975002_INSPECTIONS_20171231

■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A.
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. tX
■ Print your name and address on the reverse t' _ .
so that we can return the card to you.: B.
■ Attach this card to thle.t acW.of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
( Printed Name)
❑ Agent
C. Date of
D. Is delivery address different from item 17 ❑ Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
N
Barbara Church
Terry Church
1251 Champion Mt Pleasant Ch Rd 3. Service Type
Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail
Ferguson NC 28624 I ❑ Registered eturn Receipt for Merchandise
❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes
2. Article Number
Mmnsrer from service label) W) 9 Q --3 4&o DArs 6 q 3t ? 1,2 4 7 Al A✓
PS Farm 3811, AUgUM 2001 ' 1 Domestic Return Receipt 102595.01-M•250!

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE fl}�.� irsI�irle
USPS
Permit No. G-10
• Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box'
ANC DENR - -- - - --- -- -- -- - - -- - - I
WATER QUALITY SECTION - R cC E I V E :
585 WAUGHTOWN STREET N.C. [kept. 0f Er1
WINSTON SALEM NC 27107-2241 APR 0 1 2002
\NinS,ton-Sal'
Regional C� f
�' � �Ef�l�FIIt111Ff���lFt�!!Fill�l�llfiilfll�llJ�Ilil�JllJfltltli!
INR
w
i0o

■ Complete items.1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
■ 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:
T 7-
A.
❑ Agent
B: Riceivjby (P - tedNa J C. Date of Delivery
�-- 7
Is el eery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes
If PESrenter delivery address below: ❑ No
Barbara Church
Terry Church
1242 Poplar Springs Road I 3. Service
State Road -NC 28669 Xrcert
❑ Regi
❑ Insu
4. Restrict
i
3
Mail ❑ Express Mail
Id ""I�eturn Receipt for Merchandise
flail © C.O.D.
� Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes
2. Article Number / 1 /�
(Transfer from service label)? Q 4 g 3 T,90 D n aoA___1—&3 'I' 117 If lY\ Its
PS Form 3811, August 2001 Domestic Return.9eceipt ' I 102595-01-M-2506

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
First -Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Permit No. G-10
• Sender: Please print your name, address, an +-in-this box
MAR 2 8 L002
P
NC DENR - IrISTOri -. al 'ffiS
WATER QUALITY
585 WAUGHTOWN STREET
WINSTON SALEM NC 27107-2241

Wilkes., oil & Water Conservation District
P.O. Box 194 • Wilkesboro, NC 28697 • [phone] ext. 3 • Fax [phone]
January 24, 2008 RECEIVED i
REx BARKER N.C. Not. of ENR
CHAIRMAN Mr. Joel Church
JAN 2 8 2008
CLAUDE SHEw, JR. 176 Carroll Town Road
VICE CHAIRMAN Ferguson NC 28624 Winston-Salem
g Regicnal Ctft'Ice
W. TED CARTER W
SEC. - TREASURER Mr. Church:
DR. BILL H. DAvls, JR.
MEMBER Staff from the Wilkes Soil and Water Conservation District visited your property on January
16, 2008 to discuss the location of the 100 year floodplain as designated by the Federal
DwAMEMM R ERS Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
maps. The site is located next to a tributary of Naked Creek (see attached map).
After review, it is our opinion that the location of the proposed poultry houses do not fall
within this designated area. This determination was based on information contained on the
Wilkes County FEMA maps, Community Panel Number: 370256 0150 B, Effective Date:
May 15, 1991 and from calculations performed in consultation with USDA-NRCS Engineer.
There is no guarantee of the accuracy of this statement either expressed or implied. You
can complete an "Elevation Certificate" and submit it to FEMA for review and
determination if you wish to certify any of these findings. Additional information is
available on FEMA's web site.
There are no regulations, to the best of my knowledge, prohibiting you from building on your
proposed site. I would, however, like to express an opinion on the site from a soils standpoint.
The proposed area contains the soil series Toccoa with the soil type being ToA. This soil has
limitations such as:
1. Potential for flooding - "Flooding" is the temporary inundation of an area caused by
overflowing streams, by runoff from adjacent slopes, or by tides. Water standing for short
periods after rainfall or snowmelt is not considered flooding.
2. Slow surface runoff of water resulting in ponding etc. "Ponding" is standing water in a
closed depression. Unless a drainage system is installed, the water is removed only by
percolation, transpiration, or evaporation.
3. Shallow depth to water table- "Water table" refers to a saturated zone in the soil.
The proximity to the stream bank causes some concern as well. Sloughing of the bank could
lead to problems with the poultry house foundation. Debris that collects in the stream could
clog culverts and result in water damage. It would be our recommendation that an alternate
site be selected, if available.
If we may be of other assistance to you in the future, do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
L. Bryan Colvard II
Soil Conservationist
Cc: Melissa Rosebrock
Scotty Williams

r Joel Church
Assisted by: Bryan Colvard
Agency: WILKES SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT,
Wilkesboro Service Center, Wilkes Co., NC
V*040i Legend
0
0 1,250 2.500 3 7so
Feet

ZONE A
i
■
skI
Will
1ZONE X
✓i j
,-114L%le__ .
m
5� 5�•
,r
HAM
ZONE A
ZONE X
ZONE X-
NE
W. KERR SCOTT
RFSERVOIR
RIVER
ZONE A
/7; ZONE X
1
ZONE X .
`ZONE X

Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings
Wilkes County, North Carolina
[The information in this table indicates the dominant soil condition but does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation. The numbers in the value
columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value_. the greater the potential limitation. The table shows only the top five limitations for any given'
soil. The soil may have additional limitations]
Pct.
Dwellings without basements
Dwellings with basements
Small commercial buildings
Map symbol
of
and soil name
map
unit
Rating class and
Value
Rating Gass and
Value
Rating class and
Value
limiting features
limiting features
limiting features
ToA:
USDA Natural Resources
Tabular Data Version: 9
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 05/18/2007 Page 1 of 2

Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings
Soil properties influence the development of building sites, Including the selection of the site, the design of the structure, construction, performance
after construction, and maintenance. This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect dwellings and small commercial buildings.
The ratings in the table are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features
that affect building site development. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance
and very low maintenance can be expected. "Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use.
The limitations can�be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be
expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be
overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or.expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be
expected.
Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00.
They indicate -gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil
feature is not a limitation (0.00).
"Dwellings" are single-family houses of three stories or less. For dwellings without basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread
footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. For
dwellings with basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of about 7
feet. The ratings for dwellings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the
properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load -supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding,
flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), and compressibility. Compressibility is inferred from the Unified classification, The
properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan,
hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. .
"Small commercial buildings" are structures that are less than three stories high and do not have basements. The foundation is assumed to consist
of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper.
The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect
excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load -supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence,
linear extensibility (shrink -swell potential), and compressibility (which is inferred from the Unified classification). The properties that affect the ease and
amount of excavation include flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented
pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments.
Information in this table.is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and
construction, The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data generally apply only to that part of the soil between the
surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas of a specific soil.
The Information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel
experienced in the design and construction of engineering works.
Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were not considered In preparing the
information in this table. Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site selection, and in design.
USDA Natural Resources
Tabular Data Version: 9
COriserVatlOri SerV1Ce ' Tabular Data Version Date: 05/18/2007
Page 2 of 2

Map Unit Description
Wilkes County, North Carolina
ToA Toccoa sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Setting
Landscape: Valleys
Elevation:.200 to 1400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 37 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 66 degrees F
Frost -free period: 200 to 240 days
Composition
Toccoa and similar soils: 85 percent
Description of Toccoa
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Properties and Qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 percent
Drainage class: Moderately well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 inlhr)
Depth to water table: About 30 to 60 inches
Frequency of flooding: Occasional
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate maximum: 0 percent
Gypsum maximum: 0 percent
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.3 inches)
Interpretive Groups
Land capability (non irrigated): 2w
Typical Profile
0 to 12 inches: sandy loam
12 to 50 inches: loam
50 to 80 inches: loamy sand
USDA Natural Resources
Tabular Data Version: 9
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 05/1812007.
Page 1 of 2

Map Unit Description
Detailed Soil Map Units
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit
descriptions in this report, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation_ on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified
and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils: Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties
of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus,
the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if
ever; can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas
for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic Gasses other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These
are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description, Other minor components,
however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called
contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small
areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. The contrasting components are mentioned in
the map unit descriptions. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the
descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical tdmake enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components Ina map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to
delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management
requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of
small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description indicates the composition of the map unit and selected
properties of the components of the unit.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a "soil series." Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have
major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use.
On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into "soil phases." Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series.
The name of a soil phase -commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase
of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major lolls or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated
groups.
A "complex" consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown
separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6
percent slopes, is an example.
An "association" is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of
present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas
separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes,
is an example.
An "undifferentiated group" is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit
because similar]nterpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area
are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta
soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include "miscellaneous areas." Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
Additional information about the map units described in this report is available in other Soil Data Mart reports, which give properties of the soils and the
limitations, capabilities, and potentials for many uses. Also, the narratives that accompany the Soil Data Mart reports define some of the properties
included in the map unit descriptions.
USDA Natural ResotWces
Tabular Data Version: 9
`COnservaiiap Service' Tabular Data Version Date: 05/18/2007 Page 2 of 2

Facility Number 97 5002 ri Date of Visit: 6119l2002 l'imc: 1300
0 NNot O crational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted D Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ................
Farm Name: d.teLChurfh.Ga111e.fA rxn................... ...:.................................... ......I.... County: WjLkj*..CQuzU .............................. WSRQ........
Owner Name: 1 Arb.a[jt.&TCrjry.............. QxUrgh ....................................................... Phone No:(33.G1.9.7.3-3.9.422........
... ... ...............:.......::.................
Mailing Address: 1 .Gb nnRi�n-Mk.'le s nx.did:....:......................................... Egrg tstint-NIC....................................................... MG4..............
Facility Cont.act: J.W.Chur h........................... . Title: ....................................... Phone No: 33.6, z ,S.1GZ........................
Onsite Representative:
Integrator:...........
Certified Operator: ................................... ...... ............................................................... Operator Certification Number:.......
Location of Farm:
iwy 421 north to Wilkesboro. Left onto Champion ML Pleasant Rd. and left onto Dr. Miles Rd. A
?astures are on right. w
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse ' Latitude Longitude 81 •F 20 , 37 ♦{
z �DeSI n+ a 4fi , -gx, '9aa n
Current ; �9. Design Current Design Curren
qA
rSWlne *ram .a '. - . r,
„.Ca acit ;' 1?o ulation Poultry Ca acit P,o ulation Cattle, Ca acit P,.o ulation=
�'} ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑Layer ❑Dairy 't
t`4- ❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean r ;
❑ Farrow to Feeder a Otherls i
❑ Farrow to Finish
� Total Design1Cilts
apactty
❑ Boars ` "" R; §�� wk TotalS_SW�b
' Holding PoL�a p" � su ❑ Subsuq ace Drains Present �❑ Lag«►n AreA ❑Spray Feld Ares `,
� Number of
/ Soitd Tra s ®No Ls uid Waste Management System � .
DischaMg_5 -& Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ®No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ...................................
Freeboard (inches);
05103101
!, i — —
Continued

Terry D. ChurchN�
141 Churchview Lane N.(i. C)ep
Wilkesboro, NC 28697 APR 12 2002
Winston-Saiem
April 10, 2002 gegional Offlco
Ms. Melissa Rosebrock
Division of Water Quality
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Subject: Joel Church Cattle Operation, #97-5002
Dear Ms. Rosebrock,
In response to your letter dated March 21, 2002, the following actions have been
taken:
1. the feed ring in question has been moved into the pasture above the Dr. Miles Road
2. part of the mud/manure has been moved, however we will have to wait for it to dry
out before it can be completely moved
3. the area has been lightly disked and grass seed applied to it
4. all cattle have been moved to the pasture above the Dr. Miles Road
In the matter of the second feed ring approximately'/4 mile back towards
Champion/Mt Pleasant Road, that one does not belong to me, so I have no control over
its' placement.
Please advise if you need any more information or if I need to do anything else.
Sincerely,
Terry D. Church
336-973-7750

�C; Wkrf�
�� oT •
D �
CERTIFIED MAIL 7099 3400 0006 9313 7274
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
0 Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Barbara Church
Terry Church % �y
.1241 Ruplar Snrina,_Rnad %35-2
"�0_0 / AX_ a g�
SUBJECT: Notice of Deficiency
Complaint Investigation
Joel Church Cattle Operation, #97-5002
Wilkes County
Dear Ms. and Mr. Church -
Gregory J. Thorpe. Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Duality
March 21, 2002
On March 15, 2002 staff from the Division of Water Quality's Winston-Salem Regional Office (DWQ-
WSRO) responded to a written complaint received by our office on March 11, 2002. The complaint alleged that
animal waste was "running into the creek" from a hay ring on pasture owned by you on Dr. Miles Road (Tract-
9881, Field-2). This Notice is to summarize the water duality concerns noted during the inspection. A copy of
the completed inspection form is also enclosed for your review.
Specifically, staff. observed evidence of animal waste run-off coming from the cattle feed ring, located
only 16 feet uphill, from Naked Creek (Class C Waters of the State). Approximately 17 inches of sediment and
feed contaminated with cattle waste was noted extending four to five feet into the creek. The current situation
allows for a continued discharge to surface waters of the State, especially during rain events. Increased algal
growth was also noted in the creek at the site of impact, indicating nutrients in the water. A slight decline in
dissolved oxygen was also measured in the stream between the impacted area and 108 feet downstream. These
situations also allow for a probable water quality violation of water quality standards (fecal coliform,
biological oxygen demand, turbidity, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, etc.), particularly if conditions deteriorate
and/or as the water temperature rises. Please be advised that the non -permitted discharge of any type of
wastewater to the waters of the State is illegal as per NCGS 143-215.1 and could subject you to criminal
and civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day per violation.
Per recommendations from the Seventh Guidance Memo (Implementing the Environmental
Management Commission's Regulations for Animal Waste Management) we strongly urge you to permanently
move the feed ring back at least 100 feet from the creek. This "buffer area" will serve as a filter for cattle waste
and nutrients between the feed area and surface water. The contaminated soil and feed should also be removed
from the area and land applied to the nearby pasture. Per conversation between DWQ-WSRO staff and Mr. Joel
Church (co-owner of cattle), it is our understanding that this is to be accomplished as soon as possible. It is
suggested that another feed ring, approximately t/4 mile back towards Champion -Mt. Pleasant Rd. also be
moved away from the creek.
rrw'",� .
�rf_i EN,--:.
Customer Service Division of Water Quality I Water Quality Section
1 800 858.0368 585 Waughtown Street Winston-Salem, NC 27107 1 ,
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Internet: http://wq.ehnr.state.ne.us '4 6
f

0
Church
March 21, 2002
Page 2
A written response must be submitted to this office within 10 days of receipt of this Notice indicating
the actions taken to correct the problems stated in this letter. This written response should include an
explanation of "when and how" the problems have or are to be corrected. Please address your response to the
attention of Ms. Rosebrock at the address shown on the letterhead.
Should you need technical assistance regarding pasture management, waste application, etc. you may
wish to contact the Wilkes County NRCS/SWCD at [phone] ext.3. The Winston-Salem Regional Office
appreciates your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions concerning this Notice, please call
Melissa Rosebrock or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Larry D. Coble
Water Quality Supervisor
cc: DWQ Non -Discharge Compliance and Enforcement Unit
Wilkes County Natural Resources Conservation Service/Soil and Water Conservation District
WSRO Facility Files
Central Files
4

Sion of Water Quality
' Osion of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
10
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine Q Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 3115/2p02 Time: 1117
Facility Number
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified (] Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: J.9.0.0turphCatl;IcRarm ............................. ... Countv:l�:III;J:S. 0Ut1t�:.................... «'.SItQ........
Owner Name: liar.bars.&:X:ury..............Ci>.liJ.&....................................................... Phone No: (33.6t1.9.7.3-M42........... .................. ...........................
Mailing Address: i K.G.hampiotl-Nkt.. leati��.u.1.�tt1................................................. F bus.or>....NC.........................--.--............-----......... .1.8.6Z4 ..............
Facilitv Contact: Jaci.ccarch............................ ...............Title:.....
Onsite Representative: .�.4'.ogg.............................................................
Integrator:
Phone No: 3XYU.,51.6I........................
Certified Operator: Nlpmp......................................................................... Operator Certification Number:............
Location of Farm: _
Hwv 421 north to Wilkesboro. Left onto Chartupion Mt. Pleasant Rd. and left onto Dr. Miles Rd. +
Pastures are on ribht.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Norse l•atitudc 36 47 44 Longitude 81 • 20 37 j°
Design Currenl Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Po ulaf ion Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer I I Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer I on -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑Spray ea Field Ar
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps L-- o= ® No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharp_es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is ithscrved, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is uhservcd, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) j] Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is is the estimated flo"v in gaf,imin?
d. Does dischargc 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
«'aste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway El Yes ❑ No
Smtcnure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: TZ/A....................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches):
P. V0 ?/07 Continued

Facility Number: 97——5002 Date of Inspection 3/15/2002JU
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ❑ No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ❑ No
.roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ❑ No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional Comments and/or rawinas:
into Naked Creek. Feed ring needs to be moved at least 100 feet from Naked Creek so as to reduce impact of animal waste into
waters of the state and reduce impact of streambank and streambed erosion on water quality. `Buffer area" between feed ring and
creek is completely denuded and barren of vegetation.
1., 4., 5.-9., I1-22., and 25.-32. These questions are not applicable to this facility since operation is not a confined feeding
and has never been registered.
Today's inspection was performed by M. Rosebrock and K. Rust as a result of a written complaint received March 11, 2002 by
Winston-Salem Regional Office. Owner nor operator were notified of visit and neither were onsite.
DWQ to inspect area again for stream degradation and water quality violations.
J
C
05103101

Facility'Number: 97--5602 Date of Inspection 3115/200Z
5. Are there any immediate threats to the inte ty of any of the structures obsenfed? (ie/ treesRvere 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)
D. -ry of the structures need maintenanctri:nprovernent? ❑Yes ❑ No
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? []Yes ❑ No
9. D _ r.:Ieeuate, gauged markers Aith required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes [—]No
N aste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ® Hydraulic Overload ® Yes ❑ No
12. Crop type Pasture
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
1 S.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/'WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ 7\10
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
r 24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
® Yes
❑ No
25. '"ere 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.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations.,(use additional pages as necessary): ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
3. On the date of this inspection, approximately 17 inches of manure and sediment and feed contaminated by cattle manure was observed +
:xtending four to five feet into Naked Creek (Class C Waters of the State). The impact appeared to be as a result of cattle being fed at a
`feed ring" only 16 feet from waters of the State. Algal and aquatic plant growth was noted in the stream at the site of impact. Slight
3ecline in dissolved oxygen measured in stream between impact area and 108 feet downstream. The effect on dissolved oxygen is
.xpected to increase as the temperature increases this Spring/Summer. It is suggested that another feed ring, approximately 114 mile back
owards Champion Mt. Pleasant Rd. also be moved away from the creek.
110. and 11. Cattle waste and the feed/sediment contaminated by cattle waste is over -concentrated around and below cattle feed ring and I -w-1
ReviewerlInspector Name Melis Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. 75 Date: ! 6Z

Facility Number 97 5002 Date of Visit: 3/tS12002 Time: 1115
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
© 1'ermitted E,] Certified Q Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:.. ..................
Farm Name: J.Q.dCA=h..Ca.tklUairM..................... ..................... County: Y!'. j&s.!"Aua jy............................... WSttS).......,
Owner Name: Ha,rb.axa.&.Icrry............... OwAl ., Phone No:(33.0.9.7.3-3.9.42................ I.............
.Mailing Address: � S .G.hal laiQa: k.�leasa�x................................................. �zgu alx..[lw........................................................ 2B.614 ..............
Facility Contact:,IQel.CUreh....................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: 33.G,9.73,S.th..7.......................
Onsite Representative: Ngjag................... Integrator:
...............................................................
Certified Operator: Npne..........................
Location of Farm:
........... Operator Certification Number: ..........................................
3wy 421 north to Wilkesboro. Left onto Champion Mt. Pleasant Rd. and left onto Dr. Miles Rd. +
?astures are on right.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude F $1 •F 20 � 37
Design Current Design Current Design Current
,wine Capacity. Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Poultry Capacity Po ulation Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy I.
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons �' ' ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds„1, Solid Traps flo 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 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: NZA................................................ .................................... ................................... ................................... .......
Freeboard (inches):
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
® Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
Structure 6

Fwacility'Number: 97-5042 . Date of Inspection 3/15/2002 I.
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
IL Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ® Hydraulic Overload
® Yes
❑ No
12. Crop type' Pasture
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?
(iel 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.
r.., ., I �.:: �,, n3;3"�„yl� l,!'€;: €.€ .. i, sc'€rt „y€�€ •' l;:I' € ! R,.. ! € R.>., I-�`:ipp�gi€ihl 4 ..;kti•;i ,f'[..;r.-
Comments (refer to question,#): Explain•any YES answers'andlor any recommendations or any other comments:.r,%
Use drawln s;of€facil►t to better,ex lamisituatioas. use additional' a es as nece'ssar
, Field Copy ® Final Notes
3. On the date of this inspection, approximately 17 inches of manure and sediment and feed contaminated by cattle manure was observed
extending four to five feet into Naked Creek (Class C Waters of the State). The impact appeared to be as a result of cattle being fed at a
"feed ring" only 16 feet from waters of the State. Algal and aquatic plant growth was noted in the stream at the site of impact. Slight
decline in dissolved oxygen measured in stream between impact area and 108 feet downstream. The effect on dissolved oxygen is
expected to increase as the temperature increases this SpringlSu nmer. It is suggested that another feed ring, approximately 1/4 mile back
towards Champion Mt. Pleasant Rd. also be moved away from the creek.
10. and 11. Cattle waste and the feed/sediment contaminated by cattle waste is aver -concentrated around and below cattle feed ring and
1,w
Reviewer/Inspector Name Mehs Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date: j 11EIdZ
05103101 Continued

(Facility Number: 97-5002 DaJoInspection—N15/2002 •
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
itiona omments�an or r1.awings: i , h '
into Naked Creek. Feed ring needs to be moved at least 100 feet from Naked Creek so as to reduce impact of animal waste into +
waters of the state and reduce impact of streambank and streambed erosion on water quality. "Buffer area" between feed ring and
creek is completely denuded and barren of vegetation.
1., 4., 5.-9., 13.-22., and 25.-32. These questions are not applicable to this facility since operation is not a confined feeding
and has never been registered.
Today's inspection was performed by M. Rosebrock and K. Rust as a result of a written complaint received March 11, 2002 by
Winston-Salem Regional Office. Owner nor operator were notified of visit and neither were onsite.
DWQ to inspect area again for stream degradation and water quality violations.
l,Cat v9 -luA laaka! as/awl T-,(/o
��� r� a�tFea�eJE�et �i uwatv�ad�
05103101

03 a6 OZ 0
Winston Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality
585 Waugh Town Street
Winston Salem, N. C. 27102-2241
Gentlemen:
N.C. Dept. Ot-EHNP
74AR 11 2002
Winston-Salem
fle9ional Offices
I am writing concerning a situation near my home that needs immediate
attention from someone. According to the office of Environmental Health that
I visited recently, your office is the one I need to contact. (W 1 1 k r s b ­-o , N
There is a man in the community who has a large number of cattle. He has a
hay ring located right against his fence so he can just roll his hay off his truck
into the ring without having to drive into his pasture. The ring is no where
near big enough for all the cattle to get around and some have to stand back
and wait to get a bite if there is any left. The cattle are standing in manure up
to theirknees and it is so soupy it is running into the creek which is right
below the ring. The mess is half way across the creek already and pretty
soon will be-all the way across it: It is terrible to look at and no doubt is a
hazard to the cattle and to any humans who consume the beef when the cattle
are slaughtered. It also appeared he had dumped a truck load of some kind
Of litter (probably chicken litter) next to the ring for the cattle to eat and this
has made the problem even worse.
The problem is on Road # 1152 off the Champion Mt. Pleasant Road in
Ferguson, N. C. The man who owns the cattle is Joel Church, 176 Carroll
Town Road, Ferguson, N. C. 28624 and phone number is 336-973-5167.
Please have someone from your office to look into this terrible situation
before it gets worse. If he would just move his hay ring to another location
not so close to the creek it would solve the problem or at least keep it from
becoming worse. I do not know how the mess that is already there can be
fixed, but something definitely needs to be done and right away.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
A very concerned citizen.

NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUAL10
.0309 YADKIN RIVER BASIN
Classification
Name of Stream Description Class Date Index No.
Fall Creek
From source to South Prong
C Tr
04/15/63
12-31-2-2
Lewis Fork
Fletcher Creek
From source to South Prong
C Tr
04/15/63
12-31-2-3
Lewis Fork
Little Creek
From source to South Prong
C Tr
04/15/63
12-31-2-4
Lewis Fork
Pumpkin Run.
From source to South Prong
C Tr
04/15/63
12-31-2-5
Lewis Fork
South Prong Lewis
From Wilkes County SR 1155
C
04/01/99
12-31-2-(6)
Fork
to a point 1.1 mile
upstream of mouth
South Prong Lewis
From a point 1.1 miles
WS-IV
04/01/99
12-31-2-(7)
Fork
upstream of mouth to Lewis
Fork
��..#Naked4Creek ,,
From source�,to a ponC O 7. C
04/01/99
12-31-3-(0.5)
rmiyle::u stream of mouth__j�
Ready Branch
From source to Naked Creek
C
04/06/55
12-31-3-1
-n— Naked Creek
From a point 0.7 mile
WS-IV`
04/01/99
12-31-3-12)
upstream of mouth to Lewis
Fork
Whites Creek
From source to W. Kerr
WS-IV&B Tr
08/03/92
12-32
Scott Reservoir, Yadkin
River
Smitheys Creek
From source to W. Kerr
WS-IV&B Tr
08/03/92
12-33
Scott Reservoir, Yadkin
River
YADKIN RIVER
From W. Kerr Scott Dam to a
WS-IV
08/03/92
12-(34)
point 0.4 mile upstream of
Tucker Hole Creek
Fish Dam Creek
From source to Yadkin River
WS-IV
08/03/92
12-35
(Fishtrap Creek)
Meadow Branch
From source to Fish Dam
WS-IV
08/03/92
12-35-1
Creek
Millers Creek
From source to Yadkin River
WS-IV
08/03/92
12-36
YADKIN RIVER
From a point 0.4 mile
WS-IV CA
08/03/92
12-(36.5)
upstream of Tucker Hole
Creek to Moravian Creek
(Town of Wilkesboro water
supply intake)
Tucker Hole Creek
From source to a point 0.5
WS-IV Tr
08/03/92
12-37-(1)
mile upstream of mouth
Tucker Hole Creek
From a point 0.5 mile
WS-IV Tr CA
08/03/92
12-37-(2)
upstream of mouth to Yadkin
River
2B .0300
5
1

�ER CALIBRATION SHE
UNIT
D.O. METER
Meter Number
DATES 15 bZTIME 0S3p
Meter Number
Membrane Last Replaced Probe Last Replaced
Batteries Last Replaced Batteries Last Replaced
Red Line
Zero
Air Standard #1 1147 umhos.)
Temperature . Q Temperature
D.Q. from Table p a? �. t� Std. after Temp. Correction
Barometric Pressure o Alt. Factor a 11 Meter Reading
;actor X D.O. from Table = Calib. D.O. K Value = Std after Temp. Correction
q`-t X _ q j S— Meter Reading
' K Value = f }
Meter Reading A I }
Meter Corrected to f VA K Value =
Winkler
Winkler #
Winkler #2 Val
Meter Rea
Meter CoFrected to
Air
Standard #2 1718 umhos.j
Temperature
Std. after Temp. Correction
Meter Reading
NAME ZosebrocK-
Meter Mfg. by i sh�r
135 S a8
Meter NumberP ��ra Rrche_
Probe Last Replaced IUeLO a - 01ooZ
Batteries Last Replaced � ;)- - 2-
Buffer Sol. Last Replaced a- -bZ
Buffer !I Rr 9.18)
Temperature . 67
Buffer after Temp. Correction 4.
Oo
Meter Reading 2.73
Meter Corrected to Z1•00
Fin al Colibrat�on Final Calibration . , ~ital Calibration
Temperature 3 4. a
D.O. from Table
Barometric Pressure o Alt. Facto o q�
factor X D.O. from Table - Calib. D.O.
, 9 -7 ' x
Standard Value
Temperature
Buffer Value
Temperature
Std. after Temp. Correction Buffer after Temp. Correction
Meter Reading
Meter Reading
Meter Corrected to
Meter Reading
Meter Corrected to /14
COMMENTS: �_ P-ff Z _
Winkler
#1 Value
Winkler #N
Meter Readi
to

Re: Wilkes Co. facility
0 •
Subject: Re: Wilkes Co, facility
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:49:17 -0500
From: Sue Homewood <[e-mail]>
Organization: DWQ
To: Melissa Rosebrock <[e-mail]>
97-5002
Melissa Rosebrock wrote:
> Sue, Here's the info for the facility we spoke about:
> Pasture land is owned by Barbara and Terry Church 1352 Champion -Mt.
> Pleasant Rd., Ferguson, NC 28624 phone [phone]
> Cattle are owned by Joel Church 176 Carroll Town Rd. Ferguson, NC 28624
> phone [phone]
>
> Could you provide a facility number so that 2 may enter the complaint
> inspection into our database? Thanks.
>
> Melissa Rosebrock
> NC DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office
> Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section
> 585 Waughtown Street
> Winston-Salem, NC 27107
> Voice: [phone] ext 265
> FAX: [phone]
Sue Homewood <[e-mail]>
Environmental Engineer
Division of Water Quality
:71
of 1 3/19/2002 5:13 PM