760028_INSPECTIONS_20171231

M
(Type of Visit: /N? Compliance Inspection U Operation Review U Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: _.�Noutine O Complaint 0 Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ; Departure Time; m ; QQy. County: d �Region: W 5 P_
Farm Name: (fit al V'11 Owner Email:
Owner Name: S I J n e y CL" v l -5 C 66 �0.-�" Phone-
Mailing Address: S-6 3 f J CL U I S Co U n +,- U RoL • t Po-pid I e rn C.'-n I NC- R 73 17
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �GLVt-5 Vla Title:
(or �aush}� Hof t���hi-
Onsite Representative: tt
tau i 5 = (336) G(ivS - 3 A YJ Neer
Phone: 3 3
Integrator:
Certified Operator: �hlx,r.� to Lwk CaS _� qqi 0 T) Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: r'ea rl ���+�jh'� Certification Number: r
. U rl
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35 6 7I q3 Longitude: -7 q
Current
Design
Current
Design
Design
Current
Sw> a
Capaci Pop.
Wet Pou�try
Capacity
Eop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
Dairy Cow
aZ
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Paiptcalf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
.,
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Drr Poultry
C•.a acit �,
P,o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Qther
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
r
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
[] NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
[] Yes
❑ No
[)5 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3
21412015 Continued

i
Facili umber: -I - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes CpNo [] NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes T❑ No ® NA ❑ NE
Structure i Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: WQSte Po►J
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
N
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Y8 M No 0 NA 0 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 [P No ❑ NA 0 NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes [4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No [DNA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidenc E' Wind ift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): tr A all a 'e C,
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement'?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
�NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
.�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly. operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Qg No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[�g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑�lu�}
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
JR
❑ No
;�rNA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 1
21412015 Continued

l
Fhcility umber: Date of inspection: AW
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 D�<A ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ,�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes rSd]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes Qg 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 f�PNo [DNA ❑ 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 &No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes [!g�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? 0 Yes �g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes W 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).
a (. t2_eto F-J_ n C,0M /More i o_ f N® r) s L� U rz - z? yes b ex yes R-2 I
CIle.0 iL a1(0 0, a ! 6CC_+10 V, reC.o rd s 10 1-{ # tocn,[ i b r4w, con )eko
4- ;� . e-r eA fzSUP A1_P_�
C D Vl o f Doss
tic,
Reviewer/Inspector Name: �'" I Qn%��! Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: '' 1 Date: t/g
Page 3 o, f 3 21412015

1
�acility'Number
Type of Visit: CkCompliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Compl
Date of Visit: Arrival Tim
Operation Review O Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Departure Time: County: 6qK Region: WS R(j4
Farm Name:
4-65WM
Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Svpm �p�t3
i (+%3tL- l
Phone:
Mailing Address:
5 g I t
iS '(Guyw RiJ, (-)AA1QL"N%-9__,
?NG 9230
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: QfthS CAS KVff Title: Phone: .44S ' 3" k
Onsite Representative: Integrator: y
Certified Operator: 0" , 2 tH I * _ tt4lFK&R Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: 740W_--A "r Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ?j ° V 1 4V Longitude: -M e SO t (ef
Kwy %k\ 4S. -To cem S& &4+r 4j,-0 *Km � � � WAa evvAftv PR
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
Q 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
Fg
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
VN
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412015 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
�
❑ NE
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:s P
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):_
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
[�]''1 ]moo
❑ 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[INo
❑ 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`?
'es
❑ No
❑ 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 �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect land application'? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes &�N ❑ 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): LXl s SiL 6e
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? C Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? 0 Yes V'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No F NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes VN
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes V ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ��-�' 'esVNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Othe :
21. Does record keeping need improvement?. des o ❑ NA ❑ NE
[�iy'FZ'e2bam� 'c Q'VPaste'�`I'r�e'-'0i
dal!st0ekin d
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? D Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 0 No ,§lA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: 113ate of Inspection:
24.•Did the facility fail to calibrate waste appli�on equipment as required by the permit? 6P❑ Yes rkrNo
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes >rNo
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:
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes rS ?Ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? if yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
Vo ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[/] No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
EK0 ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No l`1<
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes > Now ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Ej< ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
r-
al • ., , < < .. .,- ,� �, Sac. T"S s ou& aolq . IZAL ..- IF
V I r
COW s11. aoP60 FR&>os tN i • �as� -- rr, emu, r- a-►�rs7�
3a. r2tu_o s 1 a1✓ T- t� l E cp AN 3 5n i! �_ RkcErvw(- wwr3`lls-s
now. '
? 15.7�atx-5. `��' pro Ix1F�'tL' � Rc�StS
to&a'tvjx pipe- &4peA
Q. 13UfV0'0 �PL.C7 )'Aceo;s jz> j)e_WA*eL0 C*3 GrAgwkikW\
` Ll- 9"JK 4- 16--A' *W0 Ti%.T to Cwgr__\?ra0 W1 6C A o4v ft Pam, u w -y
Fo rco rri,
I, ROp ca►w��.ecl� i- n�Ro c 1 Sew `Tcchi SP c -to AM Coves rang
1.
Reviewer/inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatui
Page 3 of 3
") o a
Phone: -17 tP _ 1 �q 9
Date:
21412015

hn
Type of Visit: fTCompliance Inspection U Operation Review U Structure Evaluation U Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access 1j
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: h Region:
Farm Name: C ,(S t1Q CT` �4 i r` Owner Email:
Owner Name: S AnL� 4 ( T)a_ tS) b_s �a+[ Phone:
Mailing Address: 5(p?j �nvt5 Co�n�+r- �i . , � i'12a Nam„ a-73 t 7
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Qt q15 C OL5 had- Title:
Onsite Representative: bOtw�S
Certified Operator: ) l5 h ,.*dea+-�Q,—
Back-up Operator: z`ilr-�' S�la"4t
Location of Farm: Latitude:
14U-) 1311 S toCedar S g . � � + �►- +U M L
%-.,)'f1Q5 - 3;�-3y
Phone: Ll tac;_ — 3 a- 3-3
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
1 3 11 Longitude: �9 a �d f
J �qv i5 C,ou+n-I-V Y 0-
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
RNon-La
Wet Poultry
La er
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
Cattle
DairyCow
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
62 7
Wean to Feeder
er
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Deslgn
Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Dr, Roultr
Layers
C*_a -a
P,o ,
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Turke s
Turke Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Imt)acts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
❑ Yes P(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes &No
❑ Yes �<o
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page I of 3 21412014 Continued

'/
Facili Number: - a, 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. W CL4 0 PC
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes WNo [] NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a D Yes jj� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks) 9
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes 10 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA D 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): OM AJ 44 �--�� ,�ILLJCLJ 9 11-A.11,D
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
JWrNA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
..�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Reuuired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
0 Yes
[)rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? I
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
[] Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did.the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
PrNA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412014 Continued

Facili Number: 1 - xi • 1 Date of inspection: j -7
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
[] Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes JyNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes tA No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes 1� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [% No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes t� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
J'ErNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations orrany other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better: explain. situations (use additional pages as, necessary).
0-3
" �- -';-n 16 -
ALM
� ' � rti `• _ __ _ I � - � � � is �� t1 � ,
I •
_ � a
'F�2z��5 = I.b'� I IeS • NIA o� y�nQ , t�
Reviewer/Inspector Name: i � A iG i t dinA 't<pS ey) 1"
1.0z 1b4. PJ%0N s 5 b
-7,1 �-
Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date: 1111-7 1/2-0 S
21412014

ion of Water Res s
Facility Number -] (p - oZ$ •Division of Soil and Wa Conservation
� Other Agency
Type of Visit: qkCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up Q Referral O Emergency O Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: i e Departure Time: County: hRegion: \as PPz
Farm Name: n,Q�h[,1` bal r V Owner Email: Z r7 4taA44P QW a: I. CO
/ T 1
Owner Name: 1 f1�V fU lS1 �Q Phone:
Mailing Address: 3 T�LQ U LS tJ� UI'1`�'Y' lj #�(�. ��.UIU ��rYjlLl'� !v� DL_7 31 7
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
a V I.5 [ h 0L & Title:!
Onsite Representative: Ll,\45.4- "'"e4
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator
Location of Farm: Latitude: 3s ,57 43 Longitude: _79 -540 19
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Zachary
Certification Number:
N w y 3110 to L' ar S. . q- -&u rn L ' DO-V i 5 %u n1E ry Pd
Design
Swine Capacity
Wean to Finish
Current
Pop.
Wet Poultry
La er
Design
Capacity
C►urrent
Pop.
Cattle
DairyCow
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
-7
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Dr, P.oultr.
Design
Ca aci
C*urrent
P,o ,
DairyHeifer
D Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
/
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La era
/
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
101
10ther
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
❑ Yes ;k No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[-]Yes [:]No
[:]Yes [:]No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: 61 a 0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? []Yes JyNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I o Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: _ Li 0.5 e' r D h C
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 1�f No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a []Yes C6 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 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 )6 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11, is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [] Yes ;KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding [3 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):
rti tt.n rs1 s i l o-
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes ONO ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Renuired 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 ONO
[:]Yes [X No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Other:
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
21. Does record keeping need improvement? U yas, uhvwk Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis ❑ Weather Code
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield 91120 Minute Inspections Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections L I sludge
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No XNA NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continuer!

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate wast placation equipment as required by the permit ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. zo
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
7�
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
( No
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
T�
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
b�fNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ 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).
ra_�i a r1
d L)
11 ao o
o�
soli
A-e
P-5�"S
r P_Q u '1
U
r P C�. oI3 a.i i� i �'l a o 16
�p
` � r
Co F.3
10" PA
We t,� r14
►�
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
214,12014

Type of Visit: Mcompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Amoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: J1 Ljkrrival Time: : Departure Time: County: Ranjo I Region: b-3.5 gtO
Farm Name: NAO_A- - nQ l(y Owner Email:
Owner Name: I d 1i1 'U�{ �j j S1 0 Q. 5 + 1G0.t� Phone:
Mailing Address: S�0 3 1 / .t) L)n 12' .1--- C�1'1C 1�M0.�� N G v2 -7.31 7
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: t) Q.y 1 S 6 &-5 h0_4- Title:
Onsite Representative: 14 6eft�ew L)-)r- h-�
Certified Operator: N)06 5 4-5 % r-.
Back-up Operator:
s-- 3 a- 3
Phone: ,3 a3
Integrator: �—
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: .35- S 7 7—
Longitude: 7 9 SO 1,.5...
VI 3 l ! 5 `Eo Ce®l4-� 5 eK, t q- �-u r s� �e ;Do-V t5
Design
Swine C►apacity
to Finish
Current Design Current Design C►urrent
Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle Capacity Pop.
La er Dai Cow
to Feeder
Non -La er
Dai Calf
r to Finish
Dai Heifer
to Wean
fi
Design C►urrent
Dr, P,oultr. Ca acit P,o .
La ers
D Cow
to Feeder
to Finish
Non-Dai
Beef Stocker
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Turke s
Turke Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1, is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes )&No ❑ NA , ❑ NE
[] Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) [] Yes ❑ No ❑ NA„ 4E] NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)? ,
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
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 j5j-i�o
❑ Yes JS�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: • Date of Inspection: `7
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes _t�j�o ❑ 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: � a7Te,
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 130
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes Rio ❑ 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
ZNo
❑ 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?
oyes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Aanlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
[]Yes
�Vo
❑ 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
l2. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
[]Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
;SrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
VIVA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21 oes record keeping need i provement?-Ices, cl�ee4 Yes ONO
aste Application [Weekly Freeboard Waste AnalysisTonthly
An Waste Transfers
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections and V Rainfall Inspections
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? [:]Yes CRNo
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? []Yes ❑ No
Page 2 of 3
❑ NA ❑ NE
Weather Code
nee sarvey---
❑ NA ❑ NE
,gil'I`IA ❑ NE
21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - . Date —of Inspection: j
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes Leo
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 DRrNo
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ NA ❑ NE
15fNA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes JR-Ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes tia'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes D No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
�oo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Pf No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
23'114o
❑ 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.ainecessary) �` SEA V ",°,'' ,U
Rol 2 ePA*1e*ed , bU e_ 'A 021 n i n OM! 6O
on corx-pIe4-ed? yeS ID ue- aoIN qo
e.45e �on+=1 n U e, e�Pgo r+s im ez"a [ round h b4 S.
(La -r- v-,g 6 F- 3
t�mq '?Sq t-
S1171aola
l 0/ as l ,.)-a i,;.
Corn Sr 1 �o
a�
ltos r4`s
� oa
V
LS,b=1. 3V 55.b! 6. S'/
c3D - a. µg Ss D
ssb z 110.E
N,'V� pf) N 0
-�- act �% to L) P
''31l ae' 3 -=-- LAF 159aOP,
� �1p
�ona`CY1ar-t �,.,.
1a� -- Gr4 L+ye,S�c ,_,-
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3 4 %ng1R, A
13K.
r Phone: t � 1 'J�o�
Date: 7 r 6 a 13
4 `r to -i a -to m S m, p y"A-. 21412011
axte_ I S` +evsl t i

Type of Visit: rRoutine
pliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Q Complaint O Follow-up O Referral 0 Emergency Q Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: f7 hRegion: L0.5A0
Farm Name:v ko—* hQL I V' l,� Owner Email:
Owner Name: Q_u I ��5 r`Q"C[' Phone:
Mailing Address: 3 1 T AJ E S [ o t 1 n - U -, P—o—vyl I e m ar, , N rR 2 3 17
Physical Address: So^ -e-,
Facility Contact: 'b0.A1 jS &e �(� Title: Phone: *tp.7 3 °2 3 3
q (oS 3 A3
Onsite Representative; 4"ey- L-3ri Integrator:
Certified Operator: t�QN15 l&5 h o- l- Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: }-� e(�}-(�.itr Cf r! Q "�' Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35 % T Longitude: 7 q So 19
fed . Qa� r 5 c©ur -t
$ y
Swine Capacity Pet
Design Cu5flan-Layer
Wean to Finish
Poultry
er
Or, P■oultr.
Design
Capacity
Design
Ca aci
C*urrent
Pop.
Current
Po ,
Design Current
Cattle C*apacity Fop.
Dai Cow
Dai Calf
DairyHeifer
Dry Cow ZRT
Non -Dairy
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
[other
Other
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
I 10ther
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
[:]Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
[-]No
❑ NA
[] NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
[] Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
�Zo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
[-]Yes
;
❑ NA
[] NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page l of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - jDate of Ins ection: p
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?
>rYes
[:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 5
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in).
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes C23�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 V!(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes �rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes WNo ❑ 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 J�Z`No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes jNo ❑ 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): 4-5 C V 2— 0_0 T` (\ 5 I I OA-4 2.
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
[]Yes
LffNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[] NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
y'No
I XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
TTT"`
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP []Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need i vement? If ❑Yes No ❑ NA ONE
2/Rai/nall
ste Applic 'oneekly Freeboard "aste Analysis oil Analysis _ . ❑ Weather Code
fStocking rop Yield 20 Minute Inspections Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections-
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes b�rNo ❑❑/NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste ap tion equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ NE
[]Yes ❑ No �(NA
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 o ❑ NA NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
rNo
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes 'hTo ❑ 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 [ ZNo ❑ 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 Cg "o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? []Yes
C%No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes [Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any+other comments
Use drawinus of facility to betterexplain situations: (use, additional. a "es as necessa )..
a -0 / 2
el Ml, , a oil sue --tom
(rz- O'V'� - ao I/.
to/RO-otl LSD= Oo59i&5./J11000�4 550.3►roN
1/3/c01a LSD- 0.87 55o•(a
165 NlJomgaQ .
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
rock
Phone: II/a a O
Date: f
21412011

E
11 FaClhty Number �Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other AQencv Z
Type of Visit ompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: % / Departure Time: County:
q
Farm Name: Cgs�+T �a f Owner Email:
Owner Name: paV�s �qsh Phone: _
Mailing Address: 5_6 9 r D yt R c . A
MC 2
Region: W3 K C)
Physical Address: S
r� `` � 3a33
Facility Contact: D Avil CAs hf Title: Phone No: LfGs 32 3 -
Oncitr Rnnrocentativ.- HeA4-.r , r l n., S IntPoratnr-
Certified Operator: s4" 4voA C1t15�a+f_ Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: i " -r'51 A- Back-up Certification Number: 9 9 n
Location of Farm: Latitude: [�KjoLongitude: o ®
L Ce. r sR , DWI; � y.
00Design�Gur�rent Design
Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity
.Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
Dai Cow Z Z
❑ Wean to Feeder
11 10 Non -Layer I
I El Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean Dry Poultry
❑ D Cow
El Farrow to Feeder
ElNon-Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish El La ers
El Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts ❑Non -La ers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Pullets
❑ Boars
El Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other ❑ Turkey Poults
Number of Structures:
❑ Other ❑ 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)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes *No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑NA
❑NE
❑Yes
❑No
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: '7� — Z� • 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: WAAC, "n I
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
r !/
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
kYes ❑ No ElNA ElNE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes kNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ko ElNA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes kNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) kNo
9. Does any part of thewaste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ElNA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Annlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. Cl Yes X
No [INA ElNE
Excessive Ponding ElHydraulic Overload [IFrozen Ground ElHeavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) Ca rA _5ts �q�,,e Q— S AJ�L� 5 raN
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes )�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes ); No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16, Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
;Comments (refer to question;#) Explain any YES answers and/or, anyyrecomtnendations or any other
filse drawings of=facrlity to better explain situation's: (use'additional pages?as necessary }sr �1y1l�LLb0as� r. R
�A a� )rnn�, ,,�i ��1t�c �} �,�1 R �a�,►,
s� r�►�-� dram er��- �
11, Zn-S was boo I
Reviewer/Inspector Name <i ,`s ; ,`.� � J �tiL � , e 's� J. j" ;:'y:+ e # v�trO
Phone: 3 -5LS
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: L73 i i ZO
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility plumber: — Z 16of Inspection 0
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes ) No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes No
�V
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
Q�i'es �No
❑ NA
❑ NE
L� Wastc Application eekly Freebo d Waste Analysis Soil Analysis
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield mute Inspections Monthly and 1"
Rain Inspections I� weather
Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No qNA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes I' No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No JNA ❑ 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
ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
El Yes
�..,(
psl No
[I NA
El NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
! 4
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
)4/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additib;nal.Coroments and/or Drawings
PA
lid 0e % 2-0
Nam: Gf ors
P
W,5'FU" 4K'(ST5 =
s- fHw
Page 3 of 3
12128104

Ii
IFacilityNumber I —) 1, HIw ':j� II
Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water
O Other Agency
Type of Visit C mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: KkId 6 Region:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: ,�JJ Phone: �j
Mailing Address: _ ` Ul` +i�[}[t e IA4 &in
Physical Address: (CdU V) "(A I r -11A C— ; :Z
Facility Contact: ._ _ 111 `] [�lLS� GTitle: Phone No: `�
Onsite Representative: o jl � � Integrator: S— 3 3
Certified Operator: 5 i n PAN I IT ,G5 Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: r Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = e Longitude: = ° = i = is
U5 30 Sou`F�• LeLff onfo d&v- rJ �• Pi jhf--0nFo 4 �i5
Coun�l-�r u
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure - ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
El
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifei
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: F7
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes )(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
C<No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection •
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? Xyes 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: d e-'r}
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes t'No [I NA El NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) XNo
`6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ElYes [INA ElNE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes O V ❑ 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 �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10.
Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
Io
❑ 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 Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12.
Crop type(s) 0 !�4 4M!!uA(/)
I3.
Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? , Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[:] Yes
X,No
❑ NA ❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
' C�7✓
txx�
Reviewer/inspector Name 11AP Phone: Aa1
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu Ad AA Date: Q
. " 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: %p — aZg 9e of Inspection
ReQuired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists � ❑Design ❑Maps , ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need iprovement`. I he arpreprietteI ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
rite Application W ekly Freeboard Waste Analysis S�Zonthly
alysis �ra�s€�e— Rainfall [ Stockin r Cro Yield 120 Minute Ins ections and 1" Rain Ins ections Weather Code
b P P P
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ o
%NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
9
ElNE
❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes P(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Yes
❑l No
❑ NA
ElNE
ElYes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
)(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
A'dditional�Comments and/or Drawings:``
T
`�
S i la a- fireLsfmk I f 1 pes �..y_, ,encWed F5 �e +
I
�09 5 a _ I fes fs ?
Oahbrahorj d U L Oc,+
- a o I o,
WO — F cy@
&P. A;�X)
P%)
I-a9:cS(P 1
-wv
Ck
W-POr
Of AD
4X&4a
-'a
p
Page 3 of 3 1 0 12128104

VM
waFq� Incident Report
�o
r
a
-r
Report Number:
201001652 N6ki 0 pC v Q;L
Incident Type: Non -Compliance Reporting
On -Site Contact:
Category: APS -Animal
First/Mid/Last Name:
15—cident-StartedF�01119/2010
Company Name:
County: Randolph
Phone:
City: Randleman
Pager/Mobile Phone: !
Farm #: 076-0028
Responsible Party:
Reported By:
Owner:
First/Mid/Last Name:
PFmil-1 AWC760028
Company Name:
Facility: Cashatt Dairy
Address:
First Name: Doris
Middle Name: Davis
City/State/Zip:
Last Name: Cashatt
Phone:
Address 5665 Davis Country Rd
Pager/Mobile Phone: 1
City/State/Zip: Randleman NC 2731771
Phone:
Material Category: Estimated Qty: UOM
Chemical Name Reportable Qty. lbs. Reportable Qty. kgs.
DD:MM:SS Decimal Position Method:
Latitude: Position Accuracy:
Longitude: Position Datum:
Location of Incident:
Address:
City/State/Zip
Davis County Road
Randleman
Report Created 05/14/10 01:15 PM
Page i

Cause/Observation: Directions:
Action Taken: Comments:
Incident Questions:
Did the Material reach the Surface Water? Unknown
Surface Water Name?
Did the Spill result in a Fish Kill? Unknown
If the Spill was from a storage tank indicate type.
Containment? Unknown
Cleanup Complete? Unknown
Water Supply Wells within 1500ft : Unknown
Access to Farm 0 Animal Population
0 Structure Questions
Report Created 05/14/10 01:15 PM
Conveyance:
Estimated Number of fish?
(Above Ground or Under Ground)
Groundwater Impacted : Unknown
0 Spray Availability
Page 2
61

•
Access to Farm
Farm accessible from the main road?
Animal Population
Confined?
Depop?
Feed Available?
Mortality?
Spray Availability
Pumping equipment?
Available Fields?
Structure Questions
Breached?
Inundated?
Overtopped?
Water on outside wall?
Poor dike conditions?
Waste Structure Type Waste Structure Identi Inches
Waste Pond WASTE POND 18,00
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Plan Due Date Plan Recleved Date Level OK Date
10-03-26 05:00:00
Event Type Event Date Due Date Comment
Incident closed
Requested Additional Information
Report Received
Referred to Regional Office - Primary Contact
Report Entered 2010-05-11 12:36:30
Incident Start 2010-01-19 08:00:00
Report Created 05/14/10 01:15 PM Page 3

Standard Agencies Notified:
Agency Name Phone First Name M.I. Last Name Contact Date
Other Agencies Notified:
Agency Name Phone First Name M.I. Last Name Contact Date
DWQ Information:
Report Taken By: Report Entered By: Regional Contact:
Melissa Rosebrock
Phone:
DatetTime: 2010-05-11 12:36:30 PM
Referred Via:
Did DWQ request an additional written report?
If yes, What additional information is needed?
Report Created 05/14/10 01:15 PM Page 4

Type of Visit N Compliance Inspection U Operation Review U Structure Evaluation U Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ARoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: d Arrival Time: Z= Departure Time: County: R&h Region:
Farm Name: C�.S hC—*/ �1� Qi_C V_ _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: �l awl l_; L1aS h a rPhone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
ltemr_n, �)C .27311
11e man , Ky--. a-
Facility Contact: lami 6 Cyr ��CI`�'Y�'eTitle: Phone No:
Onsite Representative® jL r Integrator:
Certified Operator: °'bm �QV�S l QCT Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
O 3l l Sou
Latitude: Mr
0nt0 a&(- 59.
Back-up Certification Number:
fl'EU Longitude: [H o ®i 11
I -on �vts Count
Design Current
Design Current
Design C►urrent
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
C►attle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
10 Layer
Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
1
10 Non -Layer
I I
ElbairyCalf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑Non -La ers
El Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turke s
Other
❑ Turkey Pou Its
❑ Other
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Imacts
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?
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes )6No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3�
12128104 Continued

•;
411
Facility Number: — A I. 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 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier; {tV a 0'.'4
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes l No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes gNo ❑ 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? 0 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 X
No❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? ko
I. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ElHydraulic Overload ElFrozen Ground ElHeavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
�x
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
❑ No
X NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[VNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #}: Explain any YES answers andlor anprecommendatioits or•any,other comments.
Use drawings of facility (o better explain situations: (use addrtional page's,as necessary y i
�51H Y
AL
Reviewer/Inspector Name T p :Y - t �: *.; Phone: �g
4
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
r 7117RIfid

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
R_eauired Records_& Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes j(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps [I Other
21. Doe ecord keeping neeVWC
ovementY If�rae�heelrHM apprcpriai e}e�r-- ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Doe
ApYstocking
tion
ly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis NJ SVmonthly
alysis
M Rainfall and I" Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
A No
El NA
El NE
El Yes
❑ N
XNA
El NE
El Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
IWNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
IgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
AdditionalEornmentsand/or Drawings�rt'�,�a.rdr�7t{I�`�1
F I F- z ?
l �oo� �- aoo9 So•� +e5+s 0100?N
rc-7i o r\ C,o� to t-e-a o
bUe�je4_+_;n ao�o
-.Pv
12aVO4

Division of Water Quail n
7 Facility Number "` 9Division ofSo.il and Water Conservation
0 OtherAgency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection. Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint 0 Follow up O Referral O Emergency Q Other El Denied Access
Date of Visit: I 7 /�y-
I)//ouArrival Time: Departure Time: County: a Region: L�
Farm Name: a % r l .LJt L►�_y Owner Email:
Tom[
Owner Name: � a 1l('s ons Phone.
Mailing Address: ' S _7tP3 j l f �- ��_
Physical Addres
Facility Contact V 511 GL I I Title: Phone No:
Onsite Represents Integrator: QQ
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number: ®v
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
aT6 9
Location of Farm: �4atitude: L �i�l c &]' EU " Longitude: ffy] c GE I l l 11
J
U5 3A saarLD - 611-6 tedo'4f S?. M. 24. Onto'Davis y
Design Current
`Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current"
Wet -Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑
Layers
❑
Non -Layers
❑
Pullets
❑
Turkeys
❑
Turkey Poults
❑
Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current;, "
Capacity- Population ,
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow_
Non -Dairy _
Beef Stocker
Beef Brood Cowl l ,
Number of Structures
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
1 a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes ,,X/No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
[I NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes ) /No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ) No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes WNo []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 YNo ❑ 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?
lD
Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. 9Yes ❑ No
❑ Excessive P riding El Hydraulic Overload El 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)
t3. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiv
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
M. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
El NA El NE
No
tJ NA
u NE
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
No
[I NA
❑NE
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):
o Trams a $ F- ] I k Ql��.t¢- t.*kvV400L�i
`
a
nRls= 2275 F- A o
Reviewer/Inspector Name I Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date:
Page 2 of 3 " " % 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — *Date of Inspection j�� 0
CN\
Reauired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 4No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes y
No❑ NA [INE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ElDesign ElMaps [IOther
21. D es record kee ' eed ite
vement? ,,, , Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Wasie Applica o ly Freeboard Waste Analysis oil A 'ysis L�Waste Transfers Refiti
Stocking Crop Yield [a- tons B24onthly and 1" Rain Inspections VWeather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? 5610 - ❑ Yes
u'4en
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? honeAj V El 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
A Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
$No
El NA
El NE
❑ No
O NA
❑ NE
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ No
06 NA
❑ NE
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Wo'❑ NA
❑ NE
I(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
�```V"` o
El NA
❑NE
�(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
.Wional CommentsiDrawings:
a 06riv
•� - 00 L15 ! r '0-4
Page 3 of 3
12128104

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 760028 Facility Status: Active Permit: &M760028 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: QomolianceJn§I&,ction _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine . County: Randolph Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 05111/2007_ Entry Time:11:15 AM Exit Time: 12730 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Cashatt Dairy Owner Email:
Owner: Robert Cashatt
Phone: QQ0A98-3563
Mailing Address: 5763 Davis Country Rd Randleman NC 273177153
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
Latitude:35°51'43" Longitude:79°50'19"
From GSO go south on Hwy. 220 to first exit in Randolph Co. (Level Cross) and turn right onto Branson Mill Rd. Turn left onto Walker
Mill Road then right onto Davis Country Road.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
© Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Sidney D Cashatt Operator Certification Number: 21310
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name ' Davis Cashatt
On -site representative Davis Cashatt
Phone: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: MeRos brook Phone: J ^�
0ju
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
21. 2007 soil samples to be obtained this Fall.
21. 4/18/07 waste analyses: lagoon=0.30 lbs. N/1000 gal and scrape=8.40 lbs. N/ton
24. Calibration is completed for old honey wagon but not for the one obtained from mr. Buttke. To be completed.
28. The oats on T-2286 F-2 received <2 lbs./A waste last Fall. Was not harvested due to poor quality but was grazed
Page: 1

Permit: AWC760028 Owner - Facility: Robert Cashatt Facility Number: 760028
Inspection Data: 05/11/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle - Dry Cow 82
JW Cattle -Milk Cow 279 13
Total Design Capacity: 279
Total SSI.W: 390,600
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
kste Pond WASTE STORAGE POND 18.00
Page: 2

•
Permit: AWC760026 Owner- Facility; Robert Cashatt Facility Number: 760028
Inspection Date: 05/11/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? DMOD
Discharge originated at
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■ ❑
❑
c, Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■ ❑
❑
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■ ❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■ ❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No NA
NE
A, Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
improvement?
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or Cl ■ ❑ ❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? 0 ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWC760028 Owner - Facility: Robert Cashatt
Inspection Date: 05/11/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 760028
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Corn
(Silage)
Crop Type 2
Alfalfa
Crop Type 3
Fescue (Way, Pasture)
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?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No NA NE
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

0
Permit: AWC760028 Owner- Facility: Robert Cashatt
Facility Number: 760028
Inspection Date: 05/11/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No NA NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
Q
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?
Q
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?
❑
■ Cl ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
Q
■ ❑ ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Other Issues
Yes
No NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

•
Permit: AVVC760028 Owner - Facility: Robert Cashatt Facility Number: 760028
Inspection Date: 05/11/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
32, Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? • ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

Division of Water Qualiqqp
Facility Number . .'Z $� 9Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency '' a
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit (xRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 5 r t d Arrival Time: I I I -. usj Departure Time: U County: d tegion:�
Farm Name: _(1- 12 ��Ll 1 a:l--- Owner Email:
Owner Name: Q . Q- Phone:
Mailing Address: 5 1 !G 3 Da L.S�"D�1r-N hat _ Rol. _
� a d I e w-an f-X, d 7311
r.,
Physical Address: S o m e�- ``���
Facility Contact: nV 15 /(?t Q�S h QT[ Title:
Onsite Representative: ow Integrator:
Certified Operator: 1) a V l n C.-L3t5 b(X* Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: a�r ©, M, Longitude:
V`S 14-L,`q 311 50vtti, Le.�+ Or-140 Oeda4-- 5$uar e- �d . 1219 •
0 nD D a V i 5 Cou r) � arro -° ri q h+
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
Dai Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocket
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: M
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
a
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 qNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes tNo
o [INA ElNE
ElYes ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: , — Date of Inspection ff
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: n
❑ Yes $No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
El NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes �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 ,0 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
ElNA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes L No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement'? II .-
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > l0% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drill ❑ Application Outside of Area
12.
Crop type(s) L.�}'(n , te-5 e-u -e-
Cal
--
13.
Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
ElYes
XNo
❑ NA
I--] NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
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
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
YNo
❑ 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):
J Ay �j
AL
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Phone: fli
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur
Date: 5
12128104 . Continued

Facility Number:
4ate of Inspection 5'' a •
�o
Required Records & Documents
19,
Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
( No
❑ NA
❑ NE "
20,
Does the facility fail to ha v all comp ents of the CAWMP readil available? If yes, check
the appropirate box.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
WUP Checklists Maps ❑ Other
21.
Doe ecord keeping need i rovement? ,
VVcropYield
❑ Yes
S No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[ Waste Application y Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis [}t►d�aste—ems
PP�/
Rainfall N Stocking s Monthly and l"
Rain Inspections
lo/Weather
Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
VNA
❑ 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
RNA
❑ 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
VNA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes 0No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes �(No
ElNA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes XNo
ElNA
❑ 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 b(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
P re v i s ed f o re -� 1 ec4~- a�C rea � e 5 di u�t to a K e. ?
AL
I
Al. R d01 :Sot I te5+ re S o Li 5 ? Imo+ lei
= r r l Ia-b on or V)o n e i tA�i o n 5� maA ey- ? B road cast
on l�
aal& F-- 2 Cho - 16s . PAM/A
L'o eX- MA-'#-- I JJA-"-, U-V&-o '
al o,30 11'1o
61� " =1 1 A C) ') 12128104

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection 10 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit f � Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other El Denied Access
Date of Visit: / p Arrival Time: v DDeparture Time: LEI County: jir1Ft.L J% Region:
Farm Name: w _._._. _.....__. _. Owner Email: ------ _.-.._._..�_-
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: _ ._ --- - --------�-_ __- .._ .__ _ .__ r�. -._ _ ..__ �e rm3_2
Facility Contact: � 15 �� Title: t T-. ._ Phone No: _0_..A_f _,____T
{I I/
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: _ __..� . ..__.�__...�_... Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: _ _ _. ,,.___ .. ._...� .. Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ®e SI Longitude: ® ° ®/®
Ao114W AV .
.zt t W
Ale-
7,14iEjkJ
1ef6 aU
Ad (2.. df-G
Current„ Design Current ; Aeslgn . Current
Swine` "
Cpaclty Populat�oii Wet Poultry Capacity oation "Pp Cattle Capacity Popuiatiolt
❑ Layer I F. ❑ Dairy
ElNon-Layer
C
nr
:t
Dry Poultrry
y
❑Farrow to Feeder �?
ElLayers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
Turke Poult$
❑Other ❑Other Number of StructtEres
❑Wean to inish
F
:�. ❑Wean to Feeder
,i El Feeder to Finish
�' El Farrow to Wean
Finish
❑Gilts
❑Boars
Other
❑Farrow to
Cow
❑ Dai Calf
El Dairy Heifer Z
❑ D Cow ,7
El Non-Dai
❑ Beef Stocker
El Beef Feeder
El Beef Brood Cow
Discharees &Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? . ❑Yes � No [I NA El NE
Discharge originated at; ❑ Structure ❑Application Field
a.
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑Yes ❑ No El NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No ❑ NA El 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 ❑ NB
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑Yes � No El NA ❑ NE
- --3:-Were-there any-adverse-impacts-orpotentiai�dverse-impacts-t�vfttht�tate ❑-Yes [[����"I�TE'--'-:-
other than from a discharge?
I2/28/04 Continued
Cow
❑ Dai Calf
El Dairy Heifer Z
❑ D Cow ,7
El Non-Dai
❑ Beef Stocker
El Beef Feeder
El Beef Brood Cow
Discharees &Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? . ❑Yes � No [I NA El NE
Discharge originated at; ❑ Structure ❑Application Field
a.
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑Yes ❑ No El NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No ❑ NA El 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 ❑ NB
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑Yes � No El NA ❑ NE
- --3:-Were-there any-adverse-impacts-orpotentiai�dverse-impacts-t�vfttht�tate ❑-Yes [[����"I�TE'--'-:-
other than from a discharge?
I2/28/04 Continued
Discharees &Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? . ❑Yes � No [I NA El NE
Discharge originated at; ❑ Structure ❑Application Field
a.
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑Yes ❑ No El NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No ❑ NA El 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 ❑ NB
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑Yes � No El NA ❑ NE
- --3:-Were-there any-adverse-impacts-orpotentiai�dverse-impacts-t�vfttht�tate ❑-Yes [[����"I�TE'--'-:-
other than from a discharge?
I2/28/04 Continued
I2/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: iG — d2,g • 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
Structu�f 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 Structure 6'
Identifier: A;XAE /'A✓0
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 44V
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
IR 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
IQ Yes
W3 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
9) No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
[I Yes
111 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
A] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application'
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑. Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
�] PAN ❑ PAN > 101% 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 types) a
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determinations❑ 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?3 IV Illy
❑ Yes
❑ No
IQ NA
❑ NE
Whi -a6 00 14 74) F& rjf v oa pgoommE - �4%m y 1n t.4w4 rss� fo V6401007 PiR r
-- - evie►verHetspeeter44arnoil_phone:__
Reviewerllniji&tor signature: - _.............._ ......._.... Date:_._--...
Continued

Facility Number: -J"w Date of Inspection
Technical Assistance
Needed
Provided
34• Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
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 M
❑
❑
40. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (Po A)
❑
❑
4 L Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
42. Organize/computerizatioti 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 cheek/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
❑
❑
56. Evaluate WAD certificadon/rechecks
❑
❑
57. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
58. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
59. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
❑
60. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
61. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
62. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
63. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
64. Waste operator education r
❑ 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 ....-..---.. ___....-._ _ ._ _... _.
2. 5.

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 760028 1 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC760028 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Randolph Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 07/25/2006 Entry Time:12730 PM Exit Tlme: 01:45 PM incident #:
Farm Name: Cashatt Dairy — - Owner Email:
Owner: Robert Cashatt Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 5763 Davis Country Rd Randleman NC 273177153
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude: 79°50'19"
From GSO go south on Hwy. 220 to first exit in Randolph Co. (Level Cross) and turn right onto Branson Mill Rd. Turn left onto Walker
Mill Road then right onto Davis Country Road..
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Sidney D Cashatt Operator Certification Number: 21310
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
24 hour contact name Davis Cashatt
Title Phone
Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Davis Cashatt Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melissa Rosebrock Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date: D
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
14. and 28. T-2286 F-1 acreage needs to be revised due to lake. Need to revise WUP to add pasture and PAN.
16, Need to contact tech specialist to obtain irrigation specs (gun psi, type, nozzle type, wettable acres, pump psi, pipe lengths, etc.)
and acreage (need to put in the WUP).
17. WUP is being revised at this time.
21, 2005 and 2006 soil test results ok.
28. WUP states that application is all broadcast. Must update CAWMP if waste is to be irrigated.
Page: 1

•
Permit: AWC760028 Owner- Facility: Robert Cashatt
Inspection Date: 07/25/2006 Inspection Typo: Compliance Inspection
40
Facility Number: 760028
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle - Dry Cow 78
O Cattle -Milk Cow 279 20
Total Design Capacity: 279
Total SSLW: 390,600
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
k1ste Pond WASTE STORAGE POND 27.00
Page: 2

0 •
Permit: AWC760028 Owner - Facility: Robert Cashatt Facility Number : 760028
Inspection Data: 07/25/2006 Inspection Type; Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? 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) 1101311
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I,e,1 large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc,)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑
MOO
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
0011
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

•
Permit: AWC760028 Owner- Facility: Robert Cashatt
Inspection Data: 07/25/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 760028
Reason for Vialt: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN n 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare sail?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crap Type 1
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley,
Oats)
Crop Type 2
Fescue (Pasture)
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
■
❑ ❑ ❑
Pian(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?.
❑
❑ ❑ E
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
E ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■ ❑ Cl
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
E ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWC760028 Owner - Facility: Robert Cashatt Facility Number. 760028
Inspection Data: 07/25/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis? r
❑
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 conducta sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑
■ ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
■ ❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
■
❑
❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

•
40
Permit: AWC760028 Owner - Facility: Robert Cashatt
Facility Number: 760028
Inspection Date: 07M/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewerlinspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

NO
Type of Visit t
Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 4, Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1 �y Q Arrival Time: 0 1 Departure Time: li - County: Region:
Farm Name: U� S _Cu1- — ____ Owner Email:
Owner Name: �'� "�'�7 QL 1 Phone:
Mailing Address: S 1 r3 U L S C.OU il°�-r u '� d LQ EU240 N c
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �4.A%L�___ Cpsh Title: Phone No: 35�3
Onsite Representative:�I �C1S— Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: OAS Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude:.- Longitude: °
3 e5 -- Fb rm on
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry
Design
Capacity
Current
Population
Cattle
Design Current
C►apacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish ❑ Layer
DairyCow
DairyCalf
❑ Feeder to Finish
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ DairyHeifer
❑ D Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Pullets
❑Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
❑ Turkeys
Other ❑ TurkeyPoults
❑ Other ❑ Other
❑ Wean to Feeder Non -Layer
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑Gilts
❑ Boars
Discharees &Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑Yes
�rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑Structure ❑Application Field ❑Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
El 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
X 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?
Page 1 of 3
12/28/04
Continued

Facility Number: —7— • 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 I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: 6Y3 el
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): t 2b
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA [I NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes tk o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes lj�10 ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any.of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes >Ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) ,�,/'
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require El Yes Q�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Anolication
W. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need []Yes ;KNo ❑ 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 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift [IAppiicatio l Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) 02A� !6d� X_
V... .
13.
Soil type(s)V�
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
> No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? WYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
;KNE
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):
�t �ilo n N eA `� CArtfio_c_+ +�cl l ► S
CLC.t'�0. LmeA U+ i r\ Q`Qh t>U n PSI f P e V10 ZZ- i e` 1 �l
rl.�et bl� r�S v 1 t 5 ei-ce
p � t� � � P� 1
Cd bf-03ACa&k- RIVA-A
Reviewer/Inspector Name DC.� �^ � Phone: 1 S
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date:
Page 2 of 3 �V ` t v 1 , `,y I �12/18/t74 Continued

C\A
Facility Number: "] — Oteofinspection o •
Reauired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ElChecklists [IDesign [3 Maps El Other
21. Does ecord keeping neeZe
ovement? If yes, the the appropriate box b ow. ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
LM Waste Application y i~reeboard Waste Analysis S;7monthly
alysis �aste Transfers ai-C�rtif�attOn
pp
L!7 Rainfall (b Stocking Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections and l" Rain Inspections Weather 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
1
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?&C-4 •dip ❑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
2$. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
3 1 . Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ No
*A
❑ NE
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑No
OjNA
El NE
�(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No �NA ❑ NE
"*Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [XNo
❑ Yes XNo
❑NA El NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
El NA El NE
❑ Yes )(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
coos , aoo (0 so I I te6+- ? �c.•
a$ G - r AAA-t6 �P AAAXOdd --��-
auj _t& f evl16ed 1* 0M f)2S+ure_ -
I wuP is bpi n I-ev t&
3 a,,+
Page 3 of 3 '�_j
12128104

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 760028 Facility Status: Active Permit: WC760028 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comoliance Inspection _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Randolph I Region: Winston-Salem - -_
Date of Visit: 07/,22/2005 Entry Time: 09.35 AM Exit Time: 11:15 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Cashatt Dairy _ Owner Email:
Owner: $gbert Cashatt
Phone: [phone] _
Mailing Address: 5763 Davis Qguntty Rd Randleman NC 273177153
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°51'43" Longitude: 79°50'19"___
From GSO go south on Hwy. 220 to first exit in Randolph Co. (Level Cross) and turn right onto Branson Mill Rd. Turn left onto
Walker Mill Road then right onto Davis Country Road.
Question Areas:
0 Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Sidney D Cashatt Operator Certification Number: 21310
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Davis Cashatt Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Davis Cashatt
Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: M lissa M Rosebrock Phone: [phone]
Ext.3831 , J
Inspector Signature: Date: Lis
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Page: 1

Permit: AWC760028 Owner- Faclllty: Robert Cashatt Facility Number: 760028
Inspection Date: 07/22/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
3. Due to recent land clearing activities by the PTWA the creek is inundated with sediment from run-off.
4. WSP is about 2" over the maximum liquid mark and operator is pumping today. A follow-up check on July 29, 2005 showed the
waste level in compliance again.
7. There are woody trees on the dam. Per Mr. Cashatt, the WSP is to be closed soon due to the Randleman Dam project. Not sure
who is closing the WSP since this may be part of the court case.
9. Need to scrape manure on lot and un-stop waste pipe.
17. Not sure now, Need to confirm with tech specialist after court case is settled.
21. Don't forget to obtain soil samples and results for those fields that receive animal waste this year,
21. and 28. Tract 2286 F-1 received 48 lbs. PAN for small grain. Deduct this PAN from next crop since small grain was not harvested.
Field is in orchard grass now. Need to add orchard grass to WUP prior to waste application.
21. In July 2005, corn on T-2286 F-2 received applications of irrigated waste outside of the June 30 deadline since the corn was
planted late and is only 2-12 inches currently and appears to need the nitrogen and water.
6/23105 waste analyses: IRR=0.87 lbs. N11000 gal and scrape=1.6 lbs. N1ton
Page: 2

Permit: AWC760028 Owner - Facillty: Robert Cashatt Facility Number: 760028
Inspection Date: 07/22/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
O Cattle -Milk Cow 279
Total Design Capacity: 279
Total SSLW: 390,600
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Waste Pond WASTE STORAGE POND 16.00
Page: 3

•
0
Permit: AWC760028 Owner- Facility: Robert Cashatt
Facility Number: 760028
Inspection Date: 07/2212005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
DischargQs & Stream Imps Yes No NA NE,
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑
■ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
■ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
■ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑ ❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
■
YCs
❑
No
❑ ❑
NA NF
Waste Collect€nn. Storage & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
■ ❑
❑ ❑
If yes, is waste level into structural froeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe erosion,
❑
■
❑ ❑
soepago, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑
■
❑ ❑
closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
■
❑ ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks
❑
■ ❑ ❑
and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
■
❑ ❑ ❑
improvement?
Yes
No NA NE
Waste An €rat€nn
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or Improvement?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P2057
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop Wndow?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Fescue (Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain (Wheal,
Barley,
Oats)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Page: 4

• •
Permit: AWC760028 Owner -Facility: Robert Cashatt
Facility Number: 760028
Inspection Date: 07/22/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste ,,,,,Aaollcatian
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)? ❑
E ❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
n ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fall 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?
❑
Yea
IN ❑
NQ NA
❑
NE
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
00
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21, Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
woo
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 Inch rainfall 8 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 malntaln a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑ E ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
25, Did the facility fall to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
❑ 0 ❑
26. Did the facility fall to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
E ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑ 0 ❑
Page: 5

•
0
Permit: AWC760028 Owner -Facility: Robert Cashatt
Inspection Date: 07/22/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 760028
Reason for Visit: Routine
Qtherlssues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andlor document and report those mortality
rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? if yes, contact a regional Air Quality
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Yes No NA NE
M ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ M ❑ ❑
❑ M ❑ ❑
❑ M ❑ ❑
❑ M ❑ ❑
Page: 6

lType of Visit C mpliance inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
ReasonforVisit ►Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up O Referral 0 Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: I PI t \ Region: Y VV .G
r
Farm Name: A ha 1" Owner Email:
Owner Name:1LAe-r+1. /{ Phone: 13 • 3 5 6
Mailing Address: S� qy �O�n I_���1 ��J' [}�A0
Physical Address: ? Facility Contact: �OIV15 C `� h Title: Phone No: __ ` 43a_
Onsite Representative: zm 15 cas waQ� Integrator:
Certified.Operator: _SA v1� ��1Q"TT Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
VS HU-N 311 5001t
-D&V6 coun-Ar
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: E�r Ell
P_ c
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non-Layet
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ T rkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
il o Longitude:
Le o n+o
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
MDairy Cow
0
Daia Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: M,
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
4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA El
❑ Yes - No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — *Date of Inspection 0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
ICI Yes ❑ No
�❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: �t r I
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): Ila
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA El
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
El NA El NE
El NA ❑NE
Structure 6
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
X
❑ No
❑ NA
[I NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ 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
t] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
,%
L( No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ElNE
[IExcessive Ponding [IHydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ElHeavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination'! El Yes
❑ No
NNA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
7 ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? 5 pre.00,wd 4ul
6 0 -
1 rCU j o ❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
�`1�l • N o� Sure_ n mo e ," " 4 `0.``'` �
� e- a S oUOiI� r
W� SPe_C_,,l0_115+, tno V\ �Fov- Q_a-4k
J,C)5p aIt cjv_P t.J
c� a
Reviewe luspector Name; ` ;ttiyt i'' ++
Phone: � 7 • 0
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date: Q

Date of ection
Facility Number: -
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ElNA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WDp ElChecklists ElDesign El Maps El Other y 1
21. Doe ecord keeping neeVwe
rovement? If yes, ��Waste
he appropriate box below. ❑ Yes�/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Taste ApZStock
on
ly I reeboard Analysis VIMMonthly
nalysis n-Vh t, T..r�sfers ��en^
Rainfallin T and V Rain Ins ectionseatherCode6 p
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? �T ho�1107e- ❑ Yes [(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No O�NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? � Up ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No 19NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes �lo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No YNA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30, At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by El Yes
L�9,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) /////
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes fNo ElNA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yeso ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
-3/1q jo 45 3 .1
al
lr
1 -1 4q A Q
tpl A Lt, U_zm /"t
1 Y1 r ax-d ef-653 n00 , 14 UJ UP �a
a` �*q � ` r 12�8/04 4 t
r�J

nical Assistance Site Visit
• QWon of Soil and Water ConservatioW
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 76 - 2$ Date: 12/15104 Time: 1 14:30 1 Time On Farm: 60 WSRO
Farm Name Cashatt Dai County Randolph Phone:
Mailing Address 5763 Davis Country Road Randleman NC
Onsite
Representative Davis Cashatt Integrator
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
p Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaintllocal referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
Q Emergency
n Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Capacity Population
❑ Layer
ElNon-Layer
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
® Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
�200___
k_12
❑ Other
498-3563
27317
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? ❑ yes ® no
Structure1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier WSP
Level (Inches) 36
CROP TYPES, lCorn, Silage Fescue- raze ISmall grain cover
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

A
Facility Number 76 - 28 Date:
12/15/04
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
[110. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
[111. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
[112. Waste structure integrity compromised
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
El
[Ell
Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30.2H.0200 re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
El
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organizelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallclosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
El24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
®
Cl
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation system design/installation
ElElElOther...
Date:
". Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45.Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
9 - The waste plan was revised 9/22/04 to change
47. Evaluate WAD certificationlrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationtrecommendations
❑
❑
the Crop rotations.
2.
49. Drainage workievaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
61. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4'
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5'
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
6.
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

I Facility Number 76 - 28 Date: 12/15/04
COMMENTS:
Waste analysis: 9/03/04 ALD (1) 0.23 Ibs.N11000 gals. I, ALD (2) 3.0 lbs.N/ton B
Mr. Cashatt has sent in his soil samples and a waste sample, but has not gotten the results back yet.
Mr. Cashatt informed me that he had just gotten his condemnation papers for his property that will be
ken by the Randelman Dam project. Mr. Cashatt has not increased the buffer along the creek or
owed the vegetation on the waste pond due to the condemnation of the property. Mr. Cashatt did
-grade the diversion ditch above the waste pond to keep runoff water from entering the waste pond.
# 42. * Remember to get your application equipment calibrated within two years of receiving the
ermit and every other year after that.
# 57. 1 reviewed some of the new permit requirements with Mr. Cashatt.
* Remember to use the new record keeping forms.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST IRocky Durham DE
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 12/16/04 Entered By: lRocky Durham
03/10/03

V
IType of Visit OO Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit OO Routine O Complaint O Follow up Q Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 2& Date of Visit: Time: 1315
O Nat O erational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold..........................
Farm Name: CANUIDAirY........................... ........ ..................... County: ftidQWk ........................................ 1?YS A........
Owner Name: RQb.vrt.................................... c4fibattlt....................................................... Phone No: 4Q1-35b3..........................................
..........................
Mailing Address: S.7.G3.1?.axis. AN�ilrx.tioad.............................................................. FtARdt wau..HC.................................................... V.317...............
Facility Contact: Dmis.G.85hatt................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: 498,4327 ................................
Onsite Representative: D.ay.IS..CwJhAtt.............
Integrator:. .................................................
Certified Operator* Sid1acy..0............................... CAahalt ............................................ Operator Certification Number: Z131R.............................
Location of Farm:
From GSO go south on Hwy. 220 to first exit in Randolph Co. (Level Cross) and turn right onto Branson Mill Rd. Turn left +
)nto Walker Mill Road then right onto Davis Country Road.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude F-79-1 ' F 507, 14
DesignCurren Design: Current
Swine
Capacity.Population, Poultry Capacity rrent t Population Cattle Ca acif-Y Po ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ® Dairy 279 1 !§I'r7E7
❑ Feeder to Finish JEI Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder 10Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Ttital Design Capacity 279
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW 390,600
Number of Lagoons.... 0
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes [:]No
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in 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: ...... W.asie Tond.....................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 21
12112103
Continued

Facility Number: 76-28 Date of Inspection 9/9/2004 ,
Are there i r 7 erosion,
5 e e e any immediate threats to the mtegnty of any of the structures observed. (>e/ trees, severe eros o , ❑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 Coastal Bermuda (Graze) 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.
-.;� 9 iry,:,. E i i,, �
r mments Contments;(refer to question #) Explain any YES apswers and/or any reconimendsttons or,any othe caEta, y
Use'drawings°;of''facility to`better explaYin'situations (use a'dditiohil;pagevas necessary) ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
.J <_EQ: ! - i - .._E.e .33..) I._E.E r S i 1�1.:T '➢ ��- � �:i:_ 1 1 t .
3. Suggest increasing buffer on east side of stream and install diversion on upper end of walkway to deter some rainwater from washing
sediment and waste into creek.
7. Need to mow vegetation on dam.
7. Some freshwater overflowed diversion ditch and spilled over into waste pond during recent heavy rains. Need to re -trench diversion
ditch again.
4�
3. Soil test results look good. 11%0� -
3. 12/18/03 Waste sample results: Liquid=0.51 lbs./1000 gal, and Dry=8.8 lbs./ton. DWQ to check for March 2004 results online.
9. Some small grain fields receeved applications of animal waste about a month earlier than application window listed in CAWMP.
47-2055 F-I received waste on grass pasture this past May. CAWMP only lists small grain and corn. Need to add to the CAWMP.
Same thing with T-2286 F-I (peroperator, this field is now broken into 3 parts). Operator applied approx. 130 lbs. N to T-2056 F-I then
did not plant corn because he lost the use of this field. Need to remove this field from the CAWMP.
_ i.
Reviewer/Inspector Name rMelisosebroclrn,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12112103 ly— ` ` %, t r Continued

Facility Number: 76-28 Djof Inspection 9/9/2004
Required Records & Documents
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/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ 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?
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?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection 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
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 record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form []Rainfall ❑ Inspection After V Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes % No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
12112103

IType of Visit OkCompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit S
Routine O Complaint O Follow up 0 Emergency Notification O Other
Facility Number Date of Visit: rag Time:
l O Not Opera
Permitted 0 Certified © Conditionally Certified
e _. ,I -
Farm Name:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:..„
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:..„iS.Jnn
Location of Farm:
� r
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Wcattle
❑ Denied Access
Below
© Registered Date Last Operated or b ve Threshold: ...„.._»»» „...„.
_....„ .»..............»._ County: ,
................. Phone o: »..1...!..' .1
Title:
............ � Phone
»N„ o„: � 4(oO5, . 3T,.3a
integraxor. __
t�..h�.......„.„ Operator Certification Nuntber:._.,....�.Id j,0„
Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
Feeder to Finish
"` ❑ Non -Layer
Farrow to WeanOth
❑er
Farrow to Feeder
E
El Farrow to Finish
; d ; M > , Total_ Des
;
ML }
Gilts",
❑ Boars
Dischames & 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 ❑ o
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes o
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 t�o
tStructyXe Structure 2 Structure Structure 4 Structure S Structure 6
Identifier: 1rV „ _..... _ .._... .» » »..................._.„ ...... _..........„..».„. ...... „.»...„.......„---- ......».»..».....».. „.. ...
Freeboard (inches):
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: — P71 Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the Sty of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trAlevere erosion, ❑ Yes No
a see e, etc.)
)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? Yes ❑
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenan�mprovement? ❑ Yes �/o
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes o .
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
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 jNo
o
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yeso
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yeso
I5. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below-Ej Yes E3.P7e.—.
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes )Vo
I9. 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 o
Air Quality representative immediately.
Name
Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
I
Date:
I
j I/♦ 4 OEM
ji =6

Facility dumber: ' —
Date oi' Inspection 0
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have 1 components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, desi maps, etc.)
23. DW;toerApplication.
d keeing need' provement? yes, check the app 'ate box below.
11 Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Sampling
.00
24. Is facility �+t in compliaancewith any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
25. 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 review/inspection 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
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?
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes ��"�'"
XYCS o
❑ Yes , No
❑ Yes �_1Q0_
❑ Yes/// �\� o
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes 0
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ 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
r
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After V Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no fttrther correspondence about this visit
i a{ie�o3 Li�U�d o.sl IAs-/r000 rP.
Day �.81bs ton
�.fJ�
�zq -r- aasS
A do ryla� �04 . W up .,L' ate,5/"
ki
205G FI net IAA...uDu-P OCA„eJ-AO
N pill
Oil

Type of Visit O* Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit OO Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 2$ Date of Visit: 12/23I2003 'Time: 1D40
Not O erational O Below Threshold
Permitted ■ Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ... ...
Farm Name: CAARtt Uairy........................................................................ County: [AAAAaIPbL ............................... N' .....
Owner Name: ]Bslks~rr�ashatt._.Phone No:
Mailing Address: 5.7.63.]?atxits..Gulkn.txy..RQ; d............................................................... RamlIbmix.N.0 ..................................................... 273.17...............
Facility Contact: JI)fMS.CaSbAt~t.................................. Title Phone No
Onsite Representative: 11AY1S CaSh>iJlt_._._._._______._._._._._________-_--- Integrator:.-•------------------------------------_--..
Certified Operator: Sld11.a.a?............................... C.Imb.tX............................................. Operator Certification Number: Z131.9............................
Location of harm:
7rom GSO go south on Hwy. 220 to first exit in Randolph Co. (Level Cross) and turn right onto Branson Mill Rd. Turn left A
mto Walker Mill Road then right onto Davis Country Road.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 ` 51 I 43L6 Longitude 79 • 50 f 19 .l
t' 1^w
Desigin Current Design Cuter nt Design Current i' "
-Swim` a aci P.o ulation Poultry Ca aci P.o ulation Cattle Ca aci P.o ulation
F�eanto Feeder ❑ Layer ® Dairy 2�79 1�r to Finish ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy-
'. ❑ Farrow to Wean '
❑ Other g"�!
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design C►apacity 279
Gilts
❑ Boars k. ' Total SSLW 394,6a0
Number. of Lagaona 1 0 J❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Salltl Traps � ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: w,astaPjnnd
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
IN Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes IN No
Structure 6
Freeboard (inches): 24
05103101 9 Q r Continued
trr��

Facility Number: 76-28 • Date of Inspection ]2/2312003 0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
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
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
® Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? [:]Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload [ []Yes ® No
12. Crop type Fescue (Graze) Fescue (Hay) Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
® Yes
❑ No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
ent e t x lain an. an d o an. a mm nde o o a t er iiiiiiiiiiiiii,t.
awl s o a tte a lain it nal a e a e e nary : ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
3. and 8. Evidence of waste and soil (mostly soil) run-off into stream in dry cow lot. Several inches of sediment were documented iRtbe
stream. About 50-75 feet of impact. Need to move cattle out of this area until further notice. Existing silt fencing needs to be re -installed
correctly. Seed with rye or rye mix. Keep cattle out of TL's pasture also (except for a couple). Recommend sending dry cows through
second crossing and on up to 165 acres of pasture on top of the hill. Mr. Cashatt called DWQ on 114104 to report that the dry cow lot
and stream area had been graded and seeded (drilled) with a rye/fescue mix.
8. Need to remove animal waste that has accumulated on the outside of the concrete berm.
22. Waste level was over maximum liquid mark for two weeks. No evidence of discharge. Need to notify DWQ of high freeboard as
[required by permit.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Meli sa Rosebrock n _ A
Reviewer/Inspector Signature!Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 76-28 D&I' Inspection FF2/-23—/2003'1 •
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. 2003 soil test results ok. Samples for 2004 crops have been sent. Check next visit.
25. Operator wants to apply waste to T-2056 F-2 (30 acres) since waste level is rising quickly. Operator plans to apply waste 45
days prior to planting of crop. He wants to then plant an early crop to be cut then re -plant field with alfalfa. is ok to do this this yearl "ki
Waste analyses:
5/21/03 = 0.42 WSP and 2.5 scrape
9/26/03 = 0.33 WSP and 1.5 scrape
12/18/03 = 0.51 WSP and 8.8 scrape
05103101

•
Type of Visit C mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine C) Complaint O Fallow up 0 Emergency Notification
Facility Number Hate of visit:
10 Not
Permitted ©cee�rtiried ©�oondditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last [
Farm Name: l�[.t SV1Q�T t �l—Ltt_r g _ _ Count
Owner Name: IS-5fC
C
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: _
Location of Farm:
0 Other
❑ Denied Access
or Above Threshold:
Certification Number: I
IQ
'S
s M�
c�2-73/.7
_33fa A3 i1
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry xCattle
❑ Horse Latitude
= 13:T],
EjM«
Longitude 0 7^7` Egp.,
Design
Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Nwine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Boars
Poultry Capacity Po ulation C tie Capacity Po ulation `
❑ La er I I N Dairy
❑ Non -La er I AJ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 741
Total SSLW �3Q014 4
Nuifibei`ofg.LA'goon"s1. l ::CZ _JILJ Subsurface Drains Present IILJ Lagoon Area IlJ Spray Field Area iT
.Holdin Ponds / Solid Tra s�. g p -❑ No Liquid Waste Management Sys em
Discharges & Stream Imuacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes WNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If dischargc is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If dischargc is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. Irdischarge 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 cvidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes Okfqo
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 *Io
Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure b
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 Continued

0 VEFacility Number: — 21 Date of Inspection WA33
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 anv stuctures lack adequate. gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Ap)nlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
13. Do the receivinidoDs differ with
the Certified Animal Waste Mana#ment 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 or other Permit readily available?
18, Does the facility fail to have all components of the ified Animal Was Management Ian 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?
Oe,' discharge, freeboard problems. over application)
23. Did ReviewenInspector 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 INo
No
Yes
❑ Yes XNO
❑ Yes No
❑ YesWO
❑ Yes ;RCNo
❑ Yes o
ElYesINo
o
El Yeso
❑ Yeso
❑ Yes
❑ Yes XNo
El Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes o
Yes ❑ No
Yes KNo
❑ Yes ON
❑ Yes <o
[� No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
f '¢_ .. d,+ ,. mi7 t1 �- J ar °" . ... •�:; =:.1 •i„ rw• �.',tLCe1,.4-brR'L: 'Y r'YUl27, in C4.s�t . f3iY? C' . r.i.�
Commetnts (refer to questaon . %Ezplai>Ei.s� Yk;,S answers aadlor any recommentlanopns or anvuatlter, comments.it>
6 +. _ ...
Use drawings of faculty to better explain srtiaahons. (use additions! + pages as necessary)ElField Copv ❑Final Nos .yam`
%�i.* •; 1,�I t^ "'li `[� f te
✓1��rr /, 11 '�"� i V
,,$$pp����1•,w .::Y_S:r�'r�. d�iLi
rHx'�i'.w3.{y[ •« K. Tiles �d YG.i. ^:'i .�a'�.:. �. 17� �7 .�-�.•• :1w-,—+.�Y!+VwRrw.w-//^J��iL. KFndTa�
.Ik&4)
��,�,//////////��,�����'�
• �L V V _� 4
as LAD CO-4c vz o� 4k -4. a&�_&-W/44Ce�l
�o
Name Reviewer/Ins ector
P
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: UdM 9
r5103101��

Facility Number: —2 Date of Inspection �3
QdU 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 o
❑ Yes G No
amNIEMU—uaa
• 1 1 1 f I E i I 1'
�I �r
r
C• �r , � � Isis _ � � s
v
05113101
33
Scrro�e. I • S

hnical Assistance Site Visit
of Soil and Water Conse
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number 76 - 28 Date: 116103 Time: 1 10:11 1 Time On Farm: 0 WSRO
Farm Name Cashatt Dairy County Randolph Phone:
498-3563
Mailing Address 5763 Davis Country Road Randleman NC 27317
Onsite
Representative Davis Cashatt Integrator
Type Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
I ❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Norse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Purpose Of Visit
Response to DWQIDENR referral
Response to DSWCISWCD referral
Response to complaint/local referral
Requested by producer/integrator
Follow-up
Emergency
Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy, -2zs �_259
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1, Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
Purpose Of Visit
Response to DWQIDENR referral
Response to DSWCISWCD referral
Response to complaint/local referral
Requested by producer/integrator
Follow-up
Emergency
Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy, -2zs �_259
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1, Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
® Dairy, -2zs �_259
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1, Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment
❑ yes ® no
andlor public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure?
❑ yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Identifier WSP
Level (Inches) 10
CROP TYPES Ismall grain silage lcom, Silage I kheat
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

r1
i
Facility Number 76 - 28 Date:
4/16/03
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
10. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
El❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
[112. Waste structure integrity compromised
El 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
28• Forms Need (list in comment section)
El
El
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
[114. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
[115. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30. 21-11.0200 re -certification
[116. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32, Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
[118. Late/missing waste analysis
[119. Late/missing lagoon level records
33, Organize/computerization of 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
[124. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
®
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation
❑
El
El Other...
system designlinstallation
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1- The WUP was updated Feb. 03 to reflect crop
47. Evaluate WAD certificationlrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
and field changes.
2.
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5.
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6
58. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

f Facility Number - 28 Date: 1 4/16103 I
MMENTS:
The stream crossing is intact, but degraded due to high rainfall amounts. The operator will repair when conditions allow.
Soil samples were taken at the end of 2002. The lab did not provide a receipt to this.
Waste analysis-1-15-03
Vegetation around the dam is around 18". No deciduous material.
Dairy will close in the near future. Waiting on PTWA.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST 1B. Barton Roberson
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 7125/03 Entered By: IRocky Durham
3 03/10/03

W A Michael F. Easley, Governor
4TF. 9pG ,5:1 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
" North Carolina G' nent of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
- i Division of Water Quality
September 24,- 2002
CERTIFIED MAIL 7001 2510 00014778 5765
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Robert Cashatt
5763 Davis Country Road
Randleman, NC 27317
SUBJECT: Notice of Violation
Compliance Inspection
Cashatt Dairy #76-28, Randolph County
Dear Mr. Cashatt:
On September 23, 2002 Melissa Rosebrock of the Division of Water Quality's Winston-Salem Regional
Office performed a compliance inspection at the Cashatt Dairy. Certified operator, Davis Cashatt, was also
present during the inspection. Specifically, the following violations were documented during the compliance
inspection:
1. Animal waste applications made during January -June 2002 did not have an associated waste
analysis performed within 60-days of application. Failure to conduct an analysis of the
waste within 60 days of application is a violation of the Cattle Waste Operation General
Permit and North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 143-215.10C.
2. A review of the animal waste records indicates that a soil analysis was not obtained for any
fields receiving animal waste in 2001. Failure to perform an annual soil analysis for
those fields that receive animal waste products is a violation of NCGS 143-215.10C and
the Cattle Waste Operation General Permit.
3. A review of the waste application records also indicates that animal waste was applied to
various small grain fields during January -February and July -September of 2002 while the
CAWMP lists only "October -December" as acceptable application months. Please see your
technical specialist regarding any needed revisions to your CAWMP. Failure to abide by
the CAWMP is a violation of the Cattle Waste Operation General Permit.
The Winston-Salem Regional office appreciates your prompt response in correcting the violations
discussed above. If you have any questions regarding this Notice, please contact Melissa Rosebrock or me at
336.771.4600.
Sincerely,
Steve Mauney
Acting Regional Water Quality Supervisor
cc: DWQ - Non -Discharge Compliance and Enforcement Unit
Randolph County SWCDINRCS and Jerry Dorsett — DSWC WSRO
N DENR
N. C. Division of Water QualityMater Quality Section 585 Waughtown Street Winston-Salem, NC 27107 [phone] Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
�a 3J

,.
Ln 0( F 0 C I L MSC.
co Postage $ M
x
Certified Fee
Postmark
Return Receipt Fee Mere
0 (Endorsement Required)
9=11 Restricted Deli,ery Fee
M (Endorsement Required)
M Total Postal
Ln ru s•nr To Mr Robert Cashatt
a sii•:r apCN 5763 Davis Country Road
Q or PO Box No Randleman NC 27317
G-L�jty'�rera,�Zl�
Y

■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also comp_lete.t,
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is'desi'4d:'
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
Mr Robert Cashatt
5763 Davis Country Road
Randleman NC 27317
❑ AAq
X dre,=see
Received by (Printed Name) C. Date of elivery
IM-("2--
D. Is delivery address different from item 17 U Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
3. Service Type
Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail
❑ Registered Return Receipt for Merchandise
❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes
7001 2510 0001 4778 5765
P5 Form 3811, August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-01-M-0381

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First -Class Mail
aca Z P1�1.�1J2e A d 7
111 Permit No. G-10
• Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box
NCDENR -Division of Water Q ty RECjv�t)
Water Quality Section - m F, IV C. Dept. Of E H N A'
585 Waughtown Street Winston-Salem NC 27I07-2241 0e . -- 7 2002
. Winstos 1-8alem
Regional of,,,
��'� �II�1�r11l llll�l��fFi�l �IliliilliFf'Fil'IIlli�llEF{Illlkillll
1 r

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 28 Date of Visit: 9f23/2002 Time:
0930
rO 'Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ..........................
Farm Name: C)AR1181t,.iAixy................................................................................................. County: JJ ijjdttlltbj......................................... !?l',S A........
Owner Name: RRberl .................................... Cohati........
Phone No:(.:42>3.:i�....... :.............
Mailing Address: �%� .t?axis. uu�altrx.lioa�d..........:............:..................................... ftudkMOMAC .................................................... Z.7.317...............
Facility Contact: Il l'I5c.G sbiax......................:..:.......................Title:................................................................ Phone No: Hai a.d3.6„428,. NT.......•---
Onsite Representative: Day..b..Ca hAtt.................... :........... :..::.::.:.:.:................................. Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified O erator• y„ '
p >. its �� ..................... . as tt..::.....::................................ Operator Certification Number: 13.)<R........... :................: _ .-
Location of Farm:
From GSO go south on Hwy. 220 to first exit in Randolph Co. (Level Cross) and turn right onto Branson Mill Rd. Turn left +
onto Walker Mill Road then right onto Davis Country Road.
❑ Swine ❑Poultry ®Gattle ❑Horse Latitude 35 ' S1 43, Longitude 79 • 50F 19
+. t' r '.mr •r¢: g�:.ss-�r.-� - —user tixaf '_ .;;��; fs y.,
;� : ^i 5 Dr gn Current. '' Cur nt Design�l , Currents
Swine Ca acit" P.o illation PoultryMC'�U§egMgn
Capacity.
1?o ulatton Cattill ec,Ca acit . ;l?o° ulationr,;;.
. , k
i'
+Number of Lagoons surface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
= — --- --
¢ Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 0 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
} aLr v-a -
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑Layer -• ®Dairy 279 263 .
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer
❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
._ _. '�i s;�• �,.� ',, � �
❑Farrow to Feeder
,❑'Other..
a�, �,� s;�
❑ Farrow to Finish
Gilts
1. }
Total Design Capacity 279
❑ Boars
- ,
�; .. ,aTotal SLW 390,600
ces Dischar& Sitc
om
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field [3 Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. ]f discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier- iNasiePond
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ®No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ®No
Structure 6
Freeboard (inches): 21
05/03/01 Continued

Facility Number: 76-28 1 Date o1' Inspection 9/23/2002 • ' ..
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, 0 Yes C@ 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 Fescue (Graze) Fescue (Hay) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® 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 Rec2rds & Documents . I " • . j 1
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
IN Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
® Yes ❑ No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit
en ts efer to 'on # : Explain any a a dlo anyjreco mendations or an othe commen .
swings of facil etter explain situatio u a dttlona pa es as eces ary : ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
3. Streambed and bank erosion looks better this year. Only the "potential' for water quality impacts. Suggest additional wire fencing
_
along creek, except for cattle access for drinking water. Need to repair rock dams used for sediment containment.
7. Dam looks ok this year. Vegetation is approx. 24 inches tall, though. No trees or woody vegetation on the dam.
19. 2001 Soil analysis was not obtained. Need to take 2002 samples by the end of this year. - NOV
19. Waste solids applications made Jan. -June 2002 did not have a waste analysis performed within 60 days of application. Operator has
obtained waste analysis for Summer/Fall applications, though. - NOV
25. Waste that was applied on barley in Aug./Sept. 2002 was outside of the Oct./Dec. application window listed in the CAWMP. Per
o erator, the crop was not harvested but was used for grazing.
w
Reviewer/Inspector Name �Meliss Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: dq Date:
05103101
t
Continued

Facility` Number: 76-28 10f Inspection 9/23/2002 .
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
Per records, waste was applied onto small grain (Tract-2286 Field-1) Jan. -Feb. and July -Sept. Per operator, cattle were also
ed here. The CAWMP only lists Oct. -Dec. as acceptable application months. CAWMP needs to be amended if this practice
Suggest amending the CAWMP to include year round application on fescue.
5/02 waste analyses:
>t scrape = 0.21 tbs. N/ton. Operator feels this is too low and is using his last sample value of 4.4 in calculating PAN balance.
ante pond = 0.20 lbs. N/1000 gal.
A61
O5103101 •
J

,r
1Jlvislon t7d 47yll,ti� �T at�V� L©t%sei'ira\iVn 3 i
E e
q i" dt• t� , P �i : y y i;,
�' € E _
€{
q
Type of Visit P Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine C:) Complaint O Follow up Q Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
: ' Facility Number Date of Visit: I qM0,611me:
t Operational Below Threshold
4 Permitted A Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated o Above Thresholdd:
Ra m Nam.• l�t�G'' ka# 7,61 1 S V County' Ezvid o t oh
Owner Name: E=U hM
Mailing Address:�Q,
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: y
Location of Farm:
i :.� 1 !�45
Phone o: 33b'
h��rylLw)an
Phone No: &rn
Integrator: _____ l s. � 12 3
Operator Certification Number: _2 I. _3 10
t4 O tfro f yV (o') o ac*'L) 3tAW (X�C1 r
o fo 0i rmhf-
on' v�
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry cattle ❑Worse Latitude Longitude �� -
Deiign. Current Design Current Design Current
❑'Wean to Feeder Ca acitt °Po station ' fr.; ❑ LPoula er Ca `aclri o iulatiott= C1Dai I'll,
Cx'`aclri. i'Pulation'�,,;
p iz
❑ Feeder to Finish I0 Non-Layer.
r ❑ Farrow t0 Wean-
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other .
4
❑ Farrow to Finishj €TotAl °Design 'Apa
❑ Gifts j
❑ Boars }r i -Total SSLW
Number pf Lagoons El Drains Present ❑ La oon Area ❑ S ray Feld Area l
Holding;Poods ':SOU d Ti'aps 3 ;, �E ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System i r
Discharges & tr am Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes )q'No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
1
1 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?
�V d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes �❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? El Yes >No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or o,�tential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? IN Yes ❑ No
Waste Collgetign & Treatment ;,/
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? 1 Spillway El Yes%No
true a Structure 2 Structure 3 r` Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 0rA
Freeboard (inches): o2
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 7b — ;_ Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
XNo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
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
FNo
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
Xo
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
ElYes
>Flo
0
12. Crop typeA9
13. Do the receiving crops differ with 9ose designated in the Artified Animal Was Manag ent Plan (CA )?
❑ Yes
ANo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
El Yesc)
This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
ElYes15.
INo
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
ElYes
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
s&o
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
o
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
)<No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
X Yes
❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
o
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
ElYes
No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
XNo
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
XNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
Yes
❑ No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
nConinnts(referMto;uestio #) Ex lair any YESans�erssndoray"rec;o;mmento
..; E
Eta, ay�yother coanments.k
Usc;drawind+°
'nigsty �iy)
ons necessField ConvhFinal Notes
(
..:
r`
Reviewer/Inspector NameWE
;,Q .E fr...
Reviewer/]nspector Signature: Date: ,)l Q 1
05103101 r Continued

Facility Dumber: Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atior below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes XNo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes xNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
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? !!!
I 1 �
AMP

r
'III 4
P .1<r. �I• L, ,i.a,. !� - LI ��' I �� rl
onlof WatCrlQuahty It a '�=1 a' �3,sl
y E 1 �' �r�ll' Fllh I �i I'111irEE l� lol I lull
!i.rl"..
Type of Visit 0• Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit. O Routine O Complaint ©-Followp,: uOEmergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 28 gate of Visit: 3l2712002 'rime: 4930
0 Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ..................
Farm Name: CA019ILVAiry................................................................. ................................ County: > ,t I Q1ph......................................... W.SRQ........
OwnerName: 1iabgri.................................... U.Sha.ti.............. ......................................... Phone No: 33.G:498-35G3...........................................................
Mailing Address: 5.7.6 .1?axis. purakrx oad..............................................................RAndlcman..N.0 .................................................... 2.7.317...............
Facility Contact: AXxza.C.ashait................................................ Title:................................................................ Phone No: liax11.33.6A 9.8.,4327............
Onsite Representative: i)a.Y.ls..CribAU............................................................................. Integrator:.....,................................................................................
Certified Operator:SWItcY.(DAyis).................... Uhhaff..._ ...................................... Operator Certification Number:7.X310.............................
Location of Farm:
From GSO go south on Hwy. 220 to first exit in Randolph Co. (Level Cross) and turn right onto Branson Mill Rd. Turn left
Into Walker Mill Road then right onto Davis Country Road. w
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude 79 • 50' 19
Design Current
Swine Canacitv 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 IN Dairy 279 188
❑ Non -Layer JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 279
Total SSLW 390,600
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JE1 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 1 JEI No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State`? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the'estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ®No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ®No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ......Waste.P.and.....................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 24
05103101 �a�r � Continued

Facility Number: 76-28 Date of Inspection 3/27/2002
5. Are there any immediate threats to the inttty of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees evere. erosion, Yes 0 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)
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?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
•.I''i,iEE§!:€€E$[E€IlliiI'I.€!I71 € {
f I'_�I 'r4 I I I ikl
,... � � _ '•,n,,. , l Fi,,.l';i� i ,..,, ,'. I ` I,.I:"' I . €.. , >:J.::.5,=�n=�=...L' I ". ii i:I_€�. Eirl.: I 'recommendations
Comments {refer to question'#} ! FxpIa�n anyIIYES answers andlar�any or any other:camments
{ I
=Use drawmgs of facility to better expam situations' (use !'add i tidhh'l' pages.as necessary)' ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
i 4 :, `F I LIf, I:;, :':.I ' i I I' I u € I III I
s �`" rh� "14� �.:,..,
a.l;i S:�i I.I iv:r. S'�e red Hllli�lll�if�. iIId:NF�!al�� r8 >,!.l.� !-. Ir.;�Iei� ..I�I.r','lq 1. €. I..IIII u.. I f �ri1T°k'Pk",!Ti 9mgC'"i1r"r1PfT:1�"z't�"?<1flCiai?iiY+i4'i"",TgAi�T".' ..m>�,�Bl"I tEt.EL.'�b b
4. Waste pond is only 4 inches below maximum liquid mark. Operator is to pump on 3/30/02. No rain is predicted between now and
then.
7. Would like to see permanent vegetation on dam if staying in business. Embankment is covered with broadleaf weeds now.
8. Fencing has now been installed to keep cattle from the waste pond area. Additional fencing has been put up by owner to keep cattle
out of draws and creek. Looks much better! Suggest sowing seed on areas within creek buffer.
new culvert with rip -rap, gravel, and cloth has been installed at cattle crossing. Looks great.
19. Did not check records today, but per operator, a waste sample was not obtained for 12/2001 applications and a soils analysis was not
obtained for 2001.
II�I'�1 .9 I I 'E 1��•iiF�li'l� ll� o,r j l �l `�li6i'�a a I� I,�lro �,
( r
Reviewer/Inspector Name `Rosebrock
Meh s
Reviewer/Inspector Signature Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 76-28 Df inspection 3/2712002
0
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ®No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ❑ No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32.' Do the Bush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Add I .... ..7 o..... ntSan Ord iaWlll S„ILLE.Iei, i..����.f 1.l'�.�I'`.�h��t.I�,,.Lllh�3.� ,!'i�i.il �el,..�.��.�};}.�W, f
Pei -John Kime with PTRWA on 3122102, facility will be purchased in 2002 by PTRWA but they are still in negotiations with owner.
05103101

t
Type of Visit A Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint Fallow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facilih' Number
aZ Date of visit: Z Time:
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated oar, yA�b�ove Thrjeeshold:
eq5haf�QCounty : 1 r .. %6.. ......._..
FarmName:... l ... a t .Q. ..f.�....,.,. j. ,�..................................... ......................... p.........._........................
OwnerName:....... .. ..................... .[.t( lr,,.............................................. Phone No: ........b.3.�.:.. .�?.:... (p. .............
Facility Contact: ......s ..`...�J......... � ....4r . .... ....1 :. f...l`- " '.�..�tP 1►qc elNB�Jj........ p�. .1. ...............
Mailing Address: ..... .ti].....1.a�.1.�...........::.................................. ......�, fLCii 3....G_......�.7.........
.......................... O .
..
Onsite Representative: ,,. ........................................
,i..� ..... -............................................... Integrator
a131bCertified Operator: ..... %(.n.Q,...LV).......i�!](,� ..................... Operator Certification Number :.......
............... ...............
Location of Farm:j,e-(T 6,m 1
S 0 Wo� �sSe�► � �'Y� :: �o i��xnsan n ► 77
4 1 r cy? Co u 7�' �d T
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry i Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' ���° Longitude ®'
Design Current
Design Current
Design . Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cjkttle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
1
10 Layer
Dairy
1 a -711
❑ Feeder to Finish
1
10 Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
I
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
07
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
b Q�
❑ Boars
'Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Laguon Area ID Spray Field Ares
Holding Ponds / 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 [3 Spray Field [3 Other
a. If discharge is observed. was the conveyance mats -made'?
❑ Yes ❑ No
h. If discharge is observed. did it reach Watcr of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑yes ❑ No
c, II' disc:har,•c is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Dues discharge bypass a iacuun 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 (freehoard plus storm storage) icss than adequate? Xspfliway ❑ Yes XNo
Su•u"turc ' Structure 2 Structure Structure Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:.4�.7!C�.....................................
Freeboard (inches): r�
5100 1. Continued on back

Facility Number: _7— Date of Inspection Printed on: 1/9/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the ity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ *sage,
vere erosion, ❑ Yes �❑ N(,-
etc.) t
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes IN 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? . 0 Yes ❑ No
B. Does any pan of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes `Q No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ANo
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 KNo
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes Mo
14. a) Does thefacility 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 j$iNo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes 9No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes [yNo
Re aired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
Yes
—$ire
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
�1j 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
��to yiQlafigns'o def t:�enci�5 rr re nQt;e� iiirrirtg phis;v!<sitT Yoit with xee ipe Ino fig;- &
co7es• ondence. about this visit.:.. . ..... .
u.�_L-Sr is..ZL`^Y1Y'•
Comments (refer to queWozi #)^ j __plaw,,any%Yl� answers and/ or�anyjrecommendai o or.anyfaftil I
17 =0
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: , j

Facility Number: 7,6 —4U Date of IiLspection EW Printed on: 1/9/2001
_ Odor Issues
(26. Does the discharge pipe from the confiPi'ement building to the storage pond or lagoon t'dlfto discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property) «► "`
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
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.) -F=Q= o
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? -���;o-
D• the flush tanks lack a submergedpipe or a permanent/temporary
1
FMI
A.
5100

rz
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 28 [late of Visit: 12/12/2001 11111C: 0930
F_ Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
0 Permitted ■ Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: CashaXd>aiity............................................................................... ........... County: RAtKd.ajpjj ......................................... W.SRQ........
OwnerName: Robtat .................................... Cashatl....................................................... Phone No: 33,6,49.8.-.35.63 ...........................................................
Mailing Address: 5763.I?aY]s.Qulut'.Oast ..............................
Facility Contact: Daxb. AShall................................................ Title:................................................................ Phone No: 33.&49.8,.4327...(t3aru)..,......
Onsite Representative: l?ayis. cabSJ)t,Ettt......................... Integrator:
Certified Operator'switty..`'Mayis.!.................. Cobalt,............................................ Operator Certification Number: 2,1310....................
Location of Farm:
From GSO go south on Hwy. 220 to first exit in Randolph Co. (Level Cross) and turn right onto Branson Mill Rd. Turn left 1
mto Walker Mill Road then right onto Davis Country Road.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Morse Latitude 35 • 51 6 43 if Longitude 79 • SO i 1946
k7l Design Current Destgn Current JD;esigCurrent `''
�r
Swine Ca acit P,o ulation Poultry 'a acit P,o ulation @attle Ca 'acit P,o ulation
r ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ® Dairy 279 254
❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
ry
Y ❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity 279
❑ Gilts
,' ❑Boars al SS, 390,600
Number of Lagoons ® ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Egli
olding Ponds /Solid Traps �.J ❑ 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 _& T e t en
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S Structure 6
Identifier: ......Waste.Rond .....................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 26
05/03/01 Sn Q / ntinued

Facility Number: 76-28 Date of Inspection ..„
t
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? Yes ®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ®Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Graze) Fescue (Hay) Wheat
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?
Reiluired_ Records_&_Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
®Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit
e com en
o foci) tte explain ituat u 'ti na a necessary • ❑Field Copy 0 Final Notes
M
3. Severe streambank and streambed erosion is allowing lots of sediment to enter creek during rain events. Land may be sold to
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority by March 2002. Spoke with DWQ and Div. of Land Quality (DLQ) Staff at the
Winston-Salem Regional ice for recommendations regarding temporary sediment control measures. Called Davis on 12119101 and
stated that the sediment would need to be controlled in the stream as long as he owned property. Sent him a diagram and instructions
or a suggested type of sediment trap that could be built in stream. A copy of this inspection form was also sent.
3. and 8. Cattle have severely denuded pasture above the waste storage pond. Getting runoff of soil and animal waste into creek during
Lain events. Must keep cows off this area immediate) . Operator plans on sowing a now and fescue (Spring) as well.
w
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melissa Rosebrock
1
Re viewer/Inspector Signature Date:1?12/�
05103101 f V j Continued

/ Facility Number: 76_28 D• ' Inspection 12/12/20Q1
is
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
[--]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Dam looks better, but if,operation were to continue the dam would need to to be re -seeded and cattle kept off permanently.
10. Stream. banks and bed are still severely eroded. If operation were to continue, extensive fencing, cattle crossing construction,
seeding, re -grading and other maintenance would need to be performed.
114. Operation to cease after negotiations completed with Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority sometime in March 2002,
117. Operator may want to have permit rescinded if/after operation ceases. Call Sue Homewood (DWQ) 919.733.5083 for questi
119. Per operator, no irrigation of waste in 2001, only solids applications.
119. Waste applied in Dec. 2001 still needs to have a waste sample obtained. Need to obtain soil samples as well.
19. Application dates of solid waste was about a month outside the application window stipulated in the CAWMP. Would need to
revise CAWMP application windows if staying in business.
DWQ needs to re -visit farm after fencing around waste storage pond has been installed to keep cows off pasture. Need to also
ect the construction of the sediment trap to be used in the creek as a temporary measure to control sediment runoff from the
ure and cattle crossing. DWQ to check after January 1, 2002.
05103101

F p i
�al9a _ y 't6tht
ne O Complaint OF
Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
1 IFacility Number I Date of Inspection
// Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
VPermitted Certified © Conditionally Certified © Registered 13 Not O erational Date L,a�st Operated:
Farm Name: .........Lli,sl ��............................................................. County:.......Q�.U�... ............................................
:.hmf h
Owner Name:........... i� t,...........�........[1 ...... 2 /� (� 'I .... / ... ........
Phone No:...33. `4'...:.... r.....................
. 3 J (O (3a
Facility CQntpct:...............................................O.E7.!1..1Title:................................................ Phone No:..L.......................
�I�i
Mailing Address: ...... 11� ... 7k..3 .......... .......... .... CaUdEV ..... J.4.04.knngn ... . .. 4a
..........................
Onsite Representative: ...... !.,.14r�h /.. ?..L�rU, .1. i i±.L..................1.....................
]
Certified Operator:.... .1(, .P. P1...:,.4 0,V.t..``�......... . .1.1a TI�................
Integrator: ......................................................................................
Operator Certification Number:...... O
..........V............: fr �'l�1 . .....
1
o.+ .....a...... - .���.....1 .i..1........-..........L� :...........� ........... ........:...... :.r.L:::............ Y...r .. a. . ..f... .
Z T, IZ lu I nnoihseip r-`;-MV I ZZA I, 1 IM I44 L LJ Q
Design , =Cu"r"rent Design Current
;$wine Ca acity; Po ulation ��
❑ Wean to Feeder
j []Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
s ❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Other
T' 6w:D
Z
A Ner.491
Discharp-es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes xNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (Il' yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes WNo
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? x Spillway ❑ Yes >fNo
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identilicr: Wel �ff __Porj
Freeboard (inches): ............ .6 ......................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
t r n is thr ri n t uct o e 'el tr s, s vere sio D
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
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 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?
11. Is there evidence of over application?
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ
❑ Excessive
❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes *0
❑ Yes �No
Yes ❑ No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes XNO
Yes
❑ Yes
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? N'� ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? +f r
❑ Yes XNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes XNo
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes �No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes A 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 rNo
o
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? ��rr
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes [(No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes yNo
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? Yes /I No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes A No
�'�1Q yiQlaiitggs.o#` igfe}e die v re PPted. dlrr�ng is'v. . • ....... a ........ .
6 iesaoiideii& allout. this v#sit: •.................................. .
4 i
'i ��7
Use'drawin of facility to better,explain situations. (use additionalipages as necessary
A
o
apt � a
4V
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
5/00

Facility Number: —;t l f 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?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes X
No
4 / �
I
•' `� <<1 �� �`�'f `AMEd
to

PIEDMONT TRIAD REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY
November 28, 2001
DE
Ms. Melissa Rosebuck
NC Division of Water Quality%'�1 �ii =4i.' •�� i{�;
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Dear Ms. Rosebuck:
As we discussed, I am enclosing information relative to the impacts of the Randleman fake
project on the Cashatt dairy.
Thave been in negotiations with Mr. Cashatt for the past few months. I anticipate these
negotiations will need to be concluded by March 2002 to allow for the timely clearing of the
reservoir area.
If I can provide additional information, please feel free to call.
A
y.
Kime
Executive Director
JFK.js
Enclosure
cc: Cashatt file
Wilmington Building, Suite 204 • 2216 West Meadowview Road + Greensboro, North Carolina 27407-3480
Telephone: [phone] . Fax: [phone]

1; . 11P I �,-:
-p
404 ��l
;1�1{ 4�'
'Mri t
Sf4,1,
Ir
f" A0k; VIA
IF A,
Whom
X - , -,
ply
TOM.
1, "1
K.
M., -W P
SZE47
S
If fiRid r
E
Its, to
Xo,-7-L
*,, -:,� k�, 1 4
law 'N. W.,
'OR
I " � , 4Y U.
AWAY ASS i R
141�11 �� � � � �, N, , , '. " !Z", v M�
— U1. U",
sit!
67
AV,:
�AK
i 44OOot";eRN" NoA lt
3.
C3Existing Property Boundary C.
M PTRWA 200 foot buffer

Temporary Sediment Trap
2t' min !
ICI y'5 Y
�IlIII~ '
Filter
fabric .
/11cr settlement
max
40
=s.1eside;.:.ON
_w•
2' min -
Earth Embankment and Stone Outlet Section
1.5min
5' min
Food pooli��-�.,•w.�-lr.
f• r�
fabric
Cross-section of Stone Outlet Section
Figure 6.60b Construction detail of sediment trap.
Embankment Locate sediment trap as near the sediment source as topography a!lowE.
Divert runoff from all undisturbed areas away from sediment trap.
Clear, grub, and strip all vegetation and root mat from area of embankment.
Use stable mineral soil free of roots, rocks, debris, and other objectionable
material.
Place fill in 9-inch lifts, maximum. Machine compact each lift. Construct
side slopes 2.1 or flatter (3:1 recommended for back -slope to improve
stability of stone spillway).
Overfill embankment to 6 inches above design elevation to allow for setae-
mcnt.
Outlet Excavate trapezoidal stone outlet section from compacted embankment
Section (Figure 6.60b). Allow for thickness of stone side slopes (21 inches mini-
mum).
Install filter fabric under riprap. Extend fabric up the sides to top of
embankment
Place specified stone to lines and grades shown on plans, working the
smaller stones into the voids to achieve a dense mass. Spillway crest must
be level with minimum inside dimension specified in plan. Measure
spillway depth from the higest stones in the spillway to the design elevation
of dam. Minimum depth is 1.5 FL
Keep sides of the stone ou tletsection at least 21 inches thick through the
level section and the downstream face of dam.
Extend outlet apron below toe of dam on level grade until stable conditions
are reached (5 ft minimum). Edges and end of the stone apron section must
be flush with surrounding ground. No overfall should exist.
Cover inside face of stone outlet section with a 1-ft thick layer of 1/2- to
3/4-inch aggregate (NC DOT #57 or #5 washed stone).
Vegetate the embankment in accordance with the vegetation plan.
Set a stake at one-half the design depth. This will be the "cleanout level."

C
i, - . .i�
Datt of Visil: Z �—a { Time: Printed on: 7Q/26/2000
Facility Number r�
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
0 Permitted [3 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ...................
t County:.......... .h�.. ..1. ....,
I"artn Name: ..... 14.,�.�..14rCL�.................1Q....tC,�q....I...................................... p � �................................
Owner Name: .....5?... .4r.lr...i.:................�.. Af .h,.�1r..7i �...............,....... Phone No:..�..3��..4�..fJ...:�.....3s..403....................
Facility Contact: ....�t,.Q..�aC..�.......... ,r*..•...ti?.h .'Title:...... .. ..A�..�.Y.............. Phone No:
.... ............ ............................
Mailing Address :........ 5...' .IQ.. ...Dg.V.t..� ........... ....... u.. ...l..�t..�....
Onsite Representative:.....Q...tc...?..................�.r5..�k.T JJ................. Integrator:...0.1..lti.....AJ...T`..............................
Certified Operator:........, .kxx.� ..... ., .. A-Y�'........... Operator Certification Number:.. .�.. ..� ...............
.
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry �attle ❑ Horse Latitude ©' 6 44 Longitude ' ©4 «
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
[:]Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Other
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
airy Q
❑ Non -Dairy
Total Design Capacity �p
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area I0 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Imuack5
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'? ❑ Yes Imo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
l), If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (Ifyes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. II' discharge is observed. what is the estimated now in gal/inin?
d. Does discharge hypass a lagoon system`? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from am: mart of the operation? ❑ Yes M_Ko
3. Were there any adverse impacts or t::;,tential adverse impacts to the Water; of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ®.Pik
htiaste Collection & Treatn 4,n:
4. Is storage capar:,,, (t'rceboard plus storm storage) !c.a than adequate? ❑ Spillway . J Yes ug-NQ--
t Structure I !.�ruclurc 2 SLrUCture 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
identifier: loops_./ 9"(kG!................. ................. .............:.................................................... ...................... .............. .....................................
�: rechoard (inches): O /�
r'""HrvrjPdf)n hard[

E
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection ® • Printed on: 10/26/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the l egrity 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'?
Waste Application
I0. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type 09 R,1J s• -/,IG A-t-C µis
13. Do the receiving crops differ with th a designated in the ertified
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?
C.
Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
Re uired 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?
�'VQ YiQlatiQt�js or d f c en00 w0re n¢te4• ii(w fig fhjs'visat; • :Y;on wii l�eeeiye i1l0 rutthor; • '
:. • corresnoric�ence: about this :visit: • .. � : � : � :::......: � :.... � : � ..... � .....: � :...
■ L�
❑ Yes 3_K_0
❑ Yes
❑ Yes Biq_o
❑ Yes ffNo
❑ Yes Eligoo —
❑ Yes alO
❑ Yes
❑ Yes 0-Nv-'
❑ Yes D-P
❑ Yes 34#T— -
❑ Yes G-#a--
❑ Yes 0-Nr--
❑ Yes [�]-PFt�
❑ Yes B'No
USTes ❑ No
❑ Yes E4#
❑ Yes C3-Nrr-
0 Yes [ �
❑ Yes 9I41T_�
❑ Yes [}#r—,
❑ Yes [moo

Facility Number: —a �e of Iuspection Printed on: 10/26/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes LSO
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 a
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? / lw/ ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged till pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? AIIA ❑ Yes ❑ No
„_...rtiona omments an, .or...rawings:;
5/00

Type of Visit @ Compliance. Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 76 28 late of Visit: 11/1M20�0 Time: 1335 Printed on: 11/15/2000
0 Not —Operational 0 Below Threshold
0 Permitted a Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Gash:attDAirY................................................................................................ County: RRIA Ph......................................... WSRA........
OwnerName: Robcirl .................................... Cashiltit....................................................... Phone No: ...........................................................
Facility Contact: DAAA.C.oSlkan................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: 33.f,498,4327..(Rt rm)........
Mailing Address: ..7.63.it?aYas.Gaumlry. tilPa�.............................................................. RAndirmAn..N.0 .................................................... Z7,317...............
OnsiteRepresentative: DA.Y.iS.Casba t............................................................................. Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:Sidtacy.................................... C.45hall,............................................ Operator Certification Number:2,13.10.............................
Location of Farm: .
From GSO go south on Hwy. 220 to first exit in Randolph Co. (Level Cross) and turn right onto Branson Mill Rd. Turn left +
)nto Walker Mill Road then right onto Davis Country Road.
I-
0 Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 51 6 43 46 Longitude 79 • =1 19 c{
H, ". -s a
"Current- tlDest n: Currents 4 Current
n 4 g � i g a
f
f
r
' ... aver„=- ....;.. uw,n•.+e�.w,. ua-.::, �.. ... .. � ...-. .. .. . .i � X�Y% � ...{Y �. ? �` 3 _ � . �� . SA� �. �.��.:+�
Boars
Swine
� s `: �,,
Ca actt �yPo ulation
� �.
Poultry' ;'Ca actt Po ulatiodi;
Cattle - Ca actt ?0 �ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
Layer
®Dairy
250
186
❑ Feeder to Finish
Non -Layer � � ❑Non Dairy
Other
2S4
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
c a _& Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made`?
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste lleCyf,B & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: ......Waste..i'asd.......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 36
5100
® Spillway
Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes Cl No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ®No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ®No
Structure 6
Continued on back

Facility Number: 7G-28 Date of Inspection 11/14/2000 Printed on.• 11/15/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the irity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ Ere evere 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 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?
(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?
0: l�6•yWhti6fis;or- deficient es•were:nbted during•this: Visit. You:with i'eeeive no fltrflter
rrespondence: abouk this .visit:: : ::::::::::: ::: ' ::::: ::::::::::: :
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
3. Cows have denuded stream bank severely. Streambank and streambed is very eroded. Need to fence cows out of some areas.
7. Vegetation on pond dam needs to be cut.
8. Diversion ditch and stock trail around waste ponds needs extensive maintenance. Need to also move fence back from pond and
re -seed. Must keep cows off dam! Need to also find a way to control silage run-off. Contact SWCD for suggestions. Possibility of
iping silage to waste pond?
9. Will need gauged marker once permited (COC received).
19. See if WUP can be revised to include application of waste on fescue in January. Also, several waste applications in Jan. -Sept.
000 did not have a sample taken within 60 days. Applications on T-2286 F- I were outside of application window for small grain.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melissa Rosebrock j
Reviewer/Inspector Signature �/ A„�,� 1 n /.ti �1`r Date: // Al60 5/00

[Facility Number: 76--28 Dff Inspection 11/14/2000 Printed on: 11/15/2000
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
® No
.30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
119. T-2063 F-2 (and others) and fields from T-2286 need to be in WUP.
24. Would like to look at stream again after operator has opportunity to do some grading, keeps cattle out of critical areas with
encing and keeps silage from entering waters.
A�%�c /336�5q7- F(4340 &4 PO;6�
it
5/00
J

a
vision of Water Quality'
a ivision of Soil and Water Conservation.,,
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit lb Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Q� 'Time: Printed on: 7/21/2000
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
❑ Permitted Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or
Above Threshold: .........................
FarmName: ...A. ......`.................................................I............. County:....1.' 4.t..1L�..�.1.. .. ............ .........
Owner Na e:............F�.1s�/x...........�.A...4�... Q..................................... Phone No ...:.._k.1.7......6x5,
Facility Contact: ...� T..! ....... ijlst•_�. .�............Title: .............................................................. one o: .'r✓'... ..V...:.. 3 �
RMailing Address: s. ..... %Ox ...... iri .......!. .:.. . ..I .m n.... N C ..?..�31....� ....................:........
Onsite Representative: .�i.0.....4as�A"�.......................I. .. Integrator:........................................................
.............. ..............................
r j.. -
Certified Operator:..S..J.rA „•.,,•b......,� , ..,�„�, yl. L� L I Operator Certification Number:
Location 'of Farm:
hf nTav15 r y
.04 0«
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
:; Swine Capacitv Population
Poultry Capacity
Population Cattle
Capadty Population
Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
Dairy
Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
�V'r'I
Farrow to Wean
r" '
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
Farrow to Finish
Total Design 0*4tyl
a sl�
Gilts
Total SSLW
b �Q Q
Boars
{, Nd&ber of L' ns . ❑�—Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Gagnon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
i j. ,3 - -
j r HoEding Ponds 1 SoLdETraps.'. ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System '
Discharges & Stream Im acts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes WNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon [I Spray Field [I 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/tnin`?
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 ANo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? XYes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway ❑ Yes )<No
i. S,truct rc I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:..Vs, ................................... ..................... .................................... .................................... ....................................
Freeboard (inches):
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 40 Printed on: 7/21/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the tity
of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes VNO
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which,are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or �f
closure plan? ❑Yes L�io
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an rllll
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
j Yes
❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
lkyes
❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
IgNo
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 ith those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
No
14, a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
ElYes
No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
Required Records & Documents
17,
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ,
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
XNo
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation,4r+ee4beard; waste analysis & soil sample reports)
XYes
❑ 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 X No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'? ❑ Yes XNo
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? Ayes ❑ No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑Yes No
Q yiQl igs�s:ojr dg>Fc�eu tes ogre pQte�1 dtrri ig 4his'visit' . Y;oo wiI-teot itei 06 futft
cories�oridence: about: this visit.. ' ' • • '
'Comments (r4ce io,gii"don #) Explain any YES' answers and/or any,recommendations orOn at►y other',comme�nts: {',`a� `iF; ' '
tUse drawings of iacaLty to better explain situations. (use additionalas necessary): It ;,� i� J..;.. ..1: t) yl
R• w•,1I v eed rmorKer Oita Pero
v�eJr510 Y) d ► �� - 5 c. �ac 1 acouvk pond need
ve
. X �S r �� M a� ►�-�Q� � e- o N.� e-d � at•lso a -q hce
1 v_ m pa reeed . kof iLee
p cows &P� dayu-1
'
Reviewer/Inspector Name �ro
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date: 5100

Facility Number: — 00fluspection 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 below -ETTffr—ffNo
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? LI)m i TI 01000.
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
fNO
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
ANO
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? bm / r, exoo
914e�o
Additional Comments aPi-For i
V
i
AF
i

FacilityNiamber=f- -==;-----------------
oon Number. r
• —6 Anj
tifier_._...................�......
Activet��Q Inactive — '` latttutle'Q Q 0 ' :: `;.. Longitude .0
•.t r•��.�aywia .,. `a,;,.�.Ma�,d,P--
;T` GPS or Map�L_ GPS �0 Map GPS isle number:
34. Surface area (acres):
35. Effective embankrnerit _height (feet):
36. Distance to Stream's°'
37. Water supply well within'250 feet of the lagoon?
On -site ❑ Olt -site
38. Distance to WS or HQW (miles):
39. Overtopping from Outside Waters?
40. Constructed before 1993 NRCS Standards?
41. No verification of adherence to 1993
or subsequent NRCS Standards?
42. Was groundwater encountered during construction?
43. Depth to Groundwater:
44. Immediate threat to the integrity of the structure?
45. Spillway
46. Adequate Marker
47. Freeboard & Storm Storage Requirement (inches):
f ' O less than 300 ft �O 300 feet - 1000 feet • O greater than 1 ft
. OYes O No viS. ro-RCe.'" 6 We.(l Sn
0<5 05-10 0>10
O Yes QQ No Q Unknown
}Yes Q No Q Unk own Qd ' pu�
Yr, 0-or15{ru
O Yes C Na nor
4 0 eon
NCC3 �
3
O Yes O No Unknown
............................4
O Yes No
i-Yes O No
es Q No
I t I ._:
Inspection date ..:�`.�.:;,L.`�....� ...:.:..:... :..:.' - boar ( c e ) �., free 'd in h §
48. embankment Q _Oorly Built, Large.Trees, Erosion, Burrows, Slumping, Seepage, Tile Drains, Etc.
condition Construction Specification Unknown But Dam Appears in Good Condition
Constructed and Maintained to Current NRCS Standards
49. outside drainage Poorly Maintained Diversions or Large Drainage Area not Addressed in Design
Has n Drainage Area Which is Addressed in Lagoon Design
g g 9
p No Drainage Area or Diversions Well Maintained
so, liner status O.W Liner, High Potential for Leaking, Sandy Soil, Rock Outcrops Present, Etc.
Z' o Liner, Soil Appears to Have Low Permeability
p Designed to Meet NRCS Liner Requirements
comments . '

�. I
of
16FRoutitie Q Com laint Q Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow -tip of DSWC review! 0 Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number -`
Time of InspectionG7 i(hirriiim'
13 Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered 113 Not Operational Date Last Operated .
Farm Name: County: . .....................................
Owner Name:.. os .t`:T ca&vx.G :T ... ........ Phone No:...s . %..�.'-t..r% �. .............
c
Facility Contact: .S'> :�.c :....... ..Title• ��^Q'�" Phone No: �C�-��,
....................................................... ' .....................
Mailing Address:.�.....b�?4 4,1.�.........1:'L?n.... + .......f`!.�-4'z'Z.. ;.,..... .,fx��.
Onsite Representative:.�©7.i�.............:....4,./!i.(a........ L�tegtator:.Llf.�r.......,rt1.............................
Certified Operator: A.. ./ �,i1Q;�fjt �s-J'% ••. Operator Certification Number •„
Location of Farm:
.................ti....... ...I.... ................. ..I........................................................................................................�.._.........i.
w
�.a�.,....ts ..... ttx]s'a.....4�a .�.t. ......!t-i: ..� �.....+! 1.:%f l..a.....t'.4t.A'Y:........ `........... .
Latitude =• �c Longitude
r -Design
Current `Design, `"Current
Design.. Cur rent
Swine Ca acit
,.��.,, �. ....,.: Cattle
Po ulation , ;Poultry Ca acit . ,Po ulat�on .,,.
Ca acit Po ulation_
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Layer Dairy
a Y'
Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer El
❑ Farrow to Wean
�.;�..
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
1�'
❑ Farrow to Finish
k `ry ' �' it r;v'N:��bNr' .,iTotalj esign C pacxtY
SO
❑ Giltsl
❑Boars
',Total SSLW
` ' `' ` Number of;Ln° Dons r
�; «°'x' ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area f
•��zSct F.. � �� Y' 3
Holdin Ponds'/ Solid'TiaPs
..... _
���❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
xGg ..
a"4' .s:t
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes�o 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 Statc? (If yes, notify DWQ) []Yes ❑ No
c. li• discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Docs 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
\j No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? Yes LEI No
Waste Collection & Treatment `
'IN4. 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: • vc Pi9-"
n
Freeboard (inches): x.i,........Z......... �. .....C?.�......WaSA.IC %.................................... ............. ............. .
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility ]!lumber: '7(� - ' � • *ate of Inspection_' )
6. Are there structures on -sae which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes [ l<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 u
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes &10
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? El Yes] No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Ycs\o No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Y s `0
No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Ye
No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Y s Ml
No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Y s `it!
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
IT.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
[(Yes
❑ No
18.
'Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑'�To
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
❑' to
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
ONo
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
Yes
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑
MIN' o
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
GT&o
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
O'No
No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
©
'NQ'00"10,0,0 is;ok, 0,04C4641f.10 we pofpd Ootiog this'visjt; • Y;oir ;will ><ooite ijd fli1'thgr
• ........... • .
l 19
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature, o,,,,,, rN, t� X e4 , 1 �{ i,,� 1 �„ Date: C)_ ��

r Facility Number: — .etc of l!u,spection
door 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 EdNo
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 O/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 ej No
31, Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes dNo
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? MR- ❑ Yes ❑ No
J

Facility Number 1hIle of hispection
firm, of, hl q.Wctiorl ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
p Permitted M Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered in Nol perahona Date L:Isl 01wrated:
Farin Name: CasbatiMaiiry............................................................. ...... County: Randolph WSRO
..............................
OwnerName: Robert ................................... Cashaft ...................................................... Phone No: .498725.63 ...................................................................
P,wility Contact: Davis..Cashatt..................................................I'Me: oxaer ................................................ Nhone No: U.649&.4.U.7 .......................
Mailing Address: 5263.JJaxis.Cuuntry:.Road............................................................... Rudimun.NC.............................................. ....... M),.7...............
OnsiteRepresentative: D,aYU.CasUlt............................................................................ Integra lor:.......................................................................................
Certified Operator:Sidttr}..D............................... Cashau ............................................. Operator Certification Ntimber:21.3.10 ............................
Location
>�Aeatia>x:o...f I amirtn�i.t:xat rnru..W�L.aid...............
....................... ;;...i..........x; YRna ;Qn;;....................xx:lke�F.
Latitude ©0 ®" Longitude ®�
Swine Capacity Population
13 Wean to Feeder
13 Feeder to Finish
[3 Farrow to Wean
13 Farrow to ee er
p Farrow to Finis
p Gilts
p Boars
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
p ayer I I In Dairy
p Non -Layer 1 1 JE3 Non -Dairy
p Other
TotalDesign Capacity 250
Total SSLW 350,000
Number of Lagoons p u sur ace Drains Present jFrFg-5-5-57rea JE3 Spray ie rea
Holding Ponds /Soli
d Traps
p No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges .\ Stream Imimets
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes ® No
Discharge on inatcd at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. lt'dischan, is observed, was the cooveyancc elan -made? p Yes ® No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water ol'the State?([ I' ves, notify DWQ) p Yes ® No
c. It'discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in ­al/min:'
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (li'yes, notify DWQ) p Yes ® No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? p Yes ® No
Waste Collection .tip "Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway p Yes ® No
Sll'LlCllll'C I S1111Clurc 2 Siruclure 3 Structllre 4 Siniclure 5 S1111CMI'C tl
ldcntitier':...................................................................... .............................................................................................................................................
FreeboardOldies): .................6....................................................................................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion, 13 Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

• Facility Number: 76-28 S�if 11tyVe6on
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? p Yes M No
(if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? p Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? p Yes M No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? p Yes ® No
Waste lnnlicalion
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? p Excessive Ponding 13 PAN p 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)? (3 Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? p Yes M No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? p Yes ® No
c) Does this facility lack adequate documentation to make a determination of adequate acreage?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? 13 Yes N No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
p Yes
M No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
p 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.)
p Yes
®No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (icl irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
p Yes
®No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes
M No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
p Yes
®No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
p Yes
®No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
p 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? p Yes ® No
No.violations:or -deficie>n-cies.were.nnteti during: this visit.: You, will:receive nu further.: .
orrespatidence, ab:oirt this:visit; . ................ .
Comm'ents�(refer to guestitin #) ,Explain ranyrAES iinswers iand/or any recommendations or any other'comments"
lase drawings of fdcilltyIto;better eXFfl81n Sltllatlon8 i(U$e addltlonal pageSaS�necessary)
Soil and waste samples to be taken in the next week. Facility in excellent shape. A lot of work has been completed and facility has i
been significantly improved.
------------
Reviewer/Inspector Name iW COreylBasinger` {+� f # i;'E" ill G1° ;{
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date:

Division of SoMWd Water Conservation 0 Other AFney
bivision of Water Quality NOW
IQ Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of .DSWC review O Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection /$- 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Registered Certified [3 Applied for Permit © Permitted = erational Date Last Operated:....
Farm Name: .�'}f Count
�........................................................ y•......................e.l........................Ae ......
Pv
OwnerName:.......... r.. !........................0 -'......................,............,.............,........ Phone No:....�.7 .. ...�. f................................
Facility Contact:... V V,r$..... W................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:. ..J..449 - 43277-
Mailing Address:............. 11576.iv.�;........ DA`n.s...P!.r,KJ�.......re............... .....i...: ...................................................
OnsiteRepresentative:........DA.k5 Integrator:. ................
...............................................................................................................................................
Certified Operator ;........ 53.m1 ....... ?......
Location of Farm:
.............. Operator Certification Number; .... 1. .! . .......
...... ........
C
C
Latitude ®• '®64 Longitude ®' =' "
....
Desrgn Current, Design Current Design Current.
s: .
Swine , Capacity
...,�� „
Population ,Poultry aCapacity
Popt%latton ., cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
'
❑ Layer
Dairy
❑Feeder to Finish
EE
❑Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
4
❑ Farrow to Wean
Rm
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
,#
Total Deli jb capagl y 2 SD
❑ Gilts
,
SSLW I 3a QTJ
❑ soars
2'Total
Number of:I agdo s'1 Holds g Ppnds �
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area
gKr Spray Field Area
M„
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System'
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
gNo
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
KNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
WNo
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
XNo
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
V No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
gNo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
gNo
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
00o
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
ErNo
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
j5d No
7/25/97

Facility Number: —
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds *nsite which need to be properly closed?
Structures (LagoonsHoldinu Ponds Flush fits etc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes OfNo
❑ Yes No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 - Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft).............. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes I�Mo
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'?
❑ Yes
N No
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
4No
(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
gNo
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
PNo
(if in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type ........... ..............................;k
...:6 ........................................................................................................................................................
lb.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
PfNo
17.
Does the facility have a lade of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
VNo
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
9No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
)KrNo
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
�ro
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
O No
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
o
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes 4No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ISKo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?. ❑ Yes ❑ No
No.Vit kions•or deficienties:were.iloted-during this:,0sit..:You;wi11 recei've-ni 'lurther
egrrespQl�dence about this: visa:: :.: : .. . . :::: .. . . . ; . :. . ,
int sk yea �zt-/cam 6
Fa�Lttr cc
0- liks Wet, (-t41P&_k
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

Facility Number Date of Inspection
10/26/98
Time of Insl►rctiml ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Registered p Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted 10 Not Operatlional Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Casbatt.Dairy.................................................................................... County: Randolph WSRO
Owner Name: Robert ................................... Casbatt ...................................................... Phone No: 336-4911 4814..........................................................
Faciiitn' Contact: Da.Y.is.Cubait.................................................Title: QW11cr ................................................ Phone No: 33.6 498-.93Z.7..(barlu)........
Mailing Address: 3b.65..UaiA.C,aunty'.R4ad................................................................. Rudimun.NC ..................................................... 27317 .............
Onsite Representative: Daxis.C.aslxalt........................................................................... Integrator:.......................................................................................
Certified Operator: Sidney.D............................... Casbatt............................................ . Operator Certificat ion NUMIM-:2.1.3.10 ............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ©a ©� ®�• Longitude
Swine Capacity Population
p Wean to Feeder
13 Feeder to Finish
p Farrow to can
p Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finis
p Gilts
p Boars
estgn uarrent Design urren
Poultry Capacity Population. Cattle Capacity Population
13 Layer IM Dairy 250
p Non -Layer [3 Non -Dairy
p Other
Total Design Capacity 25
Total SSLW 350,0
Number of Lagoons 1 Holding Ponds] JE3 Subsurface Drains Present 1113 Lagoon Area p Spray re rea
p No Liquid Waste Management Sys em
eneral
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? p Yes M No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes M No
Dischar+c originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. I f discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes M No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach SUIT,= Water? (I l'yes, notify DWQ) p Yes M No
c. It�discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmiri'?
d. Does discharge bypassa lagoon system? (Ifyes, notify DWQ) [3 Yes ®No
No
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?
p Yes
® No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
[3 Yes
p No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes
M No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
p Yes
M No
7/25/97

Facility Number: 76_2�-�l t)i�tci (A' Ir IW11 ® .
t
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site wV9 need to be properly closed? p Yes H No
Structures (La„oons,flolding Ponds, Flush 1'i!_s,_Cie.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Yes N No
S�rneture 1 Structure 2 StRiCture 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboardf ft):...............4................. ................................... .................................... ............................. ...... ................................... ...............................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? Cl 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 p No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? ® Yes p No
Waste Application
14. is there physical evidence of over application? p Yes M No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ....... Corn..(Silaga.&.Crain.)....... ,SmalLCtrain.(WheaL.B.acley,...........................................................................................................
Milo, Qats)
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated to t e mmal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? p Yes ® 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
N No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
p Yes
N No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
p Yes
N 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 Certified or Permitted Facilities Onl1'
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
R �Nyviqlations. or ciencies'were.no a a1r1ngis 1s1 You will.receive no further . .... voiei;06n *4WOtsvW1 . .
ommen55ts re er to"questtona#) xp atnanyj€ S answer's!or alny;recommendattons'organyRother:comments t•,;
'1 i�..t'.E E..I3P.F - :.<Ef 1Ead17 ..3 i ii...£E�r i a } 4F1.3) f.:; e. .:.��E I E a �SF! ..: f�f 4f iEe E f71E ..:.:�.ErI ! E 3 i::.:.i ..{s....E': ES If.. �.< i i.' _ ,j E Ii^i �.
Usefdrawin¢.gsaeof facility,'toiIietter explain situations E(useladdtttonal pages as necessary) ?,E +f E'
,,;,
to lF,. f. }�:i-.'TE. E 5 >>. € i ,Sq.,..-�:.,. • :.1 3 I '.. i. E, i[ I I. 't % e � 1_1d E:'_'.. 6. i �. .., eF.r. B..-e� �[ i! �4E .:.{A>�d.� B [ E 3 iF�4. F. ...5€.-: I i '!..�£;?3i
< mar ,,. &,. ..... .....
5,12 REMAINDER OF CONSTRUCTION TO BE COMPLETED BY END OF NOVEMBER.
13. MARKERS TO BE INSTALLED WHEN PIPE IN HOLDING POND IS CAPPED.
WHEN WASTE ANALYSIS IS COMPLETED, RECORDS CAN BE COMPLETED.
MUCH PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE.
SHOULD BE CERTIFIED BY DEADLINE.
Reviewer/Inspector Name �W Coirey Basinger 777 �t . E
.
Reviewerllnspector Signature: Date:

Division of Soil anWater Conservation ❑ Other
Division of Water Quality
MRoutitne 0 Conmplaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other j
Date of Inspection F, e17o C
Facility Number �'fca
Time of Inspection E� 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Registered 0 Certified 0 Applied for Permit 0 Permitted 10 Not Operational Date Last Operated: ,
Farm Name: ........... gAsa-�DA4County:....WS�p
.............................. ......,...............,..........
Owner Name:.&4W,!cT...... ....................................... Phone No, .... �J .....q8....... .49 r4- 1
Facility Contact:..............it:R!!:V'.........�-t............ Title:...... �:�.�................................. Phone No:....¢........... 4�12��
Mailing Address: �1" �" s n�✓is C,04ac� �4A h �C 3{
.....................................`............................................K.......................................................'....
Onsite Representative: ...... !�S....... ................................................... Integrator: ............................................ .........................................
Certified Operator: ........ .....LLB?l.....W.VLq....... -'t3c Any............................. Operator Certification Number,.. ..���.�: ...........:......
Location of Farm: l
�,,. ..........................
............. h ✓g �%
.. ................
.r............................................ .
Latitude " Longitude ®• ®` �"
Capacity :Population:.. Poultry
........... ... .
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
Y, ❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
LI Non-i
❑ Other
h:Total E
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes P No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes jMrNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ .Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes Wo
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes fNo
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 ErNo
3. Is then: evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ONo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes C!J�No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes ❑ No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes R"No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes JRVo
7/25/97

Facility Number:
i 8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site wTtich need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
;E�No
Structures (Lagoonsj1olding fonds Flush Pits etc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
JSrNo
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft):.......... 4_x.................................................................................................................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
P�No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
C
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
R1Zi0
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type..?`.:P... ......................................... : 1 .. i� ul? "
................................................
.......
J
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
bNo
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
fkNo
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
)F�No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
S'No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
E�No
21.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
E�No
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
V1 No
For
Certified or Permilted 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:vWAtionsor d6irciencies.were-noted.during this:visit.:You:will receive,no-ftirttier,:
corros:06 <deko about-this.yisit.
fi-/; ---),
(3.
1�e
7/25/97
Reviewer/inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: aZc.o Date:

NORTH CA O INA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
WINSTON-SALEM REGIONAL OFFICE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
5 February 1998
Mr. David Cashatt
Cashatt Dairy Farm
5665 Davis County Road
Randleman, NC 27317
SUBJECT: Certified Animal Waste Management Plan
Cashatt Dairy Farm #76-28
Randolph County
Dear Mr. Cashatt:
In the next few days, you will be receiving a certified
letter from our Raleigh Office informing you that your
facility was not certified by the December 31, 1997
deadline. In the letter, you will be asked to respond in
writing back to the Raleigh Office informing them of the
reasons why your facility was not certified by the deadline.
Attached to the letter will be an application for a
especial Agreement". This agreement will allow you to set a
schedule for you to follow to complete the necessary
improvements or construction activities required in your
waste management plan prepared by NRCS or Soil and Water
Conservation. The Environmental Management Commission in
Raleigh will review and approve the schedule you propose.
Please complete the application when you receive it and
return it to the address found on the last page of the
Raleigh letter.
if you do not understand what you need to do, or need
any assistance completing the application form, please call
me at [phone] and we will work together to make sure
all the necessary paperwork is completed.
Thanks,
W. Corey asinger
Environmental Engineer
Cc: Randolph Co. NRCS/SWCD
Central Files
58S WAUGHToWN STREET, WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA 27107
PHONE [phone] FA% 336-771 -4631
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY !AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

Routine p. omp am p Follow-up of DWQ inspection p o ow -up o review p other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number ��--i8-�
Time of Inspection 1� 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Registered p Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted in Not pera Iona Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Casbatt.Dailry....................................................................................I............ County: Randolph WSRO
Owner Name: Robert ................................... Cashatt.
............... Phone No: 49Xr35.63 ...................................................................
Facility Contact: David-CasbaU................................................Title:............................................................... Phone No: 9.1An49.8-4814.orA3Z7.......
Mailing Address: 56fi5..ttaxi.&.C,aunty.Road................................................................. Raxtdlz=n.XC .................................................... 27.317...............
Onsite Representative: David.Cashatt........................................................................... Integrator:.......................................................................................
Certified Operator:Sid=y.1).............................. Casbatt....
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number:2.I.3.I.A.............................
... ... Q! :.. axts::., n;untry:..... a.....................:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: +
Latitude ©• ©' ®" Longitude ®• ®' ®"
�: g .... ! esa n ;,, urren
esI n urren
Sw1ne ;`CaPaelty` Population Poultry.' Capacity Poiulattoit`' Cattle Capactty;PopulsYtion
.?l
p Wean to Feeder
p Feeder to Ims
p Farrow to Wean
p Farrow to Feeder
0 Farrow to Finish
p Gilts
p Boars
p
[3 Layer
p an- ayer
[3 ter
Tatal�Di: gtt,,Capacily,
! Y.�„ .P➢ : �3 i i £.1-otal,.SSl. , 350,000
1 q of 1 : t Y{'} II I �l
j;4 11 ,'; 1�. ! -�
gOOa Area Ip Spray N 1010 Area
,E
t'
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? p Yes ® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?, p Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon Cl Spray Field p 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) p 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? p 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

ace i y um er: 7 _28
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site wh� need to be property closed?
g g P p Y
Structures (Lagoons,Holdine Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I' Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
•
Structure 5
p Yes H No
p Yes H No
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft): ..........t6.f 4+1 .......................................................................................................................................................
..................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
13 Yes
® No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
p Yes
H 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
p No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
p Yes
N No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ....... Catxt.4Silage.&.aain.)....... Small.Craira].(WJaeat,.$.arlcy........................................................................................................................
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 ReviewerlInspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
Yes
M No
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
p Yes
® No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ 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
1g.. o.viq ions.or iciencies-were .nA e . uring this visit;. on wt .receive ntrfurther.-.
�o!`�es�io��e�e� about 't�iis •visit:: • . • . • .....:: ........... .
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: yd2±LG 1: Date: C?J' � Calg

' [ DSWC Anima edlot Operation Review P
EA�DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection;
Routine Q Com laint Q Follow-u of DAV ins action Q Follow-u of DSWC review• O Other
Date of Inspection �O i
1. Facility Number 2
Time of Inspection = DtJ ' 24 hr. (hh:mm)
lb Registered 0 Certified d Applied for Permit E3 Permitted 13Not O erational I Date bast OpVated:
�a,�t�af
Farm Name �lkd•Tr DA IR County :........................ ............................. .... .....�.�..r�.
Owner Name......... !z- i Phone \o: �La)�a. ...............6...........,....................
.L'.�►!....................................... ..................... ``
AL
Facility Contact: ...,.....lU..C4-W.TE ........................ Title:... ....... ............................. Phone No:
Mailing Address.-
.............................................................................. ... .................................................................................. p..........................
Ottsite Representative: :............ p P!yjC, , M7 Integrator: :...............
.................................................................................. ..............................
CM!,k . i 1 3 t 0
Certified Operator ;...... ��....�?�+•l�`...... .......................................................... Operator Certification Nurnbc-r:....2......................
............. ....... ..........
Location of Farm.
�.....................................................................................,..............,..,................, ...................
.... . ...........
fry..................... ........................ U�.. .. ..............
Latitude ' S 1 ®" 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
250
/SZ
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
2�
Total SSLW
--3;gDj Poo
Number of Lagoons 1 Holding Ponds ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ID Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improve ment?
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. Irdischarge is observed, did it reach Surface Water'? (Iryes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
cl. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 'MKo
❑ Yes ,EkNo
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes
.39 tvo
❑ Yes
8'No
❑ Yes
)�JNo
❑ Yes
®'�Io
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ Yes
)�Vo
Continued on back

Facility Number:
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures La oons lfoldin Ponds Flush Pits etc.
9, is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2
Identifier:
................... Win............ ....�................... ......
Freeboard(ft):................................,.,.................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
C
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes ;WNo
Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes JYNo
11. Is erosioti, 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)
. Croptype .................................
................................................. ..................
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 lwid 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 an -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?
13. Ndviolallons or deficiencies. we're` noted dor.itig this;visit.' Y.ou will receive no ftirth'er
: Oerespondeitce about this:visit
: inzii Bits (refer to question #):, Explairi any YES answers a..nd/or„any recommenaa ions or any other con
lse.drawtngs of facility to better explain situations (use addittunal pages as necessary)
J � .
23 -ZS �� �-i, fed K
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes ,NrNo
�es ❑ No
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
��❑
P3 1Vo
❑ Yes
ETNo
❑ Yes
pl�o
❑ Yes
G`No
❑ Yes
g�No
❑ Yes
9rNo
❑ Yes . ❑ No
❑ Yes [--]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name 1
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: