�';"�J�.-` �- , ,
., , - . , , 0 "��'...:,!,. - . I'll �i!,,,, " i . V11 , . . 1'� �, . ,.�,,�� 1, .w
. .. ,. '.•- I I , �, . . . d, , . , � , ,
'. � �. " . . . . I , 'W' �, f. , Ly. !, ,�ij , , - ,,, " v � - 11 - , .10 '. � . . - ; � 'I , 0,%iV,,,$-j�.,-
.
V , 1�' �. �l , .: . . . �� 1 '41'1"i "' . , ;� . %t �.�.' � . I .. T� - v, '. .. I I.; �,--.1 - " I .11 - � .. ! .." ,J� ... �, i I , I
� �, At, ", - ��
- . .
-'4 z I � 1�%,r . . r �.-, . I 4 , � ll� . . " . �, �- , " " 4'', � I , � ,V . . I . k '. . .. � . , ilf4i, .�. . . . . . , � , .� � �'r I ,
". . . • � , " IN11- 1 '14, '? ;k, "�' I V,10.1 , . , I Ir �;%:- ,,i, ir�,U,T. %,& A,., .1 1-1 - '. I ..P:. -,., i I I'll � fl.$., . . , '! - Ali.
- : �:M. �z ", ` ,4,1 , ., j. ,�11 •
.. 4'f'? , . . I , I . . I . . . , . ..141I 1, . . . . I . I ,;q, ., , .1 .. _ ij
,
;a, , , � , , . � . . .. I
. �- '' � � I ". � ...I.
.
, . . I N. I '. I .,f I - . . , 'r , , . .
", ,�*,' , 11 I . . . . d. "', , , . ,,� � , i ',,-rt�t �, I,� , - . , , o4; •- . I ,,�, � it��--,, � V g - - i W - fN I �.-, ,,� 1, t, ,� ,� li.,:: I , , , ; '! I " ��P;I, - ,,�. '' .. , , I �., , . I . , . �, -,�. I
, O", i�I ,�;,� ,,,,,,'�,,�,*,-.�.!,",.;�', , IF;- , � :., ,,� -- �"` I , , Ni,.I-, , " . , : . .., , , " , 1,
ITT,(, 1-11 f ,i, " I
-�-'� 'A . . ,� ! Tr - I " . 11 ) " , �, , 4 'I, �,�'.�, ,� .,� x . . . ,,, 0. k �, , y, ,
1� �%, .� . '. , . M,� . I ,.. ,',� . , I ,,�', �-: I , . . 1 6- , -� I" T� i 1111114 Ili �1, � 't � �, . ", . ON, i"4iF ��, '?� ,�t, , I . . � , O.'.. , ` � , �.,, ,�. , � � ,
, .. - , ,,�. , T1 il "".L `1� ',�', -�. , l , 1.��: .� " , � ,,, "I - - , ,, , ). , �� : ".., I ,,, �r s,;�� '. 4 I . . I. �, ,� �1�p "
, 4 I
. I 11-11.1 V. I -. , -,-� , , . �.�y. , I . �, ;- , . � M , .., .; �, T - - .., , .,.,.,- , . .,
. !il . . !71 .
�1, ,��j� Ty I "i ,i�-, - � - ,� , "A , . I . . � I , '. :i,:, I , . I � � U . !7., � I ...� I
A A A A A
a . ., �,P + I - �,,��-�i�,j V�',',,�� 4-"�,, � i',Ilil� . , � � , ., A �
.. �! ., . - ; �.� I . ,�,' �
, , " � - I �1� i,� ,,�, I "I ,
.'�' klp,j'� ,l-1�11-1,m �� , 7 �, 1� l '.
..
'�' , e "Sr" S; - 4, . . �. I � A � I "
.1, -.. �,(,; rt. .. . .", 4' �1.11,�
- . . 2 . , , Iy I I I I I ! I �
I-, - -, -'-" ". : . 1,1 � I I f". i'l,' I
., �, , �!, ,�, -, -,T,�- �, 7, � � " .'T - ,-O-,!,��,I�i';.,��'i' , ` '�' - i., 4�1 "', 17-�, - � �, ,�. :
- - i . r - , 11--- - -W, . ­7 1. ��7�1 -.I- "', I .. ,W] ", 11 , i. - ,�7 -14 11 " �,� j, M , I IX I - I -i
- - , " -i,�,!�-� .."w"4-i ",.,. -.J1. ".m. , � � � �,-, . Is �, .
. , . z
�
.
F .... " I , : . , . . . ;4�
. " -11 � , '. �j '7�1"':; i�,t,%' I � .. 1. , � A , liq . �-, - , , 1 ,� �-, .. I ,
,P,y A i . ,., ., . , � �. I - . - '. , , . , , , , . . � , " �
, .� �%,, !mv , � . , ��.l f4 � , ?Iq, " , ; �, 444r. -,'� . . . , . .� 41,; 1 � �!,I�j;i , �!,� k,� 1! �, .r, I ,• - - 1�, .,.,, ; �'j� . . . .... . -�, ,- . " , f . .4
�,p " I ly!. , ,,, .A � . , I . , . . ..... �-• , I I � V'. I y� A v. ?I("..., ,�.. �j � "! .... .. ! , ., , � , , ; ,�4
, ­.,� , ,11.-Iq-'�!J.'. - I � 'VAk .A. - " -rl- , � .� I.. - 11;t 1�'.� ,�",., i � Ii�'�W�. " ,. �j � - ` � , ... Q,"I", � i , [ , , � - .. �� ! -,�,��' --,,,,� I �, '. � q". , rj.,. � 1 I . . ,-J�,',,%.. , � .- ..1.4'11.��l
, " I . 1, AIM.-W 4 IV., jl�, ' J�J�,� ,14�A'A ,,,I' ::"" ' *-�',� I . ... �,'.5!y�l �,. . . ". ...
, ,,, �, " '" � ;,V;, ,,"- '. - " , I ;, � � -�--J; ,e, 'j- . .. . , � . - 1, � I . . � . . I . . , I , .. . , .� 7 �.
- - F . , 'gil :'.',(, �6%�� � . I I , I , -
. , . � � I I � I �,�,%". , .. "', & I I... Y 11, I � I - 11 . � . - , " ,
! � -'Y v *�` iiTj� � '�'.. . ):� I ", !, .1, ^ I "I I 11 I. 1-1 � .4. & c. 4", . , .� '� : .. I
I �., ,� �-i,�, , .� , '.. . .. . . , I '.1 .
- , , � .. . .
" , A,4 I,. , . ,,, ,, 11, � . . � . . . . . . . . . . .. ,� -."'. , ,�.;J. ,.,. . I
I � -, � -I -, :,f . ��-� . L-7,. I,,' T' . , %�. .�,.� J""O, I... � ,�,, " I . I
I , .5 t , .� . -, , ...
. . 1, 4 , , W I I . . 4 .
.,-- . , .." ,-,3 1-e:', I . . . . " ,I � I m. 1, ,� i" � 6�,`,-�'- iv� I - , �, .1 - ��, , . " . 1. I 1�1' " � I ". , .... v - I � . ., . . . ! . . �,, "
",.,-.0 1� � .,.''/ A,�' ,!, " y� ... I , I : I " �F, 11 .1 , 1� .�� �.".:.� ,�-, - . ! "I I ; .", .
/. � , .11 , '.., I
.
� . , ,.R., � . , . I '. IIT5�
- . ". : . 1, -1: ", ': ,. , " , , ;�,�J:�
qv. ,� � � ... I ,"�-, , ", ,-,;,;i! � �1' , � :,:, - : �, 1'� �-vk tz�,�i!.A�, ,. 7� �- 5 �,� ' ,1�1! " �'�. � �,11`�'�., t,�:.N, , :, ��, ,�*, � I , I. ," - , , �., :, ,",� I
, ,
" I I , , � ,,r � - j , 'I , 2 - , P . .
I 1� I .d.1, , 4.'.,f , �(,,r'tj e,1. , - � � , ", ", , . .. .1. ,, 1, , 'i 1,� �`L, V1,' �. i � ? 1� ,
., . .".
., , ,e �� 11 :� , ,
. 7 . , . - .11• .. . . . �.,�: ,,,, 'I , , I I , . , I �,,, V
-X . . . '.I - - �!, J '. , � -11, I .�, l.,: I , . , �.il .."i I : , .,,;i� , - J�' . I I I , , l " . 110
.., � - -� -1 1:1, , 1. " . V . , I . . , . . , "' i I I. . 1A A, , ,,�,f. , I i. . , , . , ",
, � -,�, i, 11. �. .
I " � " %, - , - - , - � , , . , � ."�. f%"'4, -.
x ". " :%, I' , . , , i . I . , , 11, ir . -�; , " I � , ,,� , . 11��, i - - , . .
: .1 ,�v , � , ,,, " - �.�!k "" , , , . ,;
- - �, . . I � elll,�` '. ... , . `4 , "):,, 11. . �` W
, " , '? . ". , "A � ". . , - , , I - � - X� I J - 1�. ? . ," � .1 . I . , � , '. "
, � � , . , � , " , I., .. . . v .. . . . '� . 0� � I ... .1 . ,.", . A, A, , , I : I, . , , 11 - �, I , , , �. , - -, "'
, , , 4� - . , � . , e 11 �. ", .� , , ..I'. ---�,, - 11. w �
�.,! � , 4, �,, . .1�1 I. - ,
� , . I, .%,,�'! A . , i A ` . I � . I I r� i "I �,! . " � . � :. I " 1 " ' , ' T `�.- '- 'Z i - ,
. . ... . !� " �. t � -, �`� i�,� , I - - ,� �m ..... �
,,,� , , 'OOM10 ;
. .. . .. I I . "I' § , I 11 I 2 I ., .. '. . . ... '. .. ,,r . tr' r .� I
I I 1 O'.., . . , � , � ,�i �IR .
,-� �. 1- .. l , ` , 11 . ., - - . 11 M
;qjl�Ij�.i-qj,� -, , , . , fv i " .1 -
, �.,� , 1J?dY 1� "', ., , , , . I . , .:� 1� �, 'O, , ". �
I . . I , �� " mi
I . � , . I " .. . , . . . - �L�2 , I
.. , ,,I I � . (��`,,'V,.�`��' .. . � i 0 il;,L ,,;� ,. I.-,, , , . . , , � ,,, �-; I ` )�, , ','."� 4�. I I . j, ,,,,� , 0 , I -0,-q- �)M , I
�,,�;, -, " i , , .1 , j � , e . . I!! I . I , ,w,
t� ; ., , 11, - . �14� ., . � .. � 11- " ' ),.T.1. 0, I
­ . . � . . '. .�� . li, ., . O , I . 4
, � � I I .- -1 � , , . " I . ��'V . , I , , I , I . . . I "I !.. I
i.,4� 'V �Ik-,- �-' . �..� , I . :1. - . . . I . .1 . - -:rL�",. , , 6I % I I 0 , ��,;,',,.,- - I 'I'm -
. '. . - 'O �1., r , - , I i��t . . I , , : , . . . . -1 " 'll - 1,'v-�,, , !�,,!
. 6 11. . I I . �"- "I 11 � I 'I., I I -, . � I I . 'N". -, . �
V., � - ' .. � I -1• . , , Oe I " �
,: I .�. j I , , , 'I'.." �j j4, ,��, .. ,,. r .,, '' ".. I - . , .1 I I . I 1� �"- c/--%k.�1-,,-i,, L - -
,:: ��, -,� i . ��'r. ;� , �W.. . ,- , '. ., : � , , , - ":,. ,,��;t,,,,,` D g,g�
.� � - . �, ,-X,�:��,�,,�,� 11-IL i.
7- � 21L�, , .I.,-- , I•
, ; , . . � IN .�,
� - - - - � A, - - 1.i I ,� , ,, �
fir-,7:"P� �,— - . , � ., 4 , , , ,;q�`. 1. , �
r-� - 7�, �,r - I , . , -- -. -,-- . � i " ,ej�
.�, ,. ��,- ,.,., .0— — '. "I -.'� . - -11 .1'. . " - ,;--*;"; ',� , . . P . Pw .I ,; I
� , ,.,X. ZZ: ,— - - - I .
, 7,��`:= Z- - , �
. � �4. 11 - . . . - ev � ,
, ! v V4, � ". �': ,k , �q ,�. 1, -,-��.�,,fl j 7f � '. . 1� I . - - 'P,
; '. z , ,..". 1'� 'G , � ; ., - " i, , . � � I I I TI. TF.1k I ", , !
:ir pip - - 1 , . . C l",,- . , 11 i . 11in �' I- . VII., � I I 11 �- I 0 3-,- j, �. � ,It, 41 . � - I
"10 �-,�W�j%,�-h §�,:��!�, 4j�;,,',`�14 'n�, M��'l ),
,� I� III: W i ��.,��(,�,�... - 'L' ., I � ..;-. . .1 .1 !,�,-,-�,.:"�d�,;. . -
.! . 'T ,Q, . --� I .. 1, . � � A �,,W ", ,,� I M, . .
. ,. � .1� .C. ... . . '. . , , .. . - � I � ,W' "' - - -
41 "l), [If 1.1, . . . . :,"?VX" �. �
, -',`�� e�,;A . . , � - I
, .e , li"i-lt .: .1 "' '... ,T- "" - A T".01". �-
, - , -
" �,-,�11: t.,.,: - � , . . - : I -lt;- , . ,
, W , 'f� . ,-,. .. I.. ,I , � * - .. . , 1, .., , P. "I , , - ..
, ;�. . I 1�1 RIF 1�-,,�4e- , " q��., m , . r.i MI. , V, "­�.',, I,:.. , .. 14 y -. � . � ..,- � 11 ... ,� im 1'�� . - , - V . , ,� "I � I I
'ap
Liq ik',, 1. ,,�,,.�.I�fl,,6,,�T I I . r
�'�Ajj I . I i�:, 7"'.1 I "I �o, 'I", . . . I . I , .:,�,.� , -,.,171",i """; �"i ",� - , "A
, , , . CIL I i � U� .,. . . f . 'j, - � •
, I'�, � . ��:,11 . I
. � "' "I /Z�
. �
M "H-7M17 !:��J'j', ,,, !. ,.;,��,411�'.. .� '14mm i� , •, � , '11'..
.",..", � �,, " � , , , , , I..'. p,r,: . ; ,� , 7, 11
. F9A� , , . .� 1� � .. , �
.J1j1,1 ,.: � .. . � �- I Ldr� ,.',� I " "
I I . � . ,0�.: , " , I , ��,rt!
i`�,` , I i ,' I
I , '. � -1
- . i t 11f�� .. � '. .f , "" -
'�,,�: �,!'."�!..-,� ." 40 . � I . .r , ,,, " I I '.1
, -, X . . . -t'l
, , �i��,,p-j �,:,��,vm;-Jwg, 1,�;�,�,,;-�.!'�.i . �." " ,,�,l;i,1-,,�p!;, � �illi�ililill 1�', . . � �/k Kl- ..I . . 0
� " (� .. � , -
"
. .
"' , ''t . .. . .X, ... IP 0
. "I
&
, � , .i . � 11
..
i` M,,�,, I �,., . . I
I
'N , lk,-),-I;�11 .. . , � 1��!!A. , .: � - •
, ;! , •. ? 11 111.3 - , I
.
�1- �, . i � I., '. � ":I" LMJ,�%�, ". '. p , , f.- i .. I S , ','.'J`-�V4 '-O � . � I !'� ,,�;
�- �,I OV � "i't - � F ��,�J, P,''. r, f r 1); : �',�.� j, C, I • I ' '�'LL I ��, . I 'I', '!�4,� � I , , `.1p aIt
blily"Nil., - 0 4i, • IN 0 - - -1% .
'- W'-,'l , .f - �!, I. - - -- - 0 , , . ,.
I , . ;. :��'j,.;%J:��, �', -- � 4-A 1, •.
, k - VC, "; ..� -1 1�#�!A-,- .V, -. " . - - , . .� 1� , .., .�'. �� - , - . . 1. . 1, li 111. � � ., " ,�. . . , �jk" , .�r A --� ".:" ., . - ��
. . I - I , .
.. . . i 11 11-10'A-�,.,-,"",Y�,.', jil 'I'll; v � , 1 ;,:'4",.'!� .I '. ,,,,:,,4 � —. ? I k , I , ,- . �.:. • �. �- " .
� - - - �,� QA: - 1, 1i ir ", " �,�-�r. 00.1".'", P I \ , , ,-, � 0 ..� I
. , " ,.-I� ,,� a, I I 11i � � - " , , 'N ,� �,: 1. I
',.,%. f - 1.� I ; ,�-';F, , , I A': '!
. Z�V f I ? ;A11 , 1 ,.- ".. , LI "I M - 11 , I 11 . . , ,� I
. 91 I., 'i o � 77T, ,FFM �1�e- ,✓" , ,,�-.- ,
1% . � �4. , V. .1 , , - � .:� ;lykl:� ; I , -� �;,.� ";, .. �;I�J . , " . , ,
, I , ',,. ". - 1- -1, I N, " "�,- l'i , : I '..
.1. ,,, & V � �. T, , I .,1 11� ,',,�:,�-A�-,41�1, ,.:- ll�
4 S 1. .I , , i 1, -, I a",, .. " i " . : , ( , . 0 : . , � "I
J '. � . O I . T. , , 1� A',;
.',.j�� - .,-,:"I. .
.� I .•
.1 , - : I�i 'I ; , \ 'I
� iJ,,, " J; - . , I �.,.. . �'! T., . � . �. " '1� ., L . % '.
.1 1'I;,"-1, 11, -11,� �,. � L
-
- I . , , , , , , , � " I "� �. - � .,, ,,"��, . , ,;,'.LA,A' - � II" , . . - .:.,( .. � , I . ;� I I 'j� `4 ""k, I.% �'4, , 1� .. �� . vl�-J.lj ,� ",1m. A, .I- o,.'� I . �, - ; I O , P . .....I1. .11 .. ,�1'. - , .1. ,-W.:114' . ..
". . , . . . .; �. I . 1I I,+ ' '�'L) , '� I , I . ,.,. 4 11,,�:. , ,.,!, , I i,�'.," ""I'6. , , , ..' � I '%,.!. -11W��IP4 L�
. I , . , 1�,, , 1"'N:vV:.:1' -:' -!, , L . . " li" , . - I , - . I t] 4 �r , I,,,:, , , . I , I .- 1��� - .
j " � � - - , IS � .. � , " L . I . , A;Nm, , .. . .. I .... X.,"', , I ,,, � . . I .. . � . , , - I'! . .
, . . - , . , � , I
" - 1. �, � - -, - , - , I , � '. I k , ,i4,: 4. j. " r"I I .... -V, I
. `,.�,: , . .41 . , , ; � � ,
; .. .�,N. '.-',. - 'i. . , , - . . t
"I !� , � .. �1 , ,�. , I � , Z, w . !-.1 , X :
. . . - � , ., " " �. . �� , I - , � - I!
,
YI,-; i � , I I ., . . " .
1-N11 � , ll,, � " - 1, .. .. �. . - . �'- " ,,I: -,� t�,,,:,,`,'��., : . , . -1 Ii.
.
1 ,�,,,�:`- , ii llif� -�..g ,:� I',- I ) - 'j", jd.,,-'��," '. ";i�gnrliT;41,`� .1 � !:."!j� . � .. , �,�., -,,5��;,, �, " kp,
i , ., �'. .. , 1 11, .. 1�;" 114 1. ., ,;-N, . � , -.� .1
. ." , , C"i, , , ", Iv �. .
�-- , . ' , 1: `4 �. 1i I .1 ter, I . I . 5 11 'r ,� ".,
-I,11'-!��: �I �2 . I �,
, - " . " . , I . , -,,, j., .ItR�, � /, 4 'P " I � N 11 �
I I � I - . �,,� " I .,I -.o � ��!, " .
1.
- 0 . , /-� .15 I( I
�" U , - P- - � - . I , - j"5' ; ' LIP" " .. t. .],:-,� .. 11 . �; TV - . . .., I .
I 1! 1. . , I . .. 1. il* "; & �' . 11 �,. ,k,,,,- ,;.! I ) � . I i
- -11. � `,7�4��,. I . ��g'j1�7,,Ij:'T ." '. . , �,� - ,,�'Cr - ,,� , - , ,,,.,:,, ,j � 4 , 1.1, l " - , � �'4
'I . , . * X k -1 - � .. , , �
.l.,., ! "T , . ""i"', . N. ". LO � 1 ", . .11 .4., .�
. ,�; �P, - � . I . ,
, . � '2111��!Y�*4 , � I., , � - 1. "; . ,i 011., I - 1 e. I ': ,.,�, , 01 ,I...
, � Y.� 1. , " Z - � : I - 1, ,� V;F,T'.�,`�j,K�
I L 1. . . � � R, � ".. . . -�"� 11 11
. Q , q "'41? 11 AI , , "r "' . . . . ... � W � �Itq-' .�."� �
, �-, -J� ; � -,.[;�q,�,� , li ,�. -1- .P, . , ,�.,
� � � , :11, p" : , t ),',,Ok,,� ril, 1
�# Vt �, �,�`: -
� ,,� . I , I i "',".1.,:�,., f. ,�, . � �' �-t.',i lut") , . ,,,Qi� - . , . �..� , 1� . � �
� . i , . � ) ,�- " - . ,., . 4"r . ,,;,�-�, . R, ,1� .1-1.111�: �, , -K
-11,". , - ;�-- - - I - . ,.I; r. I i ,,, 5
7PI , �.,L.14 �, � grid
1 � " �,,�i ,, �� , �`� . A , .m�, M .
- .
. -
t '! .�.; ... 1, � .1 , "I' J,,.,,�J, IL' L�O 7i t.1r,"',
.. ... ." . m , . `,;�.,, �q�•.,� , I -QW? , ; ,0 r � I . , 4.. } 'I - -, '. y 6- -,.,
.: "'i . I � .. - , . 't .1 , 01
'! - �, �4p, � .,.;;,, , , ." . Wi " � . I
� I . I , , , , " ,.� � , , , ! I . . . . . . . ,
��!, �� pll r
,.,�,Y %, - � , - . '. .1 , '. " .�,,,�
, 1! T�, , I •
L , ,� . . Q� ''I, ... � .�V, ...."...T , ... " �,4� r�
.11 �l% lii.�1.111 . 11 ".11., , "j' ,�- , , ." ,� 11 . .�".4��:
, - I ��j,-�. ., I '. I - 'I .. �'-,�
. l,-kh'- � L.- 1) �.",,F '64-1� , . .. . .11 A I , ..
, , 4 , 4 , 4
. ', kl I � . roll, - . , , -.11 , �4'$:�W., d, �
1�. I t . ... � ". V ,,, . .. N . , . 1! , . .., , q . 'I'll'. � I - " . ,".
. . . - � - 'It III - " . ", "I i 4!1�,;'. . :v , I �1. ,��:'�-,-� �� . � - "' , , - - � ..
, '&�,�"�-,'-� , ,�? .. 1z .� I I t.' �. , � � 11
�
, "'" t 1, , , 3�; "t , - :% , . , ..., I "-I � ",�, , � 111. � - -� .
.." rike . , C1 M " 1. N I , -�, I, I , -- 1. I , 1. . . ,14A -11. rl� �1, � .�i' 11, !, , �Q,�!,� :1, � ,� '. , . � , I " ", 1, '�,�. ,
., - ., . - I -. .1 . . � . . . .
.. �
tc�.W , 1 U � �. '. �; y,� . r � . x-: I I . . i 11V11
'm - i. ., ,7 I I . , .1 . . .
, IQ ,-r,o1--- .. .. -, I ,L ::",": I .�. .
rs, e� ,!, f Z 1 'm , , 'i `, .- , li i
ZW:,Zv4-k" ,,,, " - 7 . . " . " �, .11
. I I;; 101�;, - �
,;. . �:.., ,, . .. I , " ,A;j . . -;1, I L'. . �. I . , -, , -, , - ,�'.
e'� I .
m I , ,��. '1­.,��L " ,1443%4��!� , ", ,:"�I�,l,� - ' ' r' " '� ';'�� I" �t � I L I '. �, I , , . .. , . . !,
- - . . 1. , I ., , , .. , 1., 'A , :,�'-'
, ,
- ,1� It, � ". ,,,��`, r,�,,
-
I ) , A'.., ,,�ZZ-4,,4,,A, . , ­ , , -�j, ,,:L_�4 L I . � '%.,�, I I I - , I , � 41, -10 ... !A �1�i :� ... ..�
A � �� _ - --��-,,- 1, I . ,�l 11K �
*�Ijl I e .,-,,. - " , - - � �� -; - � � ! !- �, I .1 --1 �1,11'11' .I,. - j ."i�L 'I �l , -
.- �? I., . I - ", , � �� - 'L, .1 , , .- ��;:, ,-�-,'�"� 11 - "
.. �,lj.i�,.�s�,��4'!.����7', , .-. ,�' � I . ,,;,. I . 1, �i .�, �
I I ' . I . ... TI-32 ,;�.-t, " . IV. , 1. ). . .1 r"N,"
��j' - - � AXt$U - .,-,-�': .�.- Fii� . � f". V. ,." . . , . �
. � L , I , ,�- . 11 . , I � . . . I , .
- "i .. . � I 1. . Ink. . I . - ­ .. � , .
'. 10,4,1 . /I �"' � 7� ,� w., �� � I . ,-:,� - & -
. '-, , �.`,l7j",, - �;, - . . . I IL�l 'I. ,
7 'j --.-,�- , .., . . . . I . . 0 � � .,.- - --
"' , , - '� 0 I P.1% �� "I � - I 4 I
, , . , .
_, 11 � 7 - - ,�, ... "I
: - : �(,!, I � 1 1, , �� � A�. ., ia'.�v, -- "'i", . . "l -4','.;' � ;,' � . L�; , i .A... ,,, 1";R ,�, ,."� V- ,
, - 'i I I ,.�, .. .. " L " 17 , ,! 4 I . , . .,,. , , �, ".' � 11 I I I I , � '.
. - l � rR 110,1� . 11 I rl, ,,�J,,,�,r. I . l, !". . 1, V . - ..'. 'I I ,�', .1. I I . .... 4 ., , . , I �
.1, . .1 1 14 1 . ,, . , . �. :. I , , ,� �4'.',;,,1 � 'O.
. I - , M, . '� 11 1� - - 54,
1 4,1.V'1�4b ai"q -�&, , ,- ,- 1'-W,`� J: �W;,,� . ." 1: . . ., � , i�
I - 'L . . . . . I .1 , �\ "I I I . - , -
. I I "Ili _�� ,,. ", ' "'�­ �'. ­ .,_ I .� . l �, I I I � . 0. T -, .*" ,*- (�,, I I , .: I [ '. - I,+1. , . , . . . , . - 'I,
.. � � vq.." � - N,,�A` - " , , . . - 11.1 I 1; . . - -
I � - .. ,i- " , - - -- , . �, " � , I,-,- - . . .1 R, M. boa. . I "� -
- , O ; � 13 M- . . lzl!�I�t; - � fl,
1,11� -) 1.0 , , ..;I� , l, I I 5-11 :.
I : �. . � � � , - -�""r , '1� - �, - . . - . I "I, . �'. . . I .
'I . ") , ,�'.f'N o qj� t���%L' 1, ��, J� ,).4,1. � 1 - , , I i:".,�, b ., J, ,,��, l.� : , .,,-�� - 1, .1, ..•� '.1 ., -,�,-.-O" T, . . - . 1, I
, - �el � '� , I li�, , " , 7 . �, I !,., r O . . , � ., � ; � ",J'A'.1 1� I . �
� -, T-, T,% ­ I,Zi,e: �,�� '� �7 -�. 1��sl ,��. I �'( �. I . -.:, . I I I 0 1� ",•.. I 1. I ,�� � . . , '. I , � � , ,*, . , " . .r 1�' I "'o V. I I .
. .1 , '. , I , � , , , -��
I ", I , f. . � , � .K., I" .. � 7 T -, . . , . I .1 . .11 , ,,, .�.. I I am . 1� : � , ,0' I : i �--g, � , , ,
� I . I I -1 I .•1 ;. ,
I . , I 1. . I I - ; '. . 1, , I , �, I .1 . .4. . . 1� . . - '.. 11,-T, , 11\ a " . I . r-, , ", "41!, 1�
' .�, � . , , I ,!,
- Nt . �. . . . . . ,
. , 42� ".�,'.. , . I I . �� . i;7!,�-,, � 1, -�'. ;
. . :w! .1 I I ,� 11, I . 0� ,r � � -�
1. , , ! . I . �'�:, "'j�%`,I.- � 4, .... - , ,
. " , I .
I " !�,: S. ,� . , , . , .. . I
, � . I a I, . '.
" 1, - . - 0, "' L . , . ':
� . Z.F�1�� , � , j '. "i , ..
.•
. ". - - � . i .1 ��
,
m 1, N i, 11 I -,. . . . I i�
. .. . .li�t ,,).k �'l Oq.'T�,.- - . . , . . . .. . , � - � .
, - - I
, . . �
I .", , .. . . I . I ; .. 1, 1, . I . , .
V . :0,�.? k . , -, .�." I i I , I :-, ? , i, 1, '. I . ,11 � . , , � .
,11-e I . �, 1'� 1. 0 . , 11
. pl� .�,,, - 4ij�� f "o, �"- I - � , , " , mwRbk.-1-),Jp'1
. ., , I 111 " 4 �, �,I,�, �,�i;'
.
�,j . ' '�I, ' ,.�)4 1 , `� i, , - �11 .4 1 , .� ll, j I . .. I 1� "r All �, 'I � ".1 , - . 'V " lk, - I 6 " ,
. i . . I ...1.4 , r - � "I .� . ., .
. !W. . . 10 , , � .
I, , lf� . , i�iy�� � 0;1 , ; ,: ,", � i L�11� , " " I I .. . YI, 1.6 I I . " '.
, , IV 1 14 '. I . 0 ; I . ... . ,,�11 "I III •
Al �
h', - � " e ,-. -. . ,� .
: ,
� J� ': v -t- . : " � If , � - 111:��,`�'
.. ..It, ,L ��"�-',- I � el. , �111� I � I � I f l. . , I., o 4�,1,1, 11 1�: I �j 1 ,I �: -�11 -...' , . I ,,,�,,�,, . ,
I 0,,.�'A A7411 .. . "I . ,, . . /111 - - I I I 11 �-. ... Ili I - 0. - &
- I . . .•
.
.
I . I , . . I L . I... t . I , , , . I . -, '.. .
I Ir , I " . , 4� ,� �., � , . ; .
,W�.-,.,,Pj-'�I'� J�14 � .. �4, W., ­,,� . I . . , . . � " , K, ,��" �:., I � I .1 ' , L
,�, ; 11 "L , , , i I , c'�.; . J'-,�::� . , Y !,',,, . � . 1. RA. G 1;!"5� ;
� 7� ""'. ' A.` `,- -0 � -,�O -�
X': �:# i . . .. �
I I �11 L
"'? ,;11, - 1�, , I, �.. , . I , , .
.- . . , , L . 1, ,
I .... ­,.� I " . , I ; - 'I 0 —, , V. . .�,,,i - I 11. . .. �� , : ,."!` ,,�,` or, " , �
, I ..., 1!!'! - .
,� ,
...... III! .
'-,:1 J, .. .,� 1;. , I .,� .. . ... �,,-- , I � �il- �, :. �� . .0 I 11 I . ,,j�. �j . '. � . , , . -�� .. . -.-, WIT; lm, , ,,1-,� .wC In 'ej-�-- ,4 1 " . I . I . .� . .. .1 ! � 4, I ..� j M.. I I , - 111, ­ 1, .1, I "I" "'-f , It. I" �' , I ".. . I . , . . L,111 . 1. . . I I , .
I I "I �, 11 , , - I 0. �, ,�� j � I . . .
.!,: ,:"�,
L� - j , , 1. �, .
: ... , 4 I , .. I . . � 1, I . , ,�,O� .1
, 1�1'Y�og-j�� ,-5,wij-1 .,,. A ,W�,-'-:-p -, . . . ��.��r . I - . ., ., ;I , 1:, I � . . .. , .
.1 I I , � .. " L ' I O I I � "I , ,,,, - , 4 .. , , .., .
VlIT-M Y, . . ,
, V, ,� -4, , �
- I I!i � * : � "I , ,,:N, "..;�.�,�;.!,[� j , - , I . . .., .� ,�'-, �� , . , � !?� , , I I . , �, .,�, • . . l ' ` . ; -
�7,1�.T �,,7., . ,,, , . i, ��',� � " ,- 1.- P %, I I .. N'. I I " " . � . , ,� �, p \ . - , . , ,
I � � ,'.. "I �-;�T.`�:-� ,,,�� ,� �� .1 I
.., , 11 .., ; X � 1, .". �, r�l , , . �.7 ', •.�",,.. 1 ,.!, , " ,,, � - R 11
" " . . ,m- I "I . , 11 I . I., � , " ,�',!� I �. 4. 1�
.1 �, ,.�.'.� "r �!', �'L " "', I L :@ 11
'I."' FIR� L, Vj.� , , 11 �q& . I 1, IL I,, I , v- r ,,, , . . . - r . �, : ? . , . � , 11 �, . .,
. " . -Mi �R ,,. " I � � ,,, . 1, .,.e . 11 - , � � 1. 11 � �-;�, aI,,,-.- - �' - ""', , I , �� U�� i - , , -% �`t e,,
"" I ,I , "k, - I ��l , , 1, )� ;i l, el "' � � . I . . ' I' � .;,;.:�'e�,It ,.N i .
I- '� I F" . ,f , :� ". � 14,JV , � P'"I , - -� I " t
rlll;.�111 .1, R f� . , ... , .� J, 11 111�,'L ­ '.,.
� . I V�,� , , .1 . I , . I , I , , . .. � L 11
, . .11. "M 'm '-�4' ��v')�',� , -4 � " , I . - :t-'...-L"�1 , , ." j ,;L�, : 'r-i � -,I- 2: .I-% - .. , -• I- 4..�4
�� ;, � ,.� . '. .- , , , , �', . i: jl��,t��.� , , , " . �, -, , ..
. . �! , I " . . , �, . �,11 -J.j, . " '. - , - .- . , , " - , ��,:- � " ,� . . . I --,�--,, -w- � -7
,�-, , ; '. �,�' 7�i'A m,, Ak - rv, , ...," - - jq -:O;'�� � . ?. , -- � - - ,
,� ,
, , �. ,,, ,,,�;�-, ! . A... , �'��P ,�,;:: .•
1, � 1 "4 . I
"O , Ov 4i�ll I:- IRk "', . . , I '1,11* "I '.).- , b-11
- ..,: , ,. "m ;, ,w U .."I"ll".1. ..". F. ,'�,
,V- �,4,, - , �- , . .. . R. %1,.j �� 1, '', -, I, l .r I 7 -T I �.',,� �*" �... �. j
I � I , OIN i� , �' li I �, 1, . . . .
I , - 11
.1 Z�l� ", . , � -` , � ? �[ 1j�Wj',`�,- , .. I ., F - 1,11-1 k i I . .
. , . R
,,:,.. ). �
, ,
N - ,�, " . "I k � I . F � -.,, ,�� ; .� � I
I " � - ,-
I
g " - ,
I , '. '.. �-,I,' : .0 �t �� � - - ., � .
I .11 1, . �1�1;'4 � i i t, P., �.: , . . ..
io-�'
, � . ��, ""!,� '.� . , � I . I
11
, � ... �1; . .. l, . I I . i I , : I , . , � 4.� : I , 11 . I I . , Z117"'.14 .4 ,.Z. , .1 I ., q .,-!t .
'? v-'-7me I 1,A , "Y-Y. - I I I . I , � . , '. : , �,, , � " , , . �.�! ,
I
'? i . : ov - I :, P � ,0 ,C, --F. 'O", ,.�, 7� 11 - . - .1 � I . ' I
I . U . "r, �-, . I 11 � �4 t 1. ... '. . "j"-­" ' ,' ..%" � , ,
...�� I . .; I
" . � - I . h"11, -, . I,, �j �. . I
, '. � 1, 'P� ]� I.. , ­!, I �, � I -
, � I � , . I . . �. I .1 . t ­��,.,-, "',
... � - , �I!, 'l;I., t`,'��.��, , , - , . . ry ,`n�,jii -,-i 1�,,�.,'��,,,!�"!-�,� I, i I- -,�� � , , I ,1� �jj-,, ! "� , %�S,��. t �
�,� w F�11� �-i�A l�.�.:i ,,.,,.i:, -��',l , 'L ) I - - i . -,�,�.'- r. . � .. I . 1. ': ...... I �� . �.. . " "r�
"; ��, � . - "W, , ,1r, � ... - ,14 ti" lc�;` -. � . . -.,�,5 ". ,
,:. TL ,.�?11. . 1 , . ,� ,1 ... .. , " I "
) 1, -1. 11 i.11.1.I.. I . � , -'F'h�i �P.1� ", - .. t � , i , 11 'WOi ..
. . I , ,:: ell L , . �.,,jy� �,,, ,4,�j�lj. 0,'�,C,�%��,��il,�% . 4" , .
�q .
'11 , . , , r, . . . . - 11, -11 ,�,
"I
. ! Iml!" . , � , ,� 1:� 1; � " 11'11�,,.., ,'.,; I . ,.,. , e,�'r-'
il� 11m, � I .. 4�k . , M 0 4 . ,,�'.. I .., . 1, . .
, LA� ""I, . ... I , 1� .1 " Y.1- , I 1. 1, I t�` , ,, 11 , I . ��
, I - . . � . , . -
. . ... , � . � . � �, .�.1 I m ; - ... (. .�! -, t. if L, " �t .41 ` I I , � . . �
.1 � , I �� � I I . 1. jel;--� . ? .
-
; i 11��itr � � " ,'. I ". I I. -11�-i, - , � - , , 't I ,
: . - �- �,, it , I � . � W, , , .) -r. , IN . I .�I . ... . . ,���,,O., , �' � 1� I I
� '. . . . i� �. � ;. 4,11 . � , .1 Tt , '. & , '. . - sl�. .11 q i .P
.,,%�'L , " 14 . 1� -,,,., " , . . ".11.
. 1, , i, � V,E'4"[� � N, -
'� . �� � T-"� � ., ��i 5I 1�., , U .-�W , ' - "'. L,'� �-',l�j�'fl,-e.
'. , '�;-' . - ,-5,tt �; � " . ��
. , :" � � 14� - . . , - - I
�",". ! v. fl , . . t I
. . . . , ,� , . ,�,..�- , ,
I I . , : . � - - ­ - ---� - -- .' -- � ---'--L. - --'-- , �J, UU,4 . :,; . I 'i ;,% , �
. . � I I '11�;! .11 .1 .,4 �. ,.�, . �
i . , �'.. - . I I TIP,q� T, .11 I . L �.' . a �� 'i,
� 18 � �,;�N-, � ,'ii "I �C� � 11, � , I , 1
� , , ,i, 1, �:'* ; �.:!
, 1 "w �, � . TV , V - .
. ,I . .. � . � - - - . I 9i.L. IV, �j ., .1. v 'J�Tj� � � -t �,,314.�! , 4
1 M� . � T6� ,11 :rg'
. " �;�hi- " , , ,� Ti", 1 � ,�� , ,- . .
I . , Nil I . ,�.',-,, ,,r, ,.,A,
.. � , . 9 � � �,�l � )I I i I -1 . - I I .. - 1� - k, . ..� A . , �, "; �' " rj
I . . '. � . I . I . I I � I .." " I , ., , �i.:i,,, . i �: . I
. . '! , � . . l' � v , �, , , .. " ,I i. . , � �� I., . . . 1.
.
. . 1. � l, , r' '., I !. l,,�',,').' . �, � .,.' . -n-, � , . , .
" � A, '
� I i - -, I , . - �,, 4 ) " - � 'I.L... " f�;, 1-1-1, 14, .1
. I I , . �k 'I. � .1 , �
, I I ) ,brr,, ,,,q�._ i�)� ."� ,-�.,;, `:'�:L,..��.T. 1-11 I "I VP I� 11 �� . ....T.�Fq.
I I . . , jI 1p, N, , . 11F , ,��. .1 , 1 "
. , , � ,, r - - "' .1 - , ,!:, ., I i: .1 ,
. . I I., 1V I',, �,�,4� 1", ; � 1, �jq:j I ..
-
I . - , : ,�-,,,.. - " , �,,,"�,, (� .47�1 L' , '. . .. � , 1 . , , , � ,
, X'; � , :, �': , ,� �1� ' ' -r �? " 11 .1 'P,,I 1, .!" !" �W-,j;� :il T�; �e! ": �
. J , ,1I . 1� '! 4 � . '. " I - .41 � e Tli. , . , , i � , . ,
. : . , -,, ­ , , , I'll, ,� , 3 1 � , ,?.I, I . .� r
� . 1, ,Z, .i 1 4 d � . � I . � . J . , .1
. , r - ., 'I'I" A�j. � " '... �
i . I .1� . .1. t
" . I , , . '. . .�i
. .."4 , � , " - I ., . . 1, t�,;-,
-� e., '. 4, � , '� , ;, -j. �
, . I � - , , ,., , .
I , I I . . . . . I I . �, �. X f , 1� I ... , 0� I � ", I I I ;
I I I r ' ' " ' - , " - . 1` - - ,U; " A , I . I .,� � � - -
. , . .1 I . I 11 - F - . .
, �.;r,,T, .. .. I W .1'.. . �,d.T,� I . - I " ,l' ,,'l1,.,, , , .r. , . "
. " Z � ��), � , , . �V-11 ,, , ,I, . . 4�1
1;'i, OF'r- " ,' - ,",, ,.,
: '� "' I -�,!,'11, AT- � ., .,,..., ,- � L 1. :��,?i �,�I!, 1, !, I �fli�,vf- � I .� .
, , , . . � ; '. '! , , � . 1. �- , �� ,J�4,'--, �1,3 ... ','-� , 1.1 . ; .
� � ,,. , " 4 . lf�, ,4 r ,,- I ,-'�,' " �,,-,�,-. . ,
.
. ,,� '. , ,,� 0�11�� 1�' - � � , - I . , 11
, , :u- - - 4 , , ., " 1"; '.�, "Ji I , , !
. I : I �, f, � , " �, . I - - I ;1 . I .. ,�, � ,; , 1. �1' f '. I . , � , , , '. " �1, , . .. , , , 1% , . 1. t, ,.K, ,.. � , , . :, : � �. ;J� �1! F� ,(I L' ' 1 I , ,
q - . , T �. - , -, V.. , , . .. ,.
I , . , I .. " , 'r , , . " . . , , ) 1 , - (� ,., "'jj,"�,,� L.'" .if , . . I I
.1 . ,; A, f -j I , ,
. V, . . , " , 4 , .. . - . i . , T l, .. ,� � -, 1� I'. I , y , .� � . .' - .. - �� r� "�,,' . "
, ' .. ' , .- ?, . - �� .. , '4" 1 ,� " ,� �.. . � � � -, ,'-�-,',' �.1'11.-, - -
, , , - - " i , I j "" -' , 1 � . I . . i
!: - , .��, . ,., i IL, `-�7t,.'I�-, , , --""�- ,',��', " . I . I , . . ".. I , I . 1, ,,-.6 . -L - �
!� I tj " " ��ie- - '. �. h . , .. .�, , ", � , .7,
. , , � , 11-t-y: ,,, � r " ,, � 0, i�l .: r , :' , "' 'r. ,j .. .. .. P,( J': , q; 'I J" , " �11,1. ,i , �,. �i - '
F
r I , - . . �, . � .4 , -
I i. '."', � . I v", '10� " 11 , , " , , ., .� , , , P , - I , . -� ', , , , ,��,N,,.��
..". , ,.. I '�, - , , �, . � .,
.1 , , ,j . � ,,I � " .. �1� lfl�lq I 1, I .1
, � I , Q�: Pr, 1:,1.?TA,-', , � 1-4,, ' I
-: �g I 17 " , I , " ', , - I I � . I , � 1�-�
AN . 1� liT, I 11 V,�, , � ... �. ., '. ,,- �� , - Q ll� .1, .6. I � . I . . I .
I � - - - ,,, 1 'j. , ,�'. - 11 , )-. � , 11
, . . . -, ,.1 , " , I I - � �V'! ' 1"A';.�'-l'1'-l'�, J�', j " .. . I
� , M " , . . . � .. lj� .. .. I . �
,- -1 : � . :.. , , i " . . , ", � , ,�, - .. � � V .. 11 -7 � ; . " �j I , 'rV
.11 Exhibit 3 � "' " I 11!�?., if I � � I �11,� --� i, w,`-,�A' ,;& �
.., 6�,
, - - I ,� , "I `,.:. "., �, 11�� , �I - � '( . ,�.,- .. , I. ,
. . � . . I � � I ,�,, '.. I , . �,J�� J(.;.,�, . . � �, . .
I A I . I I .. ,.� I I I , ,
� .4, .., ,�-, 11 I .1,1�, i - 1. , ��', '. ,. .� I' q,fi�ir�,��i!`!41 11. .,,I , "!,r. I k M.
'•
- ,� -,: - ,�, , � , ,� I .1 :,!'. . . ,
- , . . I ,,-,-:,!. I I .­ i�..'� �, ', , ,�, 1.4� .1, Aerial Photograph of the Buttke�Dairy . " 4 I - - - --.- - --7- —1t, , - . � I , - Ile. . . , .- . - . I -,
.. . cwplex as of Marc L � ._, ,� 1. 11 " I'll. . '. A�-- A-1 . . .. . . . .1 I .: ",-
- .1. 1. I 1( , ,.�-T I "I - . � 'If,� �
I ... 1. ,h. 1.998. '... ,,. i .. ll� - ,� � !.,,�N�---'-.�,." .i . � . 1.
11 .. � " " I . . I . '�.-.,
.�, ,i� , :, ,��, " 11 �, .;��. .. . I . I - .. 6 L'
, � L I 1��`�j�%,�-�Ik, �"",;Y,��.!,�,i.��qt,� .11 .-[..." � . .7,-.
.1 , . . . - ,,�,�:, -i.�.�,;"4�,,�j�:�i,�'.',��,'�,).,il�,��I ,,, .. , �J, I . !�.,Ark�"il"' , , 1,.r.,j . J, .01
� . . -1 -�f�,o � ',� �, ,..!.!�,111 '. . i � k", I .. .., "
e, � . , , , .� , .,,., ,,.. 4.1,1,�,; � . 41
1 Scal is 1 " = 406' .. I I " � I , .1, I _. " ,,',,-,, ` " 6`� �.��ik��,�iZ�':'.�,�'��.�l��,��,, -,., . , 1;
. � � , " �," L "' ,
,��r�i�-l� , , P"4".t ,i " , '. , .1 .1 . ... - _.,r . I I',.- -,." fi, �,
i'ik ..
. ,..-- - , - , ,
. . . �,, i�. , 1.w ,�- 7 N , ,,,
!,� , ­: .1
. � I , �* , , ,
�� � , .S .. -, -v , 7., - A' . .V�. .�
. " ,�` �.,.. W -�� , ll'., 'I- - r.�, �i ;
� , : . 1, -;-! ! ,-, ;,l c 'i � ,.� . I ;".!,
I.. . �111 �:;;, 1. . I I , , . , � �.�, VD!4 . I ., , -
I 1, q. . I . I �','�,,�!.,�.,,�
pf�: . , i I - 1, Y. I 11 " f 'I I � L�1�4 . 5 � ; , � I� ,
I I' � , III, , � I " � -.,.) . , � ,
- - ,� .. . � . . . "
, --�. , AQ , - ,.14� . ,�-)
.. .� , . I ,'P� , ,
. I ' . I- ., , . N!X I J. , m;., .1� '. - . , I
�, I , -: I
i I I -- , ' , . , ,
" I 'l 7 1 - .1 . ,
I IRIV ,%,.r,r, .1 I ". . I � . 1/­1 I . 1, ,�,, 1, - -. ". �I - : ,,I ��::�Slj,o""L't,�!,, 'l, , . . , ': ��-' . ,,,,�,- 'r , ,,, . I,- � �, �, ,�IiP` I
w, ., �� 0 I , L 1, .... . i �� .. '��l - V " ",:,�
I - - � , ", I , '. I -.1 . Ir . ,� . v � .,.� I . . " . - , � , , I � " ., , ,
"' , , , .. , � � "', � , : �. 41 , 1 �
, " .111 , I . , , . '. . I . . I .
'. " �d
. �' .
,"",� 1.�.., :,� I IV, , . '. . .
I., , I . I . '. . . . . 1. 1. . � - .. , , . ". . . ,•+ , .
, ,
, . . � .1 I , � ". � ,-, .�,.' .,� - ,,,, �. . , k ' I "
- ; - �� , ,�f , . , . .
I '. 71, I . . 1 . I I . . � , . ..... . I I � � � �,* --,
I , i .� .I A ,". ., ,-. . %,,
I . 1. I , I I , . l � , ,-S!"k, . j , � ,�:,!�J,,",� I , � . . ,4 t.. ,.,� i�,;; 1, , i
..,J . �� ,
�=
, , I I I 0,
I - - L
. ,
'!�,
. 1�
� y
` i, 4 ,
� �� �'f ele;,
k , ,
,�,;.,-��,-�-: �o �
.V . � ; " .
I
� A.
.
I �
..�
/I
%�:f 41 , ` " " i� I �
, -, " "'
,
,
" I r,;, ,", 1,4 � �%, �S
" " , 11��,,� ,., .., 'd �,,�: .. -
, ,_ �
m , , .f
.� I
N-� , , , &
. J� , ,�
, . m
i I
� F
I t, . . 1 , . � I
� I, , . - L- . .. ­­ , " . i !::v�. L I I ,r . .N,,�;I'� � '. . " . , , I I
. � ' . I V �� I . 1
4 - ' " - L 11 ' ,I-',,.- , ,i�6,*, ,�, I . . I , I , � .. . I A , . . .
`.�_ ��,_ - V:&' - , -�C 'V, I � ,11i,-:., � . ,�. " . " . . .. . I . I.,
, I - I E..
51-�`rt
I + — . � I - , ,
. f,O -4ift�4 -74, j - �.- 414�, % ", . ,. j 11 Aj, � � did . � % I ,14� .:�, ��5 . .
,;y', ':,-�r,,; , `�;�I,� ;-o.,,,'. ,. ' ,'�f �, ., .... I.I.
, �! ` . k, ', ,". ;, j' I,,.,Lld, �,�.�'., . I ." , �,,I ..�,��, . .1 '. ...'.,. 2 w".,� ���,� �,:.!,�,,1? , I11�, � .�II .I..'71- '-, -,,,, -,�L�.-:- " -1 Q I . ,�K . �., 44�?- ..,�. ,�! � . l.1� - �, !� 41 .", `,p ,
", A, 1. ..."".�r ,I A" ,V�� , -�Iii , . . I � 11'-,� j� . , � . - - � �t�� , ,�P ,
, �. . . . .�;r. -, m " 6, n4-. - 1, � 14,- -rN� ,.,,�.�,,., �� I . . -, , , I . ,I " , . , . :� � "St , "�L , . , . . ,JJjv� . " . 1 �4 � , ,,
,�)'.. �! �.,!� , , 1, 4":P/ -1,[�,�,�J,.,Ye �.,i '� .,I,O -1 . I I I 111A4
,
. . . ,
, AL , � 4��,- Ar'Z-7"7P5� 10 P , . " , ,
m - IN r
. , . I - � .'.�, . . 1- -, -
11, I �t .� ,� ""k " VN,i,�l ,� -,� �- .e..
. . I
. . I. .." �Av't' ... :; � . � . . .11, l��'.
e�;j- q � 4::� � I.- .101U., ,:"P,L .1 C'J� , , '. , . , ". � I m " "
.
, t . . d � ... . 11� N � I �,, 11 1.� i` . I . , r ,� 1,t,�: 11�.�,' I
si
-: 1� V11 .. I... . , . . . ,--14 I --, I i I � �'%. "';% , . f I '.
" . r .. .. :1 , , . . .. � - 1. " ... r I
f, I . f." , '. , . ? . . !
I'll, I X - I ��',A, x�, o 1 ", , � � " '. . , . . .11:1 � . P � � , , , � 1, � . . 11 � � �. � -
. . . , , � I %
' ' -`�5ga.�k ­ .. - . O , L . '. ,,4 �,
�� � , ., �1 . I , " . i � 'N. �� � . I , . .. �. J, , �,, "
..
,;'t'4" , I ,, - "i ,Wk � I, . , � ,� � � :'., . A' , -- - - - a .. . � � - ��
V 1.�� - . , 4". . . . 'i
A .47, �.� � � . r .-', , r , .. '. , - - - . .- . . 1. . ".
. . . . . . . -

so aT FEET 75 100 ° 575 100
FEEEXHIBIT 4 NOTES
-•
DLD Pff STATION SCALE IS AIMIMAN0 I INCH • 60 FEET SCALE IS NW01I1MATELY I INCH . 60 FEET
[1l This drawing is to serve as en illustration of 4-we animal waste stoN,ege pond
and dike breaching details for the lower pond et Buttke Dairy in Randolph County.
``� `, ♦,`.� ` �, , TRAPEmIDAL NIITUI IN w° DIKE. This impoundment is awned by Mr. Arlin Buttke. The contour lines shown in Figure 1 were
�,`� ` \ ` SEE RETAIL A. takers from on -site measurements collected by Environmental Engineering Services
♦ I \ Q Q I \`♦`. �\\� `NN �N on 7-20-05. Certain items shown in this illustration ere symbolic and look slightly
I , , N \ \ N . . _ / / , ♦ \ , N ♦ ♦ ♦ N . different from the actual pond features.
I / \ ♦ ♦ ` _ - / - - - - - 1 I ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ROCK DAM FOR SEDIFE"1 AND EROSION CDNTM
1 / �/ \ ♦ , \ \ , ♦ ` ` ♦ ; EAST SIDE DIRE. CONSIDERED PRIHART DIKE. BACK SLOPE - -_- ` / / ' / / [21 This draw property
r' ♦ \ ` , • \ ` ♦ OF THIS DIKE IS APPROXIMATE IN SHADE. ,/ �� , 1 1 / / / / / ---- SEE DETAIL $. lag is e sketch one ar-Tci should not be used forline
♦` ` ♦ \6 o ` - // �/ /i / // - ` verifications. deed record 1 1 boundary activities, or similarpurposes.
q -__ ♦ --r ! / \ . - // /, / - - sags, ego y
6r \ �•0_ 6��,�Poo
p0�\\ �`� Ij i ,o O \ ._r - // / //// / / - Surrounds prc�ert and structures are not shown. Power lines and/or utilities
♦ . \ . y_-_ / r . are not shown. he north arrow is approximate.
j I I ! I ♦ ` - ` ♦ ♦, ♦ \; ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ I 1 / / I -- /�/O / �♦ \ OUTER THAN iN, SLOPE BOTTOM O PPEERCENT KEEP DCHAMe a ills �r
! ► / // �__ �' �_� ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ \ I I I �""-'���"' �' ♦ DF CHANNEL LEVEL FROM SIDE TO SIDE.
I // 8� _ -- _-..-. . `N `.. �. ♦ N . \�,`p\ ICI I I r �-..� ---- t , �� \ 131 Due to thick vegetation, the bock side of the dike was difficult to measure and
< <o/' --'-` -- -��♦`� '� ` `` \\ , ♦ ,� `�� \ I I 1 L, f' Y ��� ♦\ \� 0`� should be considered on approximate r resenta#.ian.
!NORTH SIX DIKE. CAN BE LEFT I I 1 � _ _ `" �Q.Q`---__----- ♦ \ ♦ ♦ `� ♦♦ `� N N � ♦`�� � ♦ I �I I \ \ \ \ ,/ �� `♦ \� �\ ` i � ♦ Pp eP
IN PLACE OR PUSHED INTO THE POND 1 SDI 1 I ! 1 11 1 _- ��----y---_~-`� �,� `` `, ` ♦ , ♦ ` ♦ ` ♦ I ! I I I 1 \ � /,
I°Q 1 11 B•0'-� /'� -`�_-- '~\`��� �♦ ��� �� ` `` ♦ ♦ 11) I y 1 1 !I I I ♦\ ♦, `) 1 '' ` \ ♦ [41 All physical features represented on this mop ere in their relative locations.
T6.D- / --- \ 8 , ♦\ ♦\ \ ♦ ♦ ♦ ` , �I I I I I I I I ♦ , 0, ,//// ♦♦ ♦`
�� ♦ \ \♦ , �O, ♦ ♦, ♦♦ ♦ \ \ ♦ \ ♦ 1 I I I I I 1 I �,y \ // / \♦ .
I r [ I I �--- -,� ♦ \ ♦� ♦\ N. \♦` , ♦ ♦ , ♦ . �1 1 1 I 1 r 1 1 ♦ ///,�, ♦♦\� y I I I 1 I 1 r , ` ` ,4 ♦ . . . ♦ . \ . 1 . . , / . [5� The elevations Shawn b contours were ref er-enced L o n Gammon neerb ak.urn or
I 11V1 / ! % ♦, ♦♦ ♦\ ♦♦♦\,♦♦\\ Ills I r I l j ♦ /, / \
I 1 r 1 I i ► ! ! 0 .. \,�p0♦ \ ..��.` ... - I sal r I I 1 o /,,'/:. ; - bench mark chosen by the engineer for this data collection event. The a ovations
`\ `♦`, N `.` ` �, ` `� `♦ ,, ti I I I I too 0• / O' '/ • - shown are not referenced to sea level or an such standard USGS datum or
! m1 ` 1 I 1 ! y ly ; ! _ _-
♦ ♦ � \\♦\♦♦N ♦ � ♦, ♦ ♦,`♦\ \ � I I m 1 ` 4 I 1 I 1 PLACE CUT FRDII DIKE INSIDE PDF� AS FILL f� ♦ / /��i i� i ; �=� y
-- ?� O ♦, ♦\\`N `♦`♦ \, \ , \♦ ` -- I I // / / / // / -� - benchmark.
I t ' I I 1 l I ± 1 r ; \ ��� ♦` \ \\ \`\♦�� `9 \�`\ = r 1 I 1 1 i 1 ' • �// / / -- -
1 ��___ A6' 4 \`\•`„O� �.�� i I i 1 1 i I 1 \,\ r 1 r v 4_ [61 The reader should refer to the engineer's written report to obtain details not
♦♦� \ T IIi II I I �11
! I I I I 1 I 1 ' + `' \ �'�\ `\,,\, , ♦ ♦ ( I I /� ! 1 1 ! shown on this drawing.
�\ c==> $LOPE SOIL FILL IN PW AT AM I PERCFIVT � //� �/�! 1 I --
1 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1!
I 1 I I ! y 1 1 ! y 1 /,'00i / lolt I I -- \ \ y I 1 r % y /' `gyp'/ •//' [7} The dike breech details shown on this drowiMg is one reasonable possibility. However
--- / �// ///.�� / �/ / \III I I r- /•/ // /' // 01 the owner may wish to push soil from both the northern and eastern dike into the empty
\ I I y +4.0-_--y % :�/r// i- // .' III +.----=`- /, /,/� Z,. // nd In addition the owner is allowed to reshape the entire pond area to best fit
1 _ _ __-_- _ .....�.'�. iA 1 ► -w g_ _-____ -+_p -'.... • .' ie future needs. However, slopes should be mode as gradual as possible to aid in
•/ / 1� �- `+` ~- +v+'` �-- If// / ' / '
/i ,/ •� 1 ---- --- - _--=��`_���-_-`�. 10, sail Stabilization.
-1 I�r---f-~ - _-`�,=�-,_� -�r� ��-' /' /' /' •' /'' `--' /'ram-�-' -"- - `' --��-�+--- •' ' -�/ �' g�' // /-- [81 Stormwater from surrounding areas shall is routed around this pond via grass
93' ' ice/ i/ •O§0' /' /��_ \`// // Oaf--.--w- �%.` �`+ +--- +\ / f I>t �/ 1/ /' waterways. ditches, pipe culverts. etC.
///aO�__.._«.._.`_ 0.``` `'++- - 0� /f �O'II /' // I 1 1'/ `` -_ `-1 `-` \ 1llr ' /' r--/ �•
I \ \� `q�' � o �- 100 `-..` `LI Ili / /'moo [91 Any impounded water greater than 1 foot of depth shall be removed from the
. 0,` -�` ,__-�/ // /, pond prior to closure. All animal waste has been removed from the Mond. but an
-' �} II / I' '�00 1 I I INDICATES SURFACE FLOWS minor ressdual accl.miulcation of rainwater,
1 I �, `. `. p if contemir►ated wsth enxmwl waste, sh2 d
!p0
1 I I I ♦� 0,� -\� ~~� Ire! '/ �/ ► be removed and land applied prior to closure.
1 ^
[101 Because this structure is registered with Dom SeFety.permission to breech the dike
--- ! .• ,� / ,' must first be obtained From the N.C. Division of Water Quality. Once Said rmission is
............ ..:. .. II .. pe
/ ...... . obtained. the lend owner shell notify Environmental Engineering Services ef. least 48
I .' FROM r R : 1 hours in advance of the breaching.
:SIPPER VASTE STWAGE PIIND BENCH MARK IS NAIL IN BASE OF OAK TREE.
:I1PPER WASTE STMAGE PDIND
BE41CH NARit IS "AIL IN BASE ff DIAr( TREE. . ' . . . ' . . . . . . . . . ' . . ' . ' . ' . . ' ET EVAT1Dli ff BFHCFI MARK IS IDI. I FEE►. [111 The disturbed soil must be stobilized with vegetation after eorth
• . ' : ' ELEVATIEN OF KNCM NARK IS 10I.1 FEET. ..: : , . : • : • . :.: • . • :.: . • . • : ' . • : • . • . • ' moving is complete. See the written instructions for more details about
::::':::':': POND SHOWN AFTER PROPOSED DIKE BREACH the pored closure and seeding.
POND SHOWN BEFORE DIKE BREACH LOWER WASTE STORAGE POND SHOWN AFTER DIKE BREACH. FILL POND 1121 All onimel waste has been removed from this pond. so there should be little or
WITH EXCAVATED DIKE SOIL. COMPACT AND SMOOTH SOIL FOR GRASS no liquid contained at the time of the dike breech.
LOITER WASTE STORAGE POND SHOWN EMPTY. SHAPE IS A REASONABLE ESTABLISHMENT. FINAL CUT AND FILL DETAILS WILL VERY DEPENDING
APPROXIMATION BASED ON TOPOGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS. THE EARTHEN FIGURE 2 ON THE FINAL EXTENT OF OLD DIKE REMOVAL. THIS DRAWING IS [131 Total drain a acres for this structure is o roximet.el 265 ecres.
FIGURE 1 DIKE IS SHOWN HERE PRIOR TO BREACHING. CONSIDERED A MINIMUM. °g PP
Sediment and erosion control structures have been design using Pror-Lice 6.60
from the Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manuel. Storm design
was 25 year - 1 hour.
MINIMUM CUT BACK FOR SIDE SLOPE IS 4:1 ---
.i1 iii II
ail= I
COLD DIKE
t-III--
DETAIL A
TOP OF EXISTING DIKE DR HILLSIDE
TRAPEZOIDAL NOTCH OR BREACH THROUGH OLD DIKE -TYPICAL __ _
111=ill III IF
�li! l7l.b DIKE.�
it
MINIMIZE SLOPE ALONG CHANNEL BOTTOM. KEEP RUN SLOPE - -Ill.1 NTH OF CUT WILL DEPEND ON FILL INSIDE POND
10 PERCENT OR LESS. KEEP SIDE TO SIDE SLOPE LEVEL. Jil-
iTi-
I
111=ZII=III-III=III=III=ill--Ill=
FIGURE 2 SHOWS BOTTOM TO BE 90 FEET +/- NDTEi THE OLD DIKE BREACH CAN BE MORE EXTENSIVE THAN SHOWN
(MiNIMiR} BOTTOM WIDTH SMALL BE 30 FEET) HERE. THESE DETAILS ARE CONSIDERED HININIMS,
DETAIL B
TYPICAL ROCK DAM CONSTRUCTION DETAILS FOR SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL
CLEAN OUT SEDIMENT WHEN ITS
ACCUMULATED DEPTH IS ABOUT
2.5 FEET.
n
I FT. THICK • 57 VASHED STi1NE ALM
FACE OF RUCK DAM (APPROXIMATELY 5 — 5 Ft, Min
CUBIC YARDS).
1.5 Ft.
-------------� -----------------
4 -
AT A FILL DEPTH OF 3.5 FEET
THERE IS APPROXIMATELY 7.350
CUBIC FEET OF STDRA5E HERE, OR
ENOUGH FOR AM 4 DISTURBED ACRES.
nA PLACE FILTER FABRIC FULL WIDTH AND AIIMI�41_
OF ROCK DAN
CROSS-SECTION
ROCK '
15 FEET MINIMUM ---=
+- - -- E FEET MINIMUM
y y y y
y y y 4/ y
y
y y y ill MAXIM I i I MAXIMUMy
y y y y y y
.......
...........
PLACE FILTER FABRIC FILL WIDTH AND --� 4_ 5 FEET MINIMUM
LENGTH OF ROCK DAM
FRONT VIEW OF ROCK DAM (VIEW AA)
CLASS B EROSION CONTROL STONE
(APPROXIMATELY 32 CUBIC YARDS).
OUTLINE OF TEMPORARY EARTHEN DIKE
TEMPORARY EARTHEN DIKE.
STABILIZE WITH GRASS.
OWNER CAN REMOVE THIS
DIKE AFTER SITE IS
STABILIZED.
y y
y �
6.5 FEET MINIMUM
I FEET THICK •57 WASHED STONE
ON FACE OF RUCK DAM,
DIKE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: RANDO-155-LOW
DWO ANIMAL WASTE FACILITY I.D. NUMBER: 76-12
THIS OPAWM PROVEN BY:
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES
ills!ER+NISiEI�liER�S[iDGE�11�C111Ekhl' ��CNl.
PA. RX 42a ABMXK RC: 2M
PHO W - 6 0) 295--3252
EXHIBIT 4
ANIMAL WASTE STORAGE
POND CLOSURE AND DIKE
BREACHING DETAILS FOR
MR. ARLIN BUTTKE
Randolph County. N.C.
B-26-05
SCALE. -
As spFawn
DRAWN BY:
HAcln 13. Cu-sham
L.erry F. C ah t P.E.
REVISED
cadd/butt-c*/ab=%: ar+

1
1
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
Water • Wastewater • Sludge • Agricultural a Industrial • Civil
Mr. Bill Denton, P.E. October 6, 2005
c/o NCDENR - Land Quality ualit Section
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Copy sent via fax to 919- 733-28 76, original sent via USPS.
Re: Revisions to the waste storage pond earthen dike breaching specifications for Arlin Buttke (Buttke
Dairy Enterprises, Inc.) - Randolph County, N.C. Land Quality Section Dam I.D. # RANDO - 155 -
Low.
Dear Mr. Denton,,'
Please find enclosed revisions to the engineering specifications submitted on 8/26/05 related to the
' breaching of the above referenced structure. Specifically I have redesigned the position and shape of
the temporary sediment trap. I have designed the new structure so that: 1) it catches all of the run-off
from the disturbed soil areas, 2) it contains more than the prescribed amount of sediment holding
volume, and 3) it has the required surface area at full pool to afford the proper settling time. I believe
changes 1 and 3 were the items you requested I address.
' For brevity, I will list the overall components associated with the revised temporary sediment trap
design. The original written details were listed on pages 9 and 10 of my engineering package dated
8/26/05. The enclosed temporary sediment trap. details will replace those in the original package, but
the other details within that original package will remain valid. Also note that the overall design of
disturbed areas and flow volumes have not significantly.. changed from the original design. I am sending
you a revised Exhibit 4 drawing in the mail and will -fax selected portions of the drawing for your
' immediate review.
Temporary Sediment Trap
In order to control sediment transport out of the soil filled pond and through the new dike breach, the
engineer has specified a single rock dam be installed just down slope from the dike breach. Exhibit 4R
shows the revised details about this structure. Design details for construction of this temporary
' sediment trap were obtained from Practice 6.60 of the ' NCDENR publication titled " Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual". Please note that this structure is down slope from any
of the disturbed soil activities and should capture any run-off from the site. It will be up to the
' contractor to see that the new structure is wide enough to capture this run-off.
The rock dam is designed to allow flows from the disturbed areas to percolate through the rock dam
' slowly, leaving behind sediment. Larger flows would over -top the rock dam and flow over its
emergency overflow. Selected details of this dam can be seen below.
' • Sediment trap type = Temporary rock dam, Practice number 6.60.
• Area contributing to flow = 2,65 total acres (more or less).
• Area of disturbed soils (estimated) = 1.5 acres.
• Primary aggregate used to construct dam = Class B erosion control stone.
I:P.O. BOX 426, ABERDEEN, N.G. 28315 • PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
• Secondary aggregate used on dam face = Number 57 washed stone, I foot thick.
• Storm considered = 25 year - 1 hour = 2.74 in./hr. (Q 10 storms are the minimum).
• Calculated flow = 8.34 cubic feet per second (cfs) (only an estimate).
• Overflow shape on top of rock dam = Trapezoidal (even sides).
• Overflow channel side slopes = 2:1 (H: V) and 2:1 (H: V).
• Minimum overflow channel bottom width expected = 8 feet.
• Rock dam top slope = more or less flat.'
• Overflow channel depth = 1.5 feet
• Overflow channel top width = 15 feet
• Calculated water depth through overflow at this rate of flow = 0.7 feet (approximately).
• Sediment storage pool depth (design value, not total depth) = 3.5 feet.
• Total volume of sediment pool upstream from rock dam at 3.5 feet of depth is approximately
8,000 cubic feet (note: design guidelines call for 1,800 cubic feet per acre of disturbed soil or a
minimum volume in this case of 2,700 cubic feet).
• Surface area of sediment pool = 0.01 x peak flow •into basin = 0.01 x 8.34 = 0.0834 acres or
3,633 square feet. Note, actual pool surface area designed at 3.5 feet depth is approximately
3,650 square feet. This is for a Q25 flow which is greater than the minimum Q10 flow.
• Suggested clean out depth of sediment pool = when sediment is 2.5 feet deep against the rock
dam.
• Life of structure = less than 2 years.
It is my understanding these revisions will enable your office to grant Buttke Dairy Enterprises
permission to move forward with the project. FYI I will be out of the State from October 13 to
October 26. While I can answer questions during this time by telephone, I will not be able to visit the .
site during this 2 week window. I believe if we can get started with a detailed pre -construction meeting
before I have to leave, things should go smoothly while I am gone. Then I can visit the site as soon as I
get back in State. If you have any questions please feel free to call. Your help and attention in this
matter is greatly appreciated.
enclosures "'CL&S-
cc: Arlin Buttke
Max Fowler, RE
s •
2
Environmental Engineering Services

NORTH SIDE DIKE. CAN BE LIFT
IN PLACE OR PUSHED INTO THE POND
FIGURE fl
0 25 50 75 100
FEET
SCALE IS APPROXIMATELY 1 INCH . 50 FEET
ILO KJNP STATION
FRDHH�inuERY DPD
' B
/+e ' _ ~ . �a •Q " EAST SIDE DIKE. CONSIDERED PRIMARY DIKE. ACK SLOE
_ _ �/O / \\ r' �♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦ \`� ♦ OF THIS DIKE IS APPRM(IMATE IN SHAPE.
-06
01
of
71
Cz ! l \ \\♦♦�`O`�:♦
r--.-.76.D--'/ /_�_\`---~��_`�\� .�\♦ 6'`ti �� �� ♦`� ♦�
Lo
tool
I i}}I}!II I - /' ♦ 0
O`er♦ ♦♦� ♦ T
i l i .. ♦ � ♦ ♦ ♦♦ \ O r
It ,� ♦ %,% oar' ; t 1 4
-� % ////j///l
e le
(
10.11
`„�'ti� Imo..- .•. �_'�V1 ��=``� �-� / / ' �' //
0 0If
.
Ile
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW
/ 10, UPPER POND
UPPER PASTE STORAGE POND IHW NARK IS NAIL IN BASE IF OAF( TREE,
MEYATION OF BENCH NARI( IS 101.1 FEET.
POND SHOWN BEFORE DIKE BREACH
LOVER HASTE STORAGE POND SHOWN EMPTY, SHAPE IS A REASONABLE
APPROXIMATION BASED ON TOPOGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS, THE EARTHEN
DIKE IS SHOWN HERE PRIOR TO BREACHING.
DETAIL A
TOP OF EXISTING DIKE OR HILLSIDE
TRAPEZOIDAL NOTCH DR BREACH THROUGH OLD DIKE -TYPICAL CROSS SECTION F
III�III```IIIr' 171 III�III (ThrS Detal f I5 Not Drown To Scatel —
=ii�=111= Ifl=1--III 'III
� 1111n
MINIMUM CUT BACK FOR SIDE SLOPE IS 4:1 --+
.;ffrlll
COLD DIKE III III I I
-111--
II=
1�l--i III=ill ;--III=I
�If! I OLD DIKE
MINIMIZE SLOPE ALONG CHANNEL BOTTOM, KEEP RUN SLOPE III -Ill. DEPTH OF CUT VILL DEPEND ON FILL INSIDE POND
10 PERCENT OR LESS.' KEEP SIDE TO SIDE SLOPE LEVEL.
I1i�11
III-=III=III�III-=111-III--==iil�lll=
FIGURE 2 SHOVS BOTTOM TO BE 90 FEET +/- NOTE. THE OLD DIKE BREACH CAN BE MORE EXTENSIVE THAN SHOWN
(MINIMUM BOTTOM VIDTH SHALL BE 30 FEET) HERE. THESE DETAILS ARE CONSIDERED MINIMUMS.
DETAIL C
SEDIMENT TRAP BASIN DIMENSIONS - TOP VIEW
(This Detail Is Not Drawn To Scale)
OUTLINE OF EARTHEN DAM \ I. 105 FEET +/- - I
III THE SURFACE AREA OF THIS SEDIMENT BASIN IS APPROXIMATELY
3,650 SOU0K FEET AT FULL DESIGN FLOV. AT FULL FLOW THE
PATER HILL BE 3.5 FEET UP ON THE ROCK/EARTHEN DIKE.
DETAIL B SHOWS A CLOSE UP OF THE ROCK DAM.
121 THE VOLUME OF THE SEDIMENT TRAP AT A 3.5 FEET POOL
DEPTH IS APPROXIMATELY 8.000 CUBIC FEET.
\ a++++++++++
++r++++++4+
+++++++++++
♦++++++++++ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ++4+++++++ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
....... ROCK DAM
....... ELEVATION OF DIKE BASE ASSUMED AT 0 FEET.
.,..+
C4 FEET BOTTOM OF
AS NEEDED
........ y�' ELEVATION OF BOTTOM CUT HERE ASSUMED AT 0 + 2 FEET.
ELEVATION OF NATURAL GRADE 1#RE
IS UNKNOWN. START CUT FOR BASIN HERE MAKE THIS SLOPE 2;1 OR AS NEEDED. BOTTOM SLOPE IS MORE CRITICAL.
• - 140 FEET +/- (OR VIDE ENOUGH TO CATCH ALL DISTURBED SOIL RUN-OFF
POSITION SEDIMENT BASIN AND RACK DAN TTI CATCH ALL
DISTURBED SOIL RUN-OFF FROM THE SITE. STABILIZE
EARTHEN DIKE VITH TEMPORARY SEEDING ONCE BUILT,
TRAPEZOIDAL HITCH IN OLD ON.
SEE DETAIL A, --rt,
................................... :7 1 � � �, �i 11111''
le
zde
-- I � /ram—Y♦\♦\ � `�� ///�////// /// �\ �
OF
/
�r
ji I 1 i /
i I I i i / j 1! �� `♦ `♦ `i
a71 I I I I I I ♦ \ ///,// �♦��
I I I I i t I I 16C�T `J `� //// /♦ ♦��
I ImI ! H j I r PLACE cLa FRoN DIKE INSIDE POND AS FIL!
}1 l i l l} I ♦/
I r
11t ; i l j i i � ♦1`j�iii \! +`-
I
SLOPE SOIL FILL IN PON AT ABORT I PERCENTr`--
i
oe
L! —,ter+�`
/r,'~~ `� /,// //.-►
I I t 100
NATURAL GRADE OUTSIDE I1F ROCK DAM.
1*7_ NO SIGNIFICANT SOIL DISTLMIANCE HERE.
�• ROCK DAN FOR SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL
SEE DETAIL B.
SEDIMENT BASIN.
SEE DETAIL C.
SET BASIN ALIT 20 FEET FROR DISTURBED
SOIL YDRK ZONE.
SLOPE BOTTOM OF OUTLET O NEEL NO
GREATER THAN 10 PERCENT. KEEP BOTTOM
OF CHANNEL LEM FROM SIDE TO SIDE.
=> INDICATES SURFACE FLOWS
............... ,
1 • BENCH KW IS NAIL IN BASE OF OAK TREE.
. •UPPER PASTE STORAGE PM. ' . ' . ' . ' . ' . ' .
ELEVATION OF BENCH HART( IS 101.1 FEET,
POND SHOWN AFTER PROPOSED DIKE BREACH
LOVER WASTE; STORAGE POND SHOWN AFTER DIKE BREACH, FILL POND
WITH EXCAVATED DIKE SOIL. COMPACT AND SMOOTH SOIL FOR GRASS
D 25 50 75 100 ESTABLISHMENT. FINAL CUT AND FILL DETAILS VILL VERY DEPENDING
'I FEET ON THE FINAL EXTENT OF OLD DIKE REMOVAL. THIS DRAWING IS
FIGURE SCALE IS APPRmXIMATELY I INCH • 60 FEET CONSIDERED A MINIMUM.
DETAIL B
TYPICAL ROCK DAM CONSTRUCTION DETAILS FOR SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL
(This Detail Is Not Drawn To Scale)
CLEAN BUT SEDIMENT VHEN ITS I FT. THICK s 57 WASHED STONE ALONG
ACCUMULATED DEPTH IS ABOUT FACE OF ROCK DAM (APPROXIMATELY 5 5 Ft. Min
2.5 FEET. CUBIC YARDS). k—
SEDIMENT PEEL DESIGN DEPTH
A _
l! Ili=I1 ---- ----------------------------------
—11t•---
15
3.5 FEET
1.5 Ft.
I ------------ Y_ - -
_„ I III !�i ICI I'! III III lil III �
• .'u—III:
i .-III=III=III=III=III= •
�. _r�r--Hn=Oil=11i�111=11i=
CROSS-SECTION OF ROCK DAM
PLACE FILTER FABRIC FULL WIDTH AND
LENGTH OF ROCK DAM
1 .115 FEET MINIMUM - --=
f � r 1 I
CLASS B EROSION CONTROL STORE
(APPROXIMATELY 32 CUBIC YARDS).
OUTLINE OF TEMPORARY EARTHEN BIKE
TEMPDRARY EARTHEN DIKE.
STABILIZE WITH GRASS.
OWNER CAN REMOVE THIS
DIKE AFTER SITE IS
STABILIZED.
8 FEET MINIMUM -
y y y y
4. y y y
S
6.5 FEET MINIMUM
J-
`� 4- y1:1 MAXI 1:1 MAXIMUM
PLACE FILTER FABRIC FULL WIDTH AND � 5 fEET MINIMUM I 1 FEET THICK 157 VASHED STONE
LENGTH OF ROCK DAM (III ON FACE OF ROCK DAM.
EXHIBIT 41R NOTES
[1] This drawing is to serve as an illustration of the animal waste storage pond
and dike breaching details for the lower pond at Buttke Dairy in Randolph County.
This impoundment is owned by Mr. Arlin Buttke. The contour lines shown in Figure 1 were
taken from on -site measurements collected by Environmental Engineering Services
on 7-20-05. Certain items shown in this illustration are symbolic and look slightly
different from the actual pond features.
[21 This drawing is a sketch onl and should not be used for property line
verifications, deed recordings. Yegel boundary activities. or similar purposes,
Surrounding property and structures are not shown. Power- lines and/or utilities
are not shown. The , cm th arrow is approximate.
[31 Due to thick vegetation. the back side of the dike was difficult to measure and
should be considered on approximate representation.
[41 All physical features represented on this map are in their relative locations.
151 The elevations shown by contours were referenced to a common near datum or
bench mark chosen by the engineer for this data collection event. The a evotions
shown are not referenced to sea level or any such standard USGS datum or
benchmark.
161 The reader should refer to the engineer's written report to obtain details not
shown on this drawing.
[71 The dike breech details shown an this drawing is one reeasonable possibility. However
the owner may wish to push soil From both the northern and eastern dike into the empty
pond. In addition the owner is allowed to reshape the entire pond oreca to best Fit
his future needs. However, slopes should Ine made me gradual as possible to aid in
soil stabilization.
[81 Stormwater from surrounding areas shall is routed around this pond vim grass
waterways, ditches, pipe culverts, etc.
(91 Any impounded water greater than 1 foot of depth shall be removed 'From the
pond prior to closure. All animal waste has been removed from the pond. but an
minor residual accumulation of rainwater. if contaminated with animal waste. show
be removed and land applied prior to closure.
1101 Because this structure is registered with Dam Safety. permission to breach the dike
must first be obtained from L.he N.C. Division of Water Quality. Once said permission is
obtained. the land owner shall notify Environmental Engineering Services of- leas+. 48
hours in advance of the breaching.
[111 The disturbed soil must be stabilized with vegetation offer earth
moving is complete. See the written instructions for more details about
the pond closure and seeding.
[121 All animal waste has been removed from this pond. so there should be little or
no liquid contained at the time of the dike breach.
1131 Total drainage acres for this structure is epproximetelLJ. 2.65 ocres.
Sediment sand erosion control structures have been designed using Practice 6.60
from the Erosion and Sediment Control. Planning rand Design Manual. Storm design
was 25 year - I hour. The disturbed area is estimated to be 1.5 acres.
DIKE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: RANDO-155-LOW
DWO ANIMAL WASTE FACILITY I.D. NUMBER: 76-12
FRONT VIEW OF ROCK DAM (VIEW AA)

WASTE STORAGE POND CLOSURE
SPECIFICATIONS FOR BUT KE DAIRY
r^
1 '
1
1 m
SECTION 3
w
' WASTE STORAGE POND RECORD DRAWINGS AND
CLOSURE PAPERWORK DEVELOPED FOR THE
LAND- QUALITY SECTION OF NCDENR.

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
Water • Wastewater • Sludge • Agricultural • Industrial * Civil
Mr. Bill Denton, P.E, --' December 27, 2005
c/o NCDENR -Land Quality Section C(O
' 1612 Mail Service Center �-... --
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Re: Final inspection and record drawings for the waste storage pond earthen dike breaching project at
' Buttke Dairy Enterprises, Inc, - Randolph County, N.C. Land Quality Section Dam LD. # RANDO -
155 - Low.
' Dear Mr. Denton,
This letter shall certify that the undersigned professional engineer (being myself) has inspected the above
' referenced work and found the project to be complete within the intent and in accordance with the State
approved engineering plans, specifications, and correspondence. The engineering plans and
correspondence referenced are those sent to (or received from) your office between 8/26/05 and
10110105. This certification is based on the engineer's personal viewing of the dike removal during
numerous site visits. The engineer feels confident that the overall project intent has been met and the
remains of any of the earthen dikes associated with the above referenced structure have been rendered
' safe within the sphere of water impoundment. Because of the final surface contours, no water is being
or can be impounded within the old pond site. Information given to the engineer by others and used in
this certification shall be taken as truth if it can not be verified otherwise.
1 You are receiving as part of this correspondence:
' 1. Two copies of the record drawings showing the final'shape of the pond site.
2. Two copies of the "OWNER'S CERTIFICATION - AFFIDAVIT OF ACTUAL COST OF
CONSTRUCTION, ENLARGEMENT, OR REMOVAL OF DAM" form.
' 3. 2 copies of each invoice supplied to Environmental Engineering Services (EES) by Buttke Dairy
Enterprises, Inc. associated with the dike removal.
' 4. A check (# 80318) for the amount of $93.73, payable to NCDENR. The check is dated 12/19/05.
5. In addition to your copies, I will send single copies of this certification to Mr, Arlin Buttke with
' Buttke Dairy Enterprises, Inc., to Mr. 'Barton Roberson with the Randolph County MRCS, and to
Ms. Melissa Rosebrock with the NC Division of Water Quality.
Please find below a few items of particular interest or points that need clarification:
1. Mr. Arlin Buttke decided to remove the upper section of the northern dike to help fill in and smooth
out the inner portions of the old pond. The northern dike was not completely removed or breached
' since no stormwater can be impounded by this dam. All stormwater generated inside the old pond
is routed toward the direction of the old eastern dike (now removed) so that all surface flows pass
through the rock dam and sediment basin. The rock dam and sediment basin were left in place.
' P.O. BOX 426, ABERDEEN, N.C. 28315 • PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

4;Sr1lrheJ soils have been seeded and mulched. However, seed germination this time of year is
slow unless we get some warm sunny days.
The engineer can take no responsibility for changes made to the above site/system before, during, or
after construction without his knowledge. Nor does the engineer take any responsibility for human
losses or property damages which should occur due to poor workmanship, improper use of machinery,
' unknown conditions above or below ground level, legal problems with boundary lines or easements,
acts of nature, "short-cuts" the owner or contractor may have taken in system construction, improper
system operation, unauthorized chemical. discharge into'the system, lack of Iong term maintenance,
accidents, or use of the system beyond its intended purpose.
It shall now be the responsibility of Buttke Dairy Enterprises, Inc. to comply with all items specified
' within the engineering plans, permit, etc. and operate and/or maintain the system in accordance with
State and local laws.
Unless contacted by your office to answer questions, I believe this correspondence will conclude my
involvement in this matter. However, please feel free to call me if I can be of further assistance or
answer questions. Please copy me on any acknowledgment correspondence or final approval letters to
Buttke Dairy.
Thank -you for your time and for your valuable assistance on this project and please see that Mr. Max
Fowler receives notice of the project completion.
enclosures
' oc: Arlin Buttkc (Buttke Dairy Entcrpriscs, Inc. )
Barton Roberson (Randolph County NRCS)
Melissa Rosebrock(NCDENR-DWQ)
�:��rr�rrrrar�ir� �rrrur��:�rrrrrrr�:�a�
PROFESSIONAL
Professional Engineer's
N. C. Professional Registration Num, YI 1 b02/ /
Date of Certification: (- 02 41 AGY�I�
Engineer's Seal;
2

OWNER S CERTIFICATION
AFFIDAVIT OF ACTUAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION; ENLARGEMENT,OR REMOVAL
OF DAM
(COST OF COMPLETED PROJECT)
1.
Name of dam
'
2.
County in which dam is located RANDOLPH
3.
Owner of dam BUIM DAIRY FNrF.RPR=, TNC. (MR. ARLIN BUrr[tj
4.
Owner's address ' ' 5796 -WAIZER MILD RaAD e RANDLEMAN NC 27317.
5.
Owner's telephone number (336) ' 495 - 1393:
6:
Authorized representative of owner
(if applicable)
7.
Authorized representative's address
'
(if applicable)
8.
Authorized representative's telephone number
(if applicable)
1
9.
Engineer's name TAM - x,GRAN M . R -
,
10.
Engineer's address PO XX 426, MERDEEN, NC 28315.
11.
Engineer's telephone number, [phone]
12.
Grass seeding& munch $1755.50
Actual cost of REMO_V_AL-Earth Iicving 12.242.50 / Stone $688.58
'
(Construction, Enlargement or Removal)
ofdam:$ 14,686.58 * .
13.
Additional application processing fee enclosed $ 9 3.7 3
The above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and
was provided by me under oath.
' ARLM K71MM _ TAM CUM
Type and print name Title of authority
' Signature Ley Datr,
1
Page 1 of 1

I, w. , a Notary Public of the County of
¢, h gh in the State of North Carolina, hereby certify that
hLk , 3 t4- Ke appeared personally before me this day and being duly
sworn acknowledge that the above form was executed by him/her.
Witness my hand and notarial seal, this day of
� Sam
Seal Notary:',...
My commission expires �, c9
*Attach contractual documentation for project which includes lump sum bid price or unit bid
quantities with prices; all change order items costs, etc. An approval will not be issued if
documentation for the actual cost of construction/enlargement/removal and the additional
application processing fee are not provided.
Rev. 12/20/01
Page 2 of 2

tt
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Piedmonfr I and Far�Y,E.,+. I meht Uairy ! P
Post Office Bnx 39 5aphia-;,NC;,,2735D
Phorae.:336 49824AA `Fax: 33fi 498-2474.
CiISTom
r
ADDRESS *--
SOLD
'1
cauellxe u - �snaw ac CID) -8Y
SOLfI BY CHECK IJUfdBEfl CASH CiIARGE C.O.U. RETURUEU ON ACCOUNT
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION PI710E ' AMOUNT
�
v
try
fi
• � ~
ra
i
%jflllf%L �J7lL
ALL CtAfIr1S AND RflllHrJEA GODS MUST HE RCGOI�?PAlJlFD
BY IfTlS 6fif.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NAME:
ADDRESS.;,,
No.
PH. NO.
DAT
f"aOl A AY
i r �i
i S ar/tly,"V ,
r 11r d
t4 t7 l�� a + '�„p�1�CiSi �,
,� a,t c
L't i. 1 g' i� rjJ;[ - •
--..,11' G If ly it�L 'I+n:yk �i
a bN A�QT
ewr4^s .�i
�,t eYa I4r
ri Yl �ii4�Ya
MC15�+rY 0
lY I �i
:a yt I w
1 Li
�Y�ADy�
t`ti
i e x,lri
1] (blJl
id L iAMIY
hA :'.,1 `�
CITY,
'DESCRIPTION„,;,
PRICE
AMOUNT,
9 M
pp
L
r
TAX,
. ED tlY RECEIVED
.
.TOTAL ,
9� �
,u�.
Qp O O �� L -ALL:CLAIMS AND RETURNED GOODS
MUfiT SE•'ACCOMPANIED,BY TWISSILL.'
PRINTED IN U.S A. ` , - _ � CJI7Lf]'IOU C,3�lU) ..
1 �
� r 0 DEN'

MATTHEW PEAR%3U
For All Your Grading & Hauling Weeds,
,• .3458 Foust. Road a,
STAI', NC:27355,.
Phone_ (91 O),B22-4727:
NAME
42
ADDRESS:-'.
PH NO DATE:
`Y.1+LI5�iiY t` (SASNryi �^ i 5 xB� iq j: 0, p� + e f�}�� JS'k �� 1 Yt'al tji�
i�h �+N^-Wr �' }�aina„1�51�,;,y;�?� ttb°b� 7,��, � r e
j21�i1.hl�f `�i, •,l t Y� � �.• Y?j� S+Mi' is r NH1 ( �, a q�s � •
a tq yy t�'�,�w r I, ,�ti i.✓ 1st 3.*
���fa/�. �i'l IM'sli{�rna �1i qiY � �i� .^.�.•,'.'",�.�
aTY. DESCRIP.TkON '`:,"„ .. PRICE:;,..:,;.AMOUNT.':,:
7777
.... .. :=TA X
RECEIVEDBY.., TOTAL '
�.�.�.7 , %ALL CLAIMS ANp RETURN ED,GOO
®. ... MUST 6C'ACCOMPANIED BY THIS BILL
QP 1n
PRINTED IN USA.
1

SOE] BY CHICK NU MIS CASH CHARGE C.C.o. RETURNED or. iccnunr
QUANTITY DESCRIPTION PRICE Arv10UrJ'E
gwidi Uall FILL CLAIMS AND RETURNED GOODS MUST DF ACCOMPAIMD nr flitS Out

1-1
Im

' Martin Marietta Materials
�AA
y.
IRTINMAR1E'TrA.COM
' lox 30013
igh, NC 27622
Off- L� TO: 001B7
DAIRY
5796 W
5796 WALKER MILL ROAD
RANDLEMAN NC 27317
Page 1 of 1
F0 BILLING d6 , ' ' ONS PLEASE CALL' ;
336 - 668.3253
JOB NAME: MISC JOB TAX EXEMPT TAK
SHIP TO:
00293 MISCELLANEOUS JOB EXEMPT TRUCK
MISC
ASHEBORO NC 27203
PAYMENT TFRMSrNFT 3n nAv--, ikn2
Order No.
Customer PO
Dest
Job No.
Dist
Business
Business Unit Name
Cust. No.
Invoice
Invoice No.
No.
No-
Unit
Date
618890 SO
001
1 888802
30
44315
1 Asheboro
226402
10/31/05
3807692
Shipp hate ,
Product
Description
Quantity
UM
Unit Price
Material
Freight
Freight
Taxes &
TOTAL
('arM a-"j
o[]iTt -
----A'm , R
__._._FUU9
0125105
0029
SURGE
692632
15.94
TN
13.65
217.58
217.58
692639
15.77
TN
13.55
215.26
215.26
*SUBTOTAL'
31.71
432.84
432.84
10)2ND5
0570
57
692653
5.76
TN
13.15
75.74
75.74
*SUBTOTAL*
5.76
76.74
75.T4
TOTAL
37.47
50B.55
508.56
INVOIGE�TOTAL
DETACH and Include this Return Portion with Payment
i
Martin Marietta Materials
V .
REMIT TO:
MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS
CUSTOMER NUMBER: 226402 BUTTKE DAIRY PO Box 75328
INVOICE NUMBER: 3807692 Charlotte NC 28275
PAYMENT DUE 508.58
Please report any potential ethics violations to the Martin Madetta'Materials Corporate Ethics Office 1-800-209450E or see www.marunmadetta.com.
For all other questions call the number above.
PLEASE' NOTIFY,US'.;0F.ANY. AI TERATIONS YOU`MAKE TO VIIARD6`THE'iNV04CE AMQUNT;

BUTTKE DAIRY ENTERPRISES
t ARUN BUTTKE
5796 WALKER MILL ROAD PH. [phone]
RANDLEMAN, NC 27317
PAY j " O
To THE A C D E n/ fl
ORDER o1:
DATE,_,._
-19- 65 219-531
DOLLARS- lSl-
Fir NATICiNAL �.
Sandy TIC 37 •-. - - - .
:L.bS�rP�1rJ'

p

- O
z
NORTH SIDE DIKE. CAN BE LEFT
IN PLACE OR PUSHED INTO THE POND
FIGURE 1
OLD PUMP STATION
EMERGENCY OVERFLOV
FROM LOVER POND
I
0 25 50 75 100
FEET
SCALE IS APPROXIMATELY I INCH = 50 FEET
EAST SIDE DIKE. CONSIDERED PRIMARY DIKE. BACK SLOPE
f O \ r ' ` ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ \` N S` OF THIS DIKE IS APPROXIMATE IN SHAPE.
/'�.---fib1�2D� I `� 00a6 : ♦`
11 � 1 f I'll/// `------'-'� �'Q�----- � ♦ `♦ � ��, ♦` ♦ � � � ♦ � �,
—�
opt 1 1 1 _---- � ��-�__=------��``e`�� � ♦ \�� � � . � � a � � �
sill y � f11 f 1 76.0-- / ,,_` ., ♦mow .��
CD I ` i l f 1 r r� % ti` �' `�♦ 1 �� ♦♦ %,
imp I ) 1 y y t ` �I ! 1 ♦ ♦♦`♦ `�`D�`� �� ���\ �\
CID
I l i }� l i 1 4 1 I 1 � �. `� >� ♦���`�� �90�♦ `� ��
O\♦♦�`��
lya [yiI)IlI I �� `♦�♦l�`-`1�1y �f
CD
r----'-
1
on
/
/
I y L `�D ♦�` �\\ O /�/
UPPER POND DIKE _ c'
01
l
/
EMERGENCY OVERFLOV
. / / / FROM UPPER POND
EXHIBIT 5 NOTES
_J
. "'- .". . BENCH MARK IS NAIL IN BASE OF OAK TREE
UPPER VASTE STORAGE POND ELEVATION OF BENCH MARK IS 101.1 FEET.
[11 This illustration is to serve as m record drawing of the animal waste sLoroge pond
closure and dike breeching for the lower pond at Buttke Dairy in Randolph County.
This impoundment is owned by Mr. Arlin Buttke. Certain items shown on this illustration
are symbolic and may look slightly different From E.he actual features of the site.
[21 The contour lines shown in Figure 1 were taken from on -site measurements collected
by Environmental Engineering Services on 7-20-05. bef ore zany earthmoving took place.
Figure 2 shows the pond and dikes cf ter earth moving completion. Figure 2 is t.V-e record
drawing of' f inol dike breaching and pond obcndonment.
[31 This drawing is to record shapes, slopes, etc. but should not be used for property line
verifications. deed recordings, legal boundary activities, or similar purposes. Surrounding
property and structures are not. shown. Power lines and/or utilities and not shown on Lkis
drawing. The north arrow is approximate.
[41 All physical features represented on this map ore in their relotive locations.
151 The elevations shown by contours were referenced to n common nearby datum or
bench mark chosen by the engineer for data collection events. The elevations
shown are not referenced to sea level or ony such strndnrd USGS datum or
benchmark. The bench murk on this site is m nail driven into the bole of a lorge tree
on the upper pond dike. The same bench mark was used For Figure 1 and Figure 2.
[61 The reader should refer to the engineer's written report to obtain deLmils not
shown on this drawing.
POND SHORN BEFORE DIKE BREACH
THE LOWER WASTE STORAGE POND IS SHOWN EMPTY. ITS SHAPE IS A
REASONABLE APPROXIMATION BASED ON TOPOGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS
COLLECTED ON 7/20/05. CONTOURS ARE AT 2 FEET INTERVALS.
Z
z
APPROXIMATE CENTER LINE OF OLD EASTERN ➢IKE.
MOST OF THIS DIKE VAS PUSHED INTO THE
POND INTERIOR AS FILL.
0 25 s0 75 100
FEET
SCALE IS APPROXIMATELY I INCH = 50 FEET
SMALL EARTHEN DIKE AS PART OF THE
ROCK DAM SEDIMENT CONTROL STRUCTURE.
OLD PUMP STATION
� I
INDICATES THE DIRECTION OF STORMVATER
r
/Cb�!\ SURFACE FLOVS. 1 �O, \
i y i i fr N`
6`
t_—.___—_._...--� _ \\` 1 �/ � ) �1 `\ IJ'? x xxx
Cis
20
�~ I
APPROXIMATE CENTER LINE OF THE NORTH SI ) i I I \ 78
DIKE. THIS DIKE VAS PARTIALLY
PUSHED —
PUSHED INTO THE POND AS FILL.—
l` 6)0
84
IN
UPPER POND DIKE — \\ ♦ I \�/ / /
[71 Stormwater from surrounding areas has been routed around this pond via grass
waterways, ditckes, pipe culverts, etc. Stormwater can no longer accumulate inside U-ie pond.
[81 As much as was practical, the stored animal waste was removed from this pond prior to dike
breaching.
[91 Because this structure is registered with Dam Saf ety, permission to breach the dike
was obtained from the N.C. Division of Land Resources, Land OumliEtu Section via a letter
dated 10/10/05. Provisions in that letter and in the EES specifications and tors-esp _ndence
between August 26, 2005 and October 6. 2005 were met For this work of fart.
FIGURE 2
(101 The disturbed soil areas of this site have been seeded and mulched. The sediment and
erosion control structure (i.e, rock dam and sediment basin) have been left in place.
Earthen slopes inside and outside the pond area have been more or less stabilized.
[111 Total disturbed soil acres for this dike removal project is approximately 2.9
acres. The eastern dike was the primary breach structure nt this site. The northern
dike was partially removed, but all stormwnter was routed toward the eastern dike
breach.
R21 Figures I and 2 are topographic maps of' same pond. Minor difFerences in contour
lines, shapes and/or the property outlines are due to earth moving work nand/or
slight differences in topographic data collection points.
/
BENCH MARK IS NAIL IN BASE OF OAK TREE,
ELEVATION OF BENCH MARK IS 101.1 FEET.
ROCK DAM CONSTRUCTED FOR
SEDIMENT AND EROSION
CONTROL.
SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN
POND SHOWN AFTER DIKE REMOVAL
THE LOWER VASTE STORAGE POND IS SHOWN AFTER EARTH MOVING COMPLETION,
TOPOGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS WERE COLLECTED ON 11/28/05. CONTOURS
ARE AT 2 FEET INTERVALS.
DIKE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: RANDO-155-LOW
DWQ ANIMAL WASTE FACILITY I.D. NUMBER: 76-12
THIS DRAWING PROVIDED BY:
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES
P.O. BOX 426 Awl N.C. 205
DA
EXHIBIT 5 12-27-05
SCALE:
RECORD DRAWING OF THE ANIMAL As shown
WASTE STORAGE POND CLOSURE ORA"" "Y:
AND DIKE BREACHING EFFORTS "ildo S. Grok=
FOR BUTTKE DAIRY ENTERPRISES. APPROVE[) ° `
INC. Lorry F.. Graham PE.
Randolph County, N.C. IREVI5IO3 &.
r-add/6u1 ire/demgc,u

WASTE STORAGE POND CLOSURE
SPECII'ICATIONS FOR BUTTKi, DAIRY
1
1
1
SECTION 4
' WASTE UTILIZATION DETAILS

1
n
1
1
WASTE REMOVAL AND LAND APPLICATION DOCUMENTATION
FOR THE WASTE STORAGE POND CLOSURE AT BUTTKE DAIRY
ENTERPRISES
RANDOLPH COUNTY, N.C.
DWQ FACILITY I.D. # 76-12
LAND QUALITY SECTION DAM I.D. # RANDO -155 - LOW
Prepared for ; Buttke Dairy Enterprises, Inc.
c/o Mr. Arlin Buttke
5796 Walker Mill Road
Randleman, NC 27317
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
Report Prepared By: Larry F. Graham, P.E.
Environmental Engineering Services
P,O, Box 426
Aberdeen, N.C. 28315
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
Copy Of Report To:
Barton Roberson - District Conservationist
c/o NRCS
Federal Building Room 105
241 Sunset Ave.
Asheboro, N.C. 27203
Phone: [phone]`_
Report Completion Date: January 9, 2006
and Review By:
Larry F. Graham, P.E.
Number 11602

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
Water • Wastewater • Sludge • Agricultural • Industrial * Civil
Buttke Dairy Enterprises, Inc.
c/o Mr. Arlin Buttke
5796 Walker Mill Road
Randleman, NC 27317
January 9, 2006
Re: Waste removal and land application documentation for the waste storage pond closure at Buttke
Dairy Enterprises, Inc. - Randolph County, N.C. Land Quality Section Dam I.D. # RANDO - 155 -
Low.
1
Dear Mr. Buttke,
The details about the waste removal from your recently closed waste storage pond are located within the
enclose package. These details complement the other waste storage pond closure documents. Please
' note that I have identified where the waste was applied based on the records supplied to me from Mr.
Brian Souther. The following persons will get the following documentation:
' • You are receiving two complete copies of this document
• Mr. Barton Roberson with the Randolph County NRCS will get one copy of the complete package.
' • Ms. Melissa Rosebrock will also receive a copy of the package.
As a word of caution, please refer to your Certified Animal Waste Management Plan to make sure you do
' not over apply nutrients to the fields which received waste from the pond closure event. While I have
not gone into great detail about your CAWMP, I did estimate how much nitrogen was put on each field
from your pond closure. You should review this information so you do not exceed application rates on
' these fields in the near future.
After reviewing the enclosed information let me know if you have questions. Thank -you for your time in
' this matter and allowing Environmental Engineering Services to be of assistance.
I Best
' Lay F. Gra try% P.E.
Environmental Engineering Services
enclosures
' cc: Barton Roberson (Randolph Co. NRCS)
Melissa Rosebrock (DWQ - Winston Salem)
I
P.O. BOX 426, ABERDEEN, N.C. 28315 • PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

' WASTE APPLICATION DETAILS FROM
TIM POND CLOSURE AT HUrrKE DAIRY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iPROJECT BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE................................................................................................6.................1
'
ANIMAL WASTE REMOVAL DETAILS........................................................................................................I..............1
ESTIMATED NITROGEN APPLICATIONS
..................................................................................................................3
'
LIQUID ANjmAL WASTE...............................................
SOLIDWASTE --............................................................................................
.............................................................................................3
.....................5
CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................................................................5
'
PROCLAMATIONS AND REMINDERS.........................................................................................................................6
11
1
If

WASTE APPLICATION DETAILS FROM
THE POND CLOSURE. AT BU =, DAIRY
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit 1. County road map (vicinity map).
Exhibit 2. Raw waste application data supplied by Grassy Knob Farms (including map).
Exhibit 3. NCDA liquid waste analysis taken December 2, 2004.
Exhibit 4. NCDA solid waste analysis taken August 2, 2005.
iii

WASTE APPLICATION DETAILS FROM
THE POND CLOSURE AT DUTTKE DAIRY
WASTE REMOVAL AND LAND APPLICATION DOCUMENTATION FOR THE WASTE
' STORAGE POND CLOSURE AT BUTTKE DAIRY ENTERPRISES
RANDOLPH COUNTY, N.C.
' DWQ FACILITY I.D. # 76-12
LAND QUALITY SECTION DAM I.D. # RANDO - 155 - LOW
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
' This section of the Buttke Dairy Enterprises waste storage pond closure package contains information
on the waste removal activities associated with the project. This package is to serve as documentation
' related to the waste removal volumes and the land application locations. Since this pond closure and its
associated waste removal was a one time occurrence, this package is not considered a permanent part of
the Buttke Dairy Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP) even though the fields used to
land apply the animal waste are included as part of the CAWMP for Buttke Dairy.
' The scope of work given to Environmental Engineering Services (EES) was to document, and to the
extent practical, supervise the waste storage pond closure. However, since the stored waste was
' removed and land applied by a third party contractor, EES had only minor input into the land
application field work. Therefore EES does not take any responsibility for the land application work
' since this was organized, performed, and recorded by others.
This report is part of the total pond closure documentation package needed to meet the requirements of
the U.S. Natural Resources Conversation Service (MRCS) conservation practice standard number 360,
' called "Closure Of Waste Impoundments". It is being developed as a stand alone report so as to not
confuse its contents with dike breaching specifications, site stabilization work, etc.
' ANIMAL WASTE REMOVAL DETAILS
1. Buttke Dairy Enterprises, Inc. contracted to have the liquid animal waste removed from the pond to
' be closed. The company responsible for this activity was Grassy Knob Farms, 125 Fort Valley
Court, Statesville, N.C. 28625. The company owner and person responsible for the land
application efforts was Mr. Brian Souther. Mr. Souther's contact phone number is 704-450-8363.
' 2. The waste from this structure was removed between April 16, 2005 and July 26, 2005. Table 2
shows dates and amounts hauled (also see Exhibit 2 of this package for the raw numbers supplied by
Grassy Knob Farms). From records supplied by Grassy Knob Farms, a major effort was made to
empty the pond in April of 2005, resulting in about 74% of the total gallons hauled.
3. According to records, waste hauling stopped on April 25, 2005 and resumed on July 15, 2005. By
' July 15 the remaining waste was more or less a mix of the accumulated rainfall and the thicker
stored slurry near the bottom of the pond. The waste hauling contractor found it necessary to add
some additional liquids to the manure slurry to enhance its pumping characteristics. The additional
' liquids came from other waste storage ponds on the farm. EES was not provided with any exact
volumes of how much water was added due to intentional dilution.
1 ,

WASTE APPLICATION DETAILS FROM
THE POND CLOSURE AT BUITKE DAIRY
11
1
4. Grassy Knob Farms used PTO driven pumps to agitate the animal waste in the pond before
transferring the waste to tractor drawn tankers for hauling off site. The typical tractor drawn tanker
is reported to contain 6,500 gallons when full. The average load was something less than 6,500
gallons according to Mr. Souther. Mr. Souther kept track of the waste hauled by counting tanker
loads and multiplying that by the number of gallons hauled per tanker. Grassy Knob Farms reported
they pumped and hauled a total of 4,523,400 gallons of dairy waste from the pond being closed.
5. In order to make verification estimates related to the overall waste volume removed from the Buttke
Dairy waste storage pond, EES set out to collect on -site measurements and calculate said volumes
for a comparison with the Grassy Knob Farms reported volume. EES was not involved with the
waste hauling efforts at its inception, but based on personal inspections and conversations with both
Buttke Dairy employees and Grassy Knob Farms employees, EES determined the start pumping
water level inside the pond. Once the pond was empty of animal waste (i.e. before earth moving
took place), EES collected more complete topographic data to aid in determining a calculated
volume. Table 1 shows the volume of waste calculated to be inside the pond in addition to the
extra water added from rainfall and for mixing. The reader can also see topographic representations
of the empty pond in another section of the overall closure package.
TABLE 1
WASTE STORAGE POND LIQUID INVENTORY DETAILS
ESTIMATED
INCHES OF
AREA OF
GALLONS
ESTIMATED
TOTAL GALLONS
POND VOLUME
RAIN
DRAINAGE
ADDED DUE TO
AMOUNT OF
HAULED AS
FROM
BETWEEN
INTO THE
RAINFALL
WATER
RECORDED BY
TOPOGRAPHIC
APRIL 16
POND
ADDED FOR
GRASSY KNOB
DATA*
AND JULY 26
DILUTION
FARMS
allons
acres
allons
3,504,000
9.08
2.6
641,052
378,348
4,523,400
* This volume was estimated using topographic data and the reported start pumping level of the pond water just
prior to April 16, 2005. This volume does not account for any additional liquids accumulating during the waste
removal window.
** Records from Greensboro, N.C. Piedmont Triad Regional Airport. Local rains could be more or less.
*** Dilution values were estimated from waste removal records and were not measured by EES.
TABLE 2 IS SHOWN IN ITS ENTIRETY ON THE NEXT PAGE
2

WASTE APPLICATION DETAILS FROM
THE POND CLOSURE AT ➢UITKE DAIRY
TAB
LIQUID WASTE APPLICATION DATA FOR BUTTKE DAIRY ENTERPRISES
(AS REPORTED BY GRASSY KNOB FARMS)
TRACT
NUMBER
FIELD
NUMBER
DATE(S)
HAULED
GALLONS HAULED
TO THIS
LOCATION
ACRES OF
LAND IN THIS
TRACT/FIELD
APPROX. APPLICATION
RATE
al/acre
TI519
F1
4/21/05
94,500
6.1
15,492
T1519
F3
4/20/05
252,000
16.4
15,366
T2064
F1
4/19/05
52,500
4.4
11,932
T2064
F3
4/20/05
378,000
25.1
15,060
T2088
F8
4/17/05
446,250
29.5
15,127
T2088
F8
4/25/05
451500
29.5
15,305
T2095
F1
4/18/05
57,750
3.9
14,808
T2096
F3
4/16/05
157,500
10.1
15,594
T2096
F3
4/24/05
151,200
10.8
14,000
T2137
I F2
4/16/05
194,250
17.5
11,100
T2137
F3
4/18/05
252,000
17.5
14,400
T2144
F1
4/19/05
131,250
8.6
15,262
T2200
F2
4/22/05
283,500
18.8
15,080
T2200
F6
4/22/05
189,000
12.6
15,000
T2200
F7
4/21/05
252,000
I6.5
15,273
Wall
Brothers
T2134
F5
F7
F8
7/15/05 to
7/21/05
665,700
37.7
17,658
Slappy
Davis
T2009
T1984
T2014
T2013
F2
Fl
F 1
F4
7/21/05 to
7/26/05
514,500
72.84
7,063
Totals i
L 1
4,523,400
ESTIMATED NITROGEN APPLICATIONS
Liquid Animal Waste --
1. Buttke Dairy Enterprises, Inc. has an existing Certified Animal Waste Storage Plan or CAWMP.
The fields listed in Table 2 are also shown in this CAWMP. EES has reviewed the waste
application data supplied by Grassy Knob Farms, and compared it to the CAWMP. Table 3 is a
review of that data comparison.
2. Table 3 takes into account the most recent NCDA waste analysis report (December 2004) for the
animal waste inside the pond to be closed. Assumptions about the nitrogen content of the liquid
animal waste held in the pond in question were extrapolated from this NCDA analysis. EES did not
have access to any waste analyses from this pond after December of 2004. Therefore the engineer
had to make some realistic assumptions and adjustments to the December waste analysis to account
for a more "typical" nitrogen content in liquid dairy waste. The reader will note that before dairy
3

WASTE APPLICATION DETAU FROM
THE POND CLOSURE AT BUITKE DAIRY
E
n
waste storage ponds are pumped, they are agitated by the contract hauler. This tends to stir up
solids which in turn makes the liquid material higher in nitrogen. As the pond water level drops, the
bottom solids are agitated more vigorously and the waste tends to become more concentrated in
nitrogen content. Table 3 reflects what would be considered reasonable values for stored dairy
pond waste, tempered with the December 2004 test results.
Table 3 shows the nitrogen amounts estimated to have been applied to each field. While the
engineer would prefer to have more recent waste analyses from which to draw conclusions, it is safe
to assume that nitrogen amounts applied did not exceed those specified in the CAWMP for Buttke
Dairy.
TABLE 3
NITROGEN APPLICATIONS FROM LIQUID WASTE
(AS REPORTED BY GRASSY KNOB FARMS)
Tract &
Date(s)
Gallons
Acres Of
Approx.
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
CAWMP Crop
Field
Hauled
Hauled
Land in
Application
In Waste
Applied Per
Nitrogen
Number
To This
This
Rate
Acre
Requirements
Location
Tract
For The Season
auacre
bs/IGOO Pi.
1h0acrc
bzdacre
T1519 - F1
4/21/05
94,500
6.1
15,492
6
92.95
196
T1519 - F3
4/20/05
252,000
16.4
15,366
6
92.20
196
T2064 - F1
4/19/05
52,500
4.4
11,932
6
71.59
120
T2064 - F3
4/20/05
378,000
25.1
15,060
6
90.36
124
T2088 - F8
4/17/05 &
897,750
29.5
30,432
6
182.59
234
4/25/05
T2095 -Fi
4/18/05
57,750
3.9
14,808
5
74.04
234
T2096 - F3
4/16/05
157,500
10.1
15.594
5
77,97
234
T2096 - F3
4/24/05
151,200
10.8
14,000
6
84.00
234
T2137 - F2
4/16/05
194,250
17.5
11,100
5
55.50
234
T2137 - F3
4/18/05
252,000
17.5
14,400
5
72.00
234
T2144 - F1
4/19/05
131,250
8,6
15,262
6
91.57
234
T2200 - F2
4/22/05
283,500
18.8
15,080
6
90.48
234
T2200 - F6
4/22/05
189,000
12.6
15,000
6'
90.00
234
T2200 - F7
4/21/05
252,000
16.5
15,273
6
91.64
234
Wall
7/15/05 to
665,700
37.7
17,658
7
123.61
234
Brothers
7/21/05
T2134 -
F5 F7 F8
Slappy
7/21/05 to
514,500
72.84
7,063
8.5
60.04
196
Davis
7/26/05
T2009
T1984
T2014
T2013
Totals
4,523 400
* The latest test data available from the NCDA shows that the pond's liquid waste tested at 3.5 pounds of nitrogen per
' 1,000 gallons (December 2004). Because of a lack of additional test data, EES used reasonable assumptions as to the
nitrogen concentrations in the animal waste Iater in the application program to account for concentration variations and
the assumed complete mixing of the pond contents.
4

' WASTE APPLICATION DETAILS FROM
THE POND CLOSURE AT BU TKE DAIRY
' Solid Waste --
' 1. The EES engineer visited the site on August 2, 2005 and witnessed that all of the liquid had been
removed from the pond, leaving only a dark brown crusty material on the lowest portion of the pond
bottom. EES instructed Buttke Dairy to proceed with scraping the pond bottom to remove any
remaining manure solids. In anticipation of the scraped material being land applied, EES collected
a sample of the solids for analysis. The sample was sent to the NCDA lab for analysis. The NCDA
waste analysis report for this solid material is included as Exhibit 4.
' 2. Soon after August 2, 2005, Buttke Dairy Enterprises, Inc, informed EES that after they had
completed the task of scraping the bottom of the pond to remove any manure solids and manure
impacted soils, They used farm tractors and skid steer loaders to remove the solids. In addition,
Buttke Dairy reported they removed approximately 225 tons of solid material from the pond closure
site and put it into one of the other on -farm waste storage ponds. Their plans are to remove this
material from the surrogate pond at the time of routine cleaning. Therefore none of the solid waste
' removed from the closure pond was land applied.
' CONCLUSIONS
1. From on -site topographic measurements and a review of rainfall between April 16 and July 26,
2005, EES has concluded that the waste hauling contractor's records (i.e. Grassy Knob Farms) are
' reasonable and consistent with the volume of waste estimated to be in need of removal for this pond
closure. The hauler's records should be the most accurate account of waste volumes hauled.
Table 1 shows a rough estimate of the liquid values contributing to pond volume for this
comparison. A total of 4,523,400 gallons of liquid waste were reportedly hauled out of the pond.
2. Grassy Knob Farms performed the liquid waste removal from the pond closure at Buttke Dairy.
EES was not consulted with regards on how much waste to land apply. Grassy Knob Farms and
Buttke Dairy employees decided where and how much to land apply, EES has assumed that Grassy
Knob Farms adhered to the regulatory set -backs -associated with the land application of animal
' waste. Exhibit 2 and Table 2 show the amounts of waste reported to have been applied by Grassy
Knob Farms.
' 3, Based on the records provided by Grassy Knob Farms, reports by Buttke Dairy employees, and
from a brief review of the CAWMP for Buttke Dairy, EES has concluded that the pond contents
were removed and land applied within the amounts specified in the existing CAWMP. This
' conclusion is based on the pounds of nitrogen per acre applied as shown in Tables 2 and 3. No
phosphorous loss assessment was made by EES for this review.
4. The pond scheduled for closure included earthen dikes that were registered with the NCDENR,
' Land Quality Section (LQS). EES developed a specifications package on how to breach the waste
storage pond dike and submitted this package to LQS for approval. Details on the proposed dike
' breach and the outcome of the dike breach can be found in the LQS reports developed by EES.
5. A sediment and erosion control plan for the closed pond was developed as part of the LQS package
and implemented at the farm. All disturbed soils have been seeded and mulched. All disturbed
slopes have been more or less stabilized. The old pond site has been graded so all stormwater flows
out of the pond basin area, i.e. there is no stormwater impoundment potential,
' 5

1 WASTE APPLICATION DETAILS FROM
TIIE POND CLOSURE AT BU rrKE DAIRY
' 6. The engineer now believes the animal. waste storage pond addressed within this report has been
properly closed and has met the criteria mentioned in the U.S. Natural Resources Conversation
' Service (NRCS) conservation practice standard number 360, called "Closure Of Waste
Impoundments".
' PROCLAMATIONS AND REMINDERS
1. Any person or company owning or controlling the property upon which an animal waste disposal
' system is in operation shall be responsible for all aspects of the disposal system. The system must be
maintained at all times to prevent direct seepage and/or discharge of effluent to the surface of ponds,
rivers, streams, or to any type of surface or ground waters.
' 2. Buttke Dairy Enterprises is hereby notified that he/she/they must operate or maintain this site in
accordance with state and local laws and regulations, Problems should be reported to the N.C,
' Division of Water Quality (DWQ) ASAP, Changes in animal steady state live weight, operations,
ownership, and/or waste management must first be discussed with DWQ before proceeding. The
farm owner should keep a copy of this certified report in the farm files.
' 3. The project engineer can not take responsibility for the accuracy of all information or conclusions
made by others and referenced herein. Much of the information presented above is based on
information supplied by others. "Reasonable estimates" were made on occasion in this report. Such
' estimates were made based on typical situations or average data that was available to the engineer.
4. All vegetation receiving animal waste or within the zone of disturbed soil shall be kept in peak
' condition at all times. This means the proper fertilization, mowing, cutting, and liming. Overly wet
or overly dry conditions can cause vegetative stress or death, therefore the operator shall be careful
to monitor vegetative performance. All disturbed soils shall be kept from eroding.
' 5. The abandoned pond shall not be made to impound stormwater or manure.
6. The engineer takes no responsibility for changes made to the above plan and or specifications
' before, during, or after construction/implementation without his knowledge. Nor does the engineer
take any responsibility for human losses or property damages which should occur due to poor
workmanship, improper use of machinery, unknown conditions above or below ground level, legal
problems with boundary fines or easements, acts of nature, "short-cuts" the owner or contractor
may take in construction/implementation, improper waste application activities, legislative rule
changes during or after plan development, improper system operation, lack of site maintenance, etc.
' Information given to the engineer by the owner or others and used in these specifications shall be
taken as truth if it can not be verified otherwise.
T . Agents from DWQ or LQS may visit the old pond site to view final shapes, soil stability, etc. The
' land owner will be obligated to adhere to any future requirements of the LQS agents.
8. This document does not contain all specifications, rules, and laws associated with the land
' application and management of animal waste. Copies of such guidelines and documentation can be
obtained at the local NRCS office, the regional office of DWQ, or from the Cooperative Extension
' Service.
END OFREPORT ****
6

EXHIBITS SECTION
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

t ,']Nc ref
C Aa t*Z p ,
-r D,'.31-F-
9-1 kju-y
�.o-r
tdoa0y �
rl
i Ff�P c J T�'lD9�+1.t-1,J
LA 0�1
T 2-1
ttF-
3? T 2031-F
I rl
Us
c T a13 r t
T-ACYK4, N.,
s W 37 -F.1
A in
SI}tND IN
2•`i^1i
I(-T-.'Ar31
Bair
T13j
T-;)-Sit-F-Lq i
I�t�ovN tAGdvr� T-aa`_<�

End Exhibit 2
1
-F-3
�0 gcKS
; l7
t
t�•1A
Ci�f,�
ct
LL
.)
= cal,E
11
•r
Q
4

NCDA Agronomic Division
4300 R
Creek Road
Ralei , NC 27607-6465
919 733-2655 Grower: Buttke Dairy Enter rise
Report No: W04336 Pq 2
Sample Info.
Laboratory Results rtsper million unless otherwise noted
-
Sample 10:
SLBS C IA"'S1 M
Waste Code:
LSD ��
Description:
Dairy Li . SluM
N
P
K Ca Mo
S Fe Mn Zn
CU B
Mo C! C
Total 971
IN -N
-NH4
-NO3
OR-N
Urea
582 1037 1639 569 278 199 17.0 19.9 140 1.53
Na Ni Cd Pb Al Se Li PH SS C:N
0M% CCE% ALF K al
424 7.79
Recommendations:
Nutrients Available for First Crop
W1000 allons
Other Elements
lbs11000allons
Application Method
Broadcast
Irrigation
N - P205
3.5 7.8
3.2 7.8
K20 Ca
8.3 9.6
8.3 9.6
Mg S Fe Mn
3.3 1.6 1.2 0.10
3.3 1.6 1.2 0.10
Zn CU B Mo C!
0.13 0.93 .0.01
0.13 0.93 0.01
Na Ni
3.5
3.5
Cd Pb Al Se Li
i ne waste proaua cwra ins a large amount or copper. Appmcation rates snouio oe oases not only on crop niu-W requirement our copper aoeumuiauon in Sall at the appiieaUOn site. Limits on application or the
naterial may be necessary to amid excess accumulation of capper in the soil.
Sample Info.
Laboratory Results artsper million unless otherwise not
Sample ID.
N
P K Ca S
Fe Mn Zn
CU B
Mo CI C
CONC
Total 2743
843 1086 7598 606 297
140 53.3 15.4.
86.2 3.19
1N -N
Waste Code.
-NH4
LSD
-NO3
Na Ni Cd Pb Al
Se Li
SS C.-N
DM% CCE% ALE al
Description:
OR-N
475
7.91
Dairy Li . Sl
Urea
Recommendations:
Nutrients Available for First Crop
!bs/1000 gallons
Other Elements
lbs17000g2ilons
Application Method
N P205 K20
. Ca Mg S Fe Mn Zn Cu
B Mo '. Cl
Na N!
Cd Pb Al Se Li
Broadcast
9.8 11.3 8.7
44.4 3.5 1.7 0.82 0.31 0.10 .0.58
0.02
4.0
Irrigation
9.2 11.3 8.7
44.4 3.5 1.7 0.82 0.31 0.10 0.58
0.02
4.0
i ne waste proauct contains large amounts or nitrogen, pnoslxiorus. and copper. the waste snouio oe appiiea at rates needed to meet crop nitrogen requirement unless pnosphorus or copper are restrictive. when sou
.est P is very high and the site is vulnerable to phosphorus movement to nearby surface'water, I imit application of P to'esdmated crop remittal of this element. Limit copper application as necessary to avoid excess
rocumulaJon of this element in the soil.
Sample Info.
Laboratory Results rLsper million unless otherwise not
Sample 10:
RI
Waste Code:
LSD
Description:
Dairy Li . Slurry
N
P K Ca
Mo
S Fe Mn Zn
CU B
Mo Cl C
Total 105
IN -N
-NH4
-NO3
OR-N
Urea
79.0 763 184 100 30.1 4.86 0.83 0.68 0.55 0.50
Na Ni Cd Pb Al Se Li pH SS C:N
DMA CCE% ALE K al
96.5 8.35
Recommendations:
Nutrients Available for First Crop
IW1000,qallons
Other Elements
ibs/1000 joalIons
Application Method
Broadcast
N P205 K20
0.38 1.1 6.1
Ca Mg S Fe
1.1 0.58 0.18 0.03
Mn
T
Zn CU B Mo CI
T T T '
Na Ni
0.80
Cd Pb Al Se Li
Exhibit 3

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Www.ncagr.comlagronomi! • • ' - ""
(919)•733-2655
" Exhibit 4
E
Unde-rstanaing e thasteAnalysis
Waste products must be disposed of in ways that protect the environment. Proper disposal includes having the waste analyzed and applying it at
agronomic rates. The Waste Analysis Report provides information necessary to use these materials as a resource while
protecting
the environment.
Sample Info This section contains sample identifiers, specifically the sample identification number, waste code, and description.
Key to Abbreviations
These data are supplied by the grower on the information sheet submitted with each sample.
ALE
2 Agricultural liine_,= :
Laboratory Results Wastes can be analyzed for up to 20 elements. Routine analysis includes most of the nutrients that are essential
_�
equavalent::
for plant growth--N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, B and Na. Other elements may be analyzed if they are potentially harmful to
B 4w.'
soil or plants when allowed to increase to excessive levels. For example, when the waste is a by-product from a municipality or
C: . '.'.,-Carbon=
industry, the heavy metals Cd, Ni and Pb are routinely included in the analysis. Upon request and if conditions warrant, certain waste
Cd-
Calcium
types can also be tested for Cl and Mo. Results are reported in parts per million. If the sample is a compost or compost ingredient,
CCE%
Cd
CaCO3 equivalence
Cadmium -
values for pH, SS and C:N are reported; pH values are also reported for all liquid animal waste samples. DM% is reported for all dry
Cl : -
-Chloride
waste samples. CCE% and ALE are reported for waste products that may have neutralizing value.
' ;Copper .
Recommendations This section has three parts: 1) Nutrients Available for First Crop based on application method; 2) Other
DM%
Percent dry matter;;
Elements that may impact application; and 3) agronomic comments indicating precautions to be taken when using the waste.
Fe:
K = .
Iron " :: "::-..
:E - y
Potassium
1) Predictions of nutrients available for the first crop are based on estimates of mineralization rate and nutrient loss, depending on
K 2 O
Potash
application method. Estimates are reported in pounds per ton for solid wastes and pounds per 1000 gallons for liquid wastes. "T"
Mg
Magnesium -
indicates that an element is present in a "trace" quantity (< 0.005 lb per measured unit).
Mn
Manganese
Plan to apply wastes near the time that plants will require nutrients because 50 to 75 percent of the nutrient quantities listed will become
Mo �
Molybdenum
available to the crop within the first month after waste application. The remaining nutrients gradually become available over the next three months.
N ;
'..,,Nitrogen -
Nutrients not available for the first crop are mineralized to available forms over time, usually years. Certain nutrients, such as
Na
NH+
Nlurlr nitrogen
Zn and Cu, may accumulate in the soil insignificant quantities. If waste is routinely applied, monitor nutrient accumulation with soil
Ni ._
Nickel -..-.. .:• =
tests at least once every two years. Some cropping systems and metal levels may necessitate annual soil samples.
NO
Nitratenitrogen!f.
ALE and CCE% are reported for wastes that may have neutralizing value. ALE indicates the amount of the waste product
P
Phosphorus
required to equal one ton of good quality agricultural lime (CCE%=90). If waste materials have significant neutralizing value, apply
P O S
A
Phosphate
them only at rates necessary to optimize pH.
Lead
For flexibility, the information sheet allows two choices for application method_ Predictions of available nutrients are based on
pH
Mcasure of acidity
the type of waste and the method of application. If you decide to change the application method after the analysis is complete,
S
or alkalinity
S fur
contact the Agronomic Division for a revised recommendation.
SS_
'Soollubub le salts' . .
2) Quantities of other elements that may have an impact on the environment—Na, Ni, Cd, Pb—indicate the likelihood of harmful buildup
T -
Trace
in the soil. Like nutrients, they are reported in pounds per ton for solid wastes and pounds per 1000 gallons for liquid wastes.
Zn
Zinc
3) The recommendations section may include agronomic comments when warranted. These provide general information on the waste
product and alert the user when plant nutrients or heavy metals are high enough to wan -ant special precautions when applying the waste. For diagnostic samples, site -specific
reconunendations are provided based on information sheet data. The more thoroughly the problem and its unique conditions are described
on the information sheet, the more
pertinent and site specific the recommendations will be.
May 2005 10,000 copies of this public document were printed at a cost of $205.41 or $0.02 per copy.

omkShrisiW, 3M Creek, a0Wi!9ffCg2760716465"f , I_W-'_tj- " -�j 0:
9)' 551INSUMMA N' ' j�*0#94CVV
Grower: Buttke ]Dairy Enterprise Copies To: Graham, Larry
5796 Walker Mill Rd.
Randleman, NC 27317
Waste
Graham, Larry
Analysis
effort Farm: 76-12 PO Box 426
Aberdeen, NC 28315
8/2/05
Randolph County
Sampli
7 e
Uboratory Risjults, dth' !(6tid)"�E
r,wise 7
Sample I_D:
N
P K Ca MR S Fe Mn zn Cu B Mo Cl c
Total 10785
qml 3770 11115 7469 2702 7105 411 209 689 0.00
IN _N
Waste Code:
-NH4
Na Ni Cd Pb Al Se Li pH SS CS DM% CCE% ALE togs
SSD
-NO3
1042 50-99
Description:
OR-N
Dairy Surface Scraped
Urea
ki6
efits'XvUlabli k0lfstdroV
Mike i Elements a _j&/io—k-( ech
Ir gisli
n' .5' 2'U ",jr; - -
xi4 - ­_ Mn
4. 3 "7 6
--44� 4 -
A Pb'�".',J,;�--
ow
""4
A
End Exhibit 4

WASTE STORAGE POND CLOSURE.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR BU'17KE; DAIRY
SECTION 5
MISC. FORMS, LETTERS AND SUPPORT
INFORMATION

1
1
1
1
1
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
James D. Simons, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
October 10, 2005
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Arlin Buttke
5796 Walker Mill Road
Randleman, North Carolina 27317
RE: Approval to Breach
Buttke Dairy Lagoon Dike
Randolph County
RANDO-155
Dear Mr. Buttke:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
This 'is in response to your submission dated August 26, 2005 and October 6,2005 and received
on August 31, 2005 and October 10, 2005 respectively of plans, specifications and design data
for the breach of the subject dam in compliance with the Dam Safety Law of 1967. The
minimum application processing fee of $200.00 (Check No. 79609) was also received on August
31, 2005. The plans, specifications and design data were prepared under the supervision of Mr.
Larry Graham, PE.
This letter constitutes approval of your.proposal to breach the subject dam according to the plans
and specifications received by this Division on August 31, 2005 and October 10, 2005 with the
following stipulations:
' 1. Project breach activities shall be supervised by Mr. Larry Graham, PE.
' 2. During construction, the Division of Land Resources may require such progress reports
as are deemed necessary.
3. Upon completion of the project, Mr. Larry Graham, PE shall inspect the completed work
' and upon finding (a) that the work has been. done as specified and (b) that the breach has
been sufficiently stabilized to restrain accelerated erosion, and (c) the remains of the dam
are safe, shall file with the Division of Land Resources two sets of record drawings and a
certificate stating that the work has been completed in accordance with the approved
plans and other requirements, and the remains of the dam are safe.
1
' 1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 - 919-73345741 FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled 110°,6 Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Arlin Buttke
' October 10, 2005
Page 2
1
4. You must notify Mr. Matthew E. Gantt, PE, Regional Engineer, Land Quality Section,
585 Waughtown Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27107, telephone number (336)
771-4600 ten days before the start of construction.
The Army Corps of Engineers and the Water Quality Section of this Department should be
contacted to determine if additional permits are required. Sediment must be prevented from
entering the waters of the state or flowing onto neighboring property as a result of the breaching
' activities.
Enclosed are a cost certification form and an explanation of the final processing fee calculation.
' An additional fee will be required when the cost certification and engineer's certifications are
submitted if the cost for removal of the dam exceeds $10,000.00. The cost certification form
must be completed and returned with the engineer's certification regardless of dam removal cost.
' Construction must begin within one year of the date of this approval or the approval is void. For
assistance, you may contact Mr. Matthew E. Gantt, PE, at [phone] or a member of the
' Central Office dam safety staff at [phone].
Sincerely,
Maxwell R. Fowler, PE
State.Dam Safety Engineer
' MRFlwhd
' Enclosures
cc: Mr. Larry F. Graham; PE `
Mr. Steve Tedder, Regional Water Quality Supervisor
Mr. Matthew E. Gantt, PE, Regional Engineer

NCDENR t
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
' Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
' James D. Simons, P.G., P.E. Michael F. Easley, Governor
Director and State Geologist William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
1 - January 3, 2006
' Mr. Arlin Buttke
5796 Walker Mill Road
Randleman, North Carolina 27317
' RE: Waste Storage fond Dam
Randolph County
State ID: R-ANDO-155
Dear Mr. Buttke:
' This is to acknowledge receipt of the record drawings and engineer's certification dated December 27,
2005 pertaining to the breach of the subject -dam. The submittal was received in our office on December
' 29, 2005. The additional application processing fee of $93.73 (Check No. 80318) was also received on
December 29, 2005.
' We will review the submittal and our Regional Office personnel will conduct a site inspection of the
breached structure. Upon completion of.the requisite site inspection and finding by our field personnel
that the dam has been breached in conformance with the approved plan and as reported in the record
drawings submittal, our office will issue an approval letter. If significant discrepancies are found to exist,
' revisions may be required before an approval can be issued.
Please contact Mr. Matthew Gantt, PE, Regional Engineer at telephone number [phone]; or Max
' Fowler, PE, State Dam Safety Engineer or me at telephone number [phone] should you have
questions concerning this matter.
' Sincerely,
' William H. Denton, IV, EIT
Asst. State Dam Safety Engineer
' Land Quality Section
cc: Mr. Larry Graham, PE
Mr. Steve Tedder, Water QualityRegional Supervisor
Mr. Matthew E. Gantt, PE, Regional Engineer
Geological Survey - Land Quality - Geodetic Survey
Division of Land Resources - 1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
919-733-38331 FAX: [phone] Internet: www.dlr.enr. state.nc.usldlr.htm
An Equal Opportunity1 Affirrna9ve Action Employer- 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

Animal Waste Storage Pond and Lagoon Closure Report Form
(Please type or print all information that does not require a signature)
1
1
General Information:
Name of Farm: Facility No: 76 - 12
Owner(s) Name:Arl in F_ Buttke_
Mailing Address: 5796 Walker Mill Road Phone No: [phone]
Randleman, NC 27317 County - _Randolph
Operation Description (remaining animals only):
0 Please check this box if there will be no animals on this farm after lagoon closure. If there will still be animals on the site after
lagoon closure, please provide the following information on the animals that will remain.
Operation Description:
Type of Swine No. of Animals
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
0 Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
• Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Type of Poultry No. of Animals
❑ Layer
4 Non -Layer
Type of Beef No. of Animals
❑ Brood
❑ Feeders
❑ Stockers
Other Type of Livestock:
Type of Dairy No. of Animals
thMilking ^120n
O Dry
0 Heifers
❑ Calves
Number of Animals:
Will the farm maintain a number of animals greater than the 2H .0217 threshold? Yes W No ❑
Will other lagoons be in operation at this farm after this one closes? Yes a No Cl
How many lagoons are left in use on this farm?: 3 (These are Waste Storage Parris Not Lagoons) .
(Name) M.-lissa Ptosebrock . of the Water Quality Section's staff in the Division of
Water Quality's TAr>!;hm ROcm Regional Office (see map on back) was contacted on 7/26/05 _(dale)
for notification of the pending closure of this pond or lagoon. This notification was at least 24 hours prior to the
start of closure, which began on 10/24/05 (date).
' I verify that the above information is correct and complete..I have followed a closure plan, whichmeets all NRCS
specifications and criteria. I realize that I will be subject to enforcement action per Article 21 of the North Carolina
General Statutes if I fail to properly close out the lagoon.
' Name of Lan r (Please P ' t): A E. Buttke
Signature: - Date:T_�
�rrrrrr ini�b
The facility has followed a closure plan which meets all requirements set forth in the NRCS
Standard 998. The following items were completed by the owner and verified by me: allal ,�•'k
have been removed and land applied at agronomic rate, all input pipes have been remove all have
stabilized as necessary, and vegetation established on all disturbed areas. S A L
' 11602•;�
Name of Technical Specialist (Please Print): F. Graham, P.E. Iry •
Affiliation: Ermiranmental4'4
Address (Agency-O. W= 4 NC 28315 Phone No.: 9i6252
Signati Date:- /0 D
Return within 15 days following completion of animal water storage pond or lagoon closure to:
N. C. Division Of Water Quality- Water Quality Section
Compliance Group
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617