990011_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Facility Number I
psi Division of Water Quality _
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency 1
Type of Visit 9� Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
�
Reason for Visit 16 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral o Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: jA County: v' Region: 1415
Farm Name: i7T`�'Owner Email:
Owner Name: k8re, Phone: 6w)
Mailing Address: 02_
Physical Address: , Y
Facility Contact: ��✓ Ore- Title:
Onsite Representative: V�Lt1:UAC S) Ylr)",
Certified Operator: UV 0-1 _e• co ' Is ho
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: � ° M ` a" Longitude: ®° 6
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ 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
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifej
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
1
Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co;1
in
C&O 6jial
Number of Structur
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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[:]No
[--].NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number:
. Date of Inspection •
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. 1s storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'?
El Yes
No ❑ NA El
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
111.
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental
t reat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
[] Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
0
maintenance/improvement?
1 l . Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
El Yes
,,,,�(
l�J No El NA El NE
❑ Excessive Ponding [I Hydraulic Overload El Frozen Ground El Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
r
❑ 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)
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
I❑ No
�NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
Cl Yes
wrNo
El NA
El NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
IV_ 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):
"v& Y o6�
Reviewer/Inspector Name
rock Phone: — off- g
ReviewerAnspector Signatur
Date:
Y " �� s �, N '� � J � t � I2/28/04" Continued
TO b

Facility Number: — *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 El Maps El Other '
21. D;W.,
s ecord keeping need improvement. ❑ Yes h10 ❑ NA ❑ NE
ste Applicat'on Ly`weekly Freeboard aste Analysis Soil Anal .ais
Rinfail EYStocking rop Yield 20 Minute Inspections onthly and V Rain Inspections 8 Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
ANA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
IXNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
[I 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
3 I.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
5
❑ NA
ElNE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative'?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
to
((No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Al
FI
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit P Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ICU[ Arrival Time: D b D Departure Time: County: Region: ILL—k0
Farm Name: XH" t4V 5 [ Owner Email:
Owner Name: Q_I 7 � �'}(1r�, Phone: (w) (pig —gq6 6
Mailing Address: `� 121(1 I e► IQ� U S 5
Physical Address: �Qilrl e,
Facility Contact:—�Ve� Sh01r�� Title: Phone No:T�
Onsite Representative: yy�1 ` 3Qr � Integrator:
Certified Operator: b6 !�L Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = e [� I = Longitude: ❑ ° ❑ I = 1
1
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
11 ❑ Non -Layer
Other
❑ Other — —
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
❑
Dair Calf
❑
Dairy Heifei
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non-Dai
Beef Stocker
a as
El
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d, Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continuer!

Facility Number: -- M Date of Inspection 1110, 0-7
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? El Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [I NE
StructureI Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
a Identifier: �J
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 4
No ❑ NA ElNE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) 4
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental th eat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes E o ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes JNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) �No
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
1 1. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes �6 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes t� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes o
ElNA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
ElYes rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any otter comments
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
�9W t Lt Rcm aLwa li qq ram C. rop ah It Y1e,,Lre5+ Wct5� po n4
it Vv �Q 5 t� a
�105Pond WIS r v c n
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: — $
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
A....., 7 n r 2
17/7RInd i'n"Or"Fiod

Facility Number: — I I I Ole of Inspection 01 �� - O •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does rec rd keeping need improvement? I ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waite Application [;Veekl Freeboard ❑ Waste A1u�rl'ysis ❑ Soil Vonthliy
�J Rainfall 8-EEeeieirrg» ❑9rop Yield ❑ 120 MinuM nspections ❑ and 1 " Rain Inspections EWeather 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
,ICI No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No VNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
KNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[)(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
I aoo7 So•I l test s 2 4- -
ado$ ? Not 1`4U�nerd un a+PIV to amt.,
q a b rQ}l�1 ", Low��e�-ed ? tkdo��-� 611 q�, n s
ow rc��e °- cord r tior n��-I- pti
Flo ��ck-tn re, Y1o`� r�8`0treo '6�1lce o Lcc fe a�
oZ 4 N)O U_Nas+e_ aP Ge-A fie_+ i n aoog• No wa&�-c n e.coras
Lred 6r aoog. Mo wczsJ-e °`Qpl►e�
)07,1
12128104

Facility Number
Division of Water Qualityr
Division of Soil and Water
0 Other Agency
ta: 3e1: OD
Type of Visit ? Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review
O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit{ Routine 0 Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Arrival Time;It Departure Time: p�� County: g'
Date of Visit: K, Y) Re ion
Farm Name:
Owner Email:
T Owner Name: IQ �� _,� .� 1(3 f� ___ __ _ _
Phone: ? 9 - 8 W 4
Mailing Address: a V64141
aY'i l le- , N C✓ a 7 d S S
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: YV�-��
hD CC Title:
j
Phone No: .� q `I 65 a7
Onsite Representative: Q 'V1-
_
integrator:
Certified Operator: V
V 01 i 49-0 6 ' 5 k&y-e—
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ®o ©' EO" Longitude: ED o�Ki
Swine
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ 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
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Da COW
❑ Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
I
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: ,M, 4 i
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
.qNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
2Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Cl Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Numb!Effi
! 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
tructure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 1 Pons
Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier: S e ._
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
INo ❑ 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
O No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No [INA ElNE
(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?
i
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
1. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable_�Crop Window D Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
N
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?[:] Yes
No
❑ NA
[INE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
[INA
El NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
rANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
, 6
w
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone:
Reviewertinspector Signatur : Date:
'j ' V v " - 12128104 Continued
v�l ��T ion

• •
Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Reguired 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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Doe record keeping neeVWV],
rovement? If yes, check the appropriate box ow. ❑ Yes �(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
W �' ate Applicati y Freeboard L� aste Analysis Soil A lysis ❑Rainfall Stockingp Yield 120 Minute Inspections Wnthly and V Rain Inspections cather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
El NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
Yes
E:1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
IJ�I No
❑ NA
[I NE
m and report the mortality rates that were higher than noral?
r
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
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
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawines: n/Yl'? I/ a2S A —7 4
16 -2 . ,
•• r rrKA / sMILO
INTA
L -
NO V - (!,&
--A lam.
4)E0/o-7 id 0.7
#'2-o,31
U4k ,610�
12128104

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 990011 Facility Status: Active Permit. AWC990011 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Com lia spection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: County: Yadkin Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 03/02/2006 Entry Time:12:45 PM Exit Time: 0 1 @ 3Q PM _
Farm Name: The KIK House
• r FIMC111-1
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 2324 Shore Bd Yadkinville NC 27055
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
Latitude: 36°11115" Longitude:80°39'15"
Take Hwy 601 N. out of Yadkinville. Turn right onto Shore Road (SR1374). Farm is on right (red buildings/white trim) just past the
Shore Bros. Dairy.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Certified Operator: Walter G Shore
Secondary OIC(s):
Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Other Issues
Operator Certification Number: 2144D
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Walter Shore Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Walter Shore Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: M a Rosebrock Phone:
5 A/
frA4
Inspector Signature: Date: ob
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
14. and 28. Technical specialist is working on the addition of soybeans and small grain to be added to WUP.
21. Soil test results for 2005 were not back yet. Check next visit. Don't forget to obtain samples for 2006.
21. No waste applied since last Fall (2005).
28. See technical specialist regarding removal of an unusable field from the WUP.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC990011 Owner - Facility: Walter G Shore Facility Number: 99C011
Inspection Date: 03/02/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations ' Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
O Cattle - Beef Feeder 225 150
Total Design Capacity: 225
Total SSLW: 180,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
kaste Pond WSP 29.40 42.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWC990011 Owner- Facility: Walter G Shore Facility Number: 990011
Inspection Date: 03/02/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason far Visit: Routine
Discharges Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
1101111
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 Stale other than from a
Cl ■
Cl
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑ 01111
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 andlor 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,
❑ ■
Cl
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑ 01111
improvement?
Waste Application
Yea No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenanceor
❑ ■
❑
❑
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

•
i
Permit: AWC990011 Owner - Facility: Walter G Shore
Facility Number: 090011
Inspection Date: 03/02/2006 Inspection Typo: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yea No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P2O5?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Small Grain Cover
Crop Type 2
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 3
Soybeans
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?
❑
■
❑ ❑
1 B. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑ ❑
if yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

0
CJ
Permit: AWC990011 Owner - Facility: Walter G Shore Facility Number: 990011
Inspection Date: 03/02t2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? Cl
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other?' . ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after> 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑
■ ❑
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 oertified 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 conoem? If yes, contact a regional Air 1101111
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AWC990011 Owner - Facility: Walter G Shore
Inspection Data: 03/02/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
nab-- '--• •--
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional GWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32, Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number. 99c011
Reason for Via It: Routine
Page: 6

jType of Visit P Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance I
IReason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: lIgn Arrival Time:-�--6�� , Departure Time: O County: V&d K Region: b—)51>0
Farm Name: I - l I6 e-� Owner Email: j / [l
Owner Name• VV (�142+C charms- Phone: 49I/� '37 W 4 + �C-
Mailing Address: d r i—"' ' I E �e L3G < 6 S
Physical Address: �� !__
Facility Contact: 100-1 +e-- 5r 1[2' r'e- Title. Phone No: a
Onsite Representative: o r-e- Integrator:
Certified Operator:Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [M o ` Ear Longitude: ® °
Swine
Design grsnt Design Current Design Current
C►opacity Population Wet Poultry C►►opacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ an to Finish
110 Layer
❑ Daia Cow
❑ an to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer I I ❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
Dr-y Poultry E]Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker Q
❑ Non-ersLayers
s ers Beef Feeder
❑ Pull
❑Pllet
El Turkeys ❑Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other Number of Structures:
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12128104
Continued

Q
Facility Number: — 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: L'as P
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 2_
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 lNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
El NA El 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 VNo ❑ 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) �f
4. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes pj No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? ►`
Waste Application
10.
Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
�No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11.
Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
�No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 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 ElNA
ElNE
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
o ❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ElYes
rNo❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date: ai 0
Page 2 of 3 . " " w " — 12128704 ' Continued

(�
Facility Number: — te of Inspection •
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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need im vement? appropriate-b �,� ❑ Yes Po ❑ NA ❑ NE
I�Waste A lication Wee y Freeboard Waste Anal sis Soil A alysis ItiJWaste Transfers
* n
ainfall pp tockin Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections Bather Code
g �(No
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No b6A ❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
El NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
El Yes
``�No
❑,,No[VA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
j No
❑ NA
El NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
/////"``30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
9(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
4t,1 No
❑ NA
El NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
f
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
jNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional
� { 1
I
e
Page 3 of 3
12128104

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 990011 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC990011 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Yadkin Region: Winston-Salem -
Date of Visit: 09/22/2005 Entry Time: 01:05 PM Exit Time: 02:00 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: The Milk House Owner Email:
Owner: Walter Q Shore Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 2324 Shore Rd _ Yadkinville NC 27055 _
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36°1115" _ Longitude: $0'39'15"
Take Hwy 601 N. out of Yadkinviile. Turn right onto Shore Road (SR1374). Farm is on right (red buildings/white trim) just past the
Shore Bros. Dairy.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts 0 Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
0 Records and Documents Other issues
Certified Operator: Walter G Shore Operator Certification Number: 21440
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Walter Shore Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Walter Shore
Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melis Rosebrock Phone: [phone]
EXL383
(? ,-
Inspector Signature:JLh Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
7. Embankments look better. Still need to spray broadleaf weeds.
21. Don't forget to obtain soil test results for 2005. Went over new permit requirements with operator.
28. Need to change the WUP from fescue grass to soybean/small grain for a field that operator has planted into soybeans. See
technical specialist.
28. A new house is being built in one of the application fields. Need to remove this field from the WUP and/or may need waiver.
Page: 1

Permit: AWC990011 Owner - Facility: Walter G Shore Facility Number: 990011
Inspection Date: 09/22/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle - Beef Stocker Calf 200
Total Design Capacity: 0
Total SSLW: 0
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Waste Pond I WSP I 1 1 29.40 84.00
Page: 2

•
Permit: AWC990011 Owner - Facility: Walter G Shore
Facility Number: 990011
Inspection bate: 09122/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharging & Stream lmacts, yPc Nn NA NF
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ ❑
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?
❑
yPc
❑ ❑
No NA NE
Waste Collection. Storage _& Treatment
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
O
M ❑ ❑
If yes, Is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.eJ large trees, severe erosion,
❑
0 ❑ ❑
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed andlor managed through a waste management or
❑
0 ❑ ❑
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
❑
0 ❑
andlor wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑ ❑
improvement?
Yes
Nn NA NF
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Fescue
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Page: 3

Permit: AWC990011 Owner - Facility: Walter G Shore
Inspection Date: 09/22/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 990011
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Ap lirn .atinn
Crop Type 6
YPs
No NA
NE
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan(CAWMP)? ❑
■ ❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need Improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
Cl
0 ❑
❑
17, Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16, Is there a lack of properly operating waste appiication equipment?
❑
Yes
0 ❑
No 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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need Improvement?
0
0013
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
0
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)?
❑
0 ❑
❑
24. Did the facility fall 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?
❑
M ❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Page: 4

C,
0
Permit: AWC990011 Owner - Facility: Walter G Shore Facility Number: 990011
Inspection Date: 09/22/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit. Routine
Otherlssues 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.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fall to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 5

Facility Number: — Dief Inspection OS .
Required Records & Documents
0. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes i 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 appropiiate box, ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists 1111TT��
❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does cord keeping need improvement? If yes, chec the appropriate box below. Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application ('Wee and aste Analysis Soil Analysis Waste Transfers
Rainfall 5tockin T Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections L�.I'Monthly and I" Rain Inspections 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
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?[.Ir-141• n (D❑ Yes X
No
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes CNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
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?
24. 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 No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes fWNo
❑ Yes �kNo
[Y-NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
PNA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
[(NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
El NA El NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NI,
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
i i i Drawings:
� f
I
AL
V V 12128104

Type of Visit
Compliance Inspection
O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation
Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
Routine Q Complaint
O Follow up O Referral 0 Emergency
O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: v�(,o,Z rrrival Time: ld- eparture Time: ,200 County: Region: 'k)s 96
�Farm Name: ' r * V" l L 146 U5 Owner Email:
Owner Name: 6L !Sbb rf__ Phone: 4D 7 9
a I�a�-� Pd• y ivy i_ N�- a?os --
Mailing Address: a3
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 6 t � � J �10 q-"e- Title:
Onsite Representative: _ /�
a 1 A iP S k0 -e—
Certified Operator: V a t V • �Stno r-e—
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
rJ nC
Swine
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
r, _ . _. . .
LJ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phone No: 4� 413 DS2,7
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:._ a-$40
Back-up Certification Number:
® o '--1`-�� '
Latitude:
(00 Capr It Onto
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
li ❑ Non -La er
-- ,
Dry Poultry
❑
Layers
❑
Non -Layers
❑
Pullets
❑
Turkeys
❑
Turkey Pouets
IF
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?
Longitude: Rio
1la r�e_ RA o
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
El Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
O
Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
I
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?
❑ 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
:1

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection a1
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
o ElNA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
//////_____
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
KNo ❑ NA ElNE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
El Yes
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
I��
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 ElNA ❑ 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
ElYes
KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No ElNA ElNE
maintenance/improvement?
``XNo
I. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
ElYes
[INA ❑ NE
ElExcessive Ponding ElHydraulic Overload [IFrozen 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) .
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
- El NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
Elo
ElNA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination`
JNo
ElYeso
ElNA
[INE
17, Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yeso
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes *o
❑ NA
❑ NE
s and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Comments (refer toquest�on�#),�xplain any 1ZIAS apXMii
Usc drawings of facalityto better explain situations (tional pages as necessary'):
�1 ,(ram n IZ nne*if-s m o u.)e d 2
1�
Reviewer/inspector Name �"}', � �;° � Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature Date:
101
J ' 12128104 Continued

3 18E 'HI. T- 1 i i i �I i, =„ 1AP !I I € Ili i 3i. iA€ -11 i I!'1, �f1 �
.�>t�r isiowof Soil�'and Water ConservationI 1.
i F 1 1rFY 14 I I i ! I- 0 Other S Agency i 'I II .�i,,.I
IfV�I I li 71E I !
L
Visit © Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
for Visit *Routine O Complaint O Fotlow up O Referral O l=mergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 99 11 Date of Visit: I212/Z004 `Time: 1200
0 Nat O crational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: The.lYlills..tlaxtse........................................................................................ ... County: a;ailkAt1 ............................................... WN1110........
Owner Name: Waltt".0.................................... shore............................................................ Phone No:
MailingAddress: 2 24.SrhRxe..l3Qad................................................................................. YAdklayille...NC................................................... 2705.5 .............
Facility Contact: Waltex.Shari................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No: 6:i.9..$.4.43.H..2,44.1)5Z7.C..
Onsite Representative: Wall cr.,Slton,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Certified Operator:,WAlJcr..G ............................... Shade...............................
Location of Farm:
Integrator:.,,,,
,,,,, Operator Certification Number:2l44,Q
Cake Hwy 601 N. out of Yadkinville. Turn right onto Shore Road (SR1374). Farm is on right (red buildings/white trim) just A
rast the Shore Bros. Dairy.
❑ Swin6 ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude F 36 ' 11 15 Longitude 130 F 15
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population: Poultry Ca acit Po ulation Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑Layer I JE1 Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish 10 Non -Layer IN Non -Dairy 225 200
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity 225
❑ Gilts
[I Boars Total SSLW' 1s0,0aa
+Y . 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? 0 Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ®No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
identifier: ....... BeFf bam.......................................... .................................... ................................... ......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 48
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 99-11 0 Date of Inspection 1 12/2/2004 6 i
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tree'§, 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 0 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
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ 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 > 3000
12. Crop type Fescue (Hay)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ® Yes ❑ No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
I & 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.
Comments (refer to question # Explain': any; Y y 1 y ES answers and/or an recommendations or an other comments.
Use drawm s of facalzt to betterex Iain,situs
g r y ! pl I f '+ situations. {use additional,pages as necessary)❑ Field Copy v❑ Final Notes
E !.
2. and 11. Appeared to be liquid waste in a low spot in the fenced buffer area. Could not determine if waste came from run-off, leak, etc.
Does not appear to be continuous,
16. Need to install/obtain pressure gauge for irrigation gun.
3.Operator is waiting on Nov./Dec. waste sample results to complete IRR-2 forms for November `04 applications. Check next visit.
3. Don't forget that PAN for fescue is for 12 mo. period. No over -application of PAN occured, however.
23. A reminder to obtain a soil analysis for the field that received waste in 2004. Operator says that he sampled but could not locate the
result.
6. Waste level was 4" above the maximum for <1 week. Per permit, you must still notify DWQ staff.
3^ >p ! ! M?.i S -;-•V I
Reviewer/Inspector Name =Mel' sa Rosebrock �'' ��' '
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12112103 1 Continued

9
Facility Number: 99-11 D f Inspection 121212004
Required
Records & Documents
21.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
®No
23.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
®No
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
® Yes
❑ No
27,
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
®No
28.-
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
®No
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
® No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33.
Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
35.
Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
12112103

of Visit
Reason for Visit
Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit:
Permitted [3 Cjeerrtified�}/❑ C}o/ndit}ioonnally Certified © Registered
Farm Name: ..... J.f .1 .. I..'. i l`.`...1. ��.`J„.»...._......._.................................
OwnerName: .. _ .�...1 .».» � ._._.»._»..........___» ___ ....
Mailing Address:... ii. �ikl » -
-------- ......
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:. I
Certified Operator:._ a-1 -----------
Location of Farm:
Z4 Time.
Not Operational O Below
Date Last Operated r Above Threshold:..
County:
Phone No:
Phone No: ! a2 ohs_ J
Integrator: _.»..»»..» ....»».»...»...._ ............... ......... _... ...».. ��
Operator Certification Number: _ .�.���»,,,_ ,
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • 4 4;f Longitude ®• 4 ®«
{r �r#RII.i W�,i�tLY"
Po" OW..PonitrYu _ . E„
aci Po taon Cattle ` ' Ca
Po elation -
❑ i.ayer
�] Non -Layer
' ❑ Dairy
` Non -Dairy
A O
;e Other
,
i Dom` capaCl
rim W
Dischames & 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? 0 Spillway
Structtr Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: �.
Freeboard (inches):
❑ Yes IgNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes P(No
❑ Yes KNo
Structure 6
12112103 Continued

Facility, Number: — D of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? /
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes o
23. Doe record keeping nee�7reeboard
vement? If es, check the a low. ❑ Yes o
Waste Application L! waste Analysi Soil Samplin
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria t at the time of design? ❑ Yes No
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) XYes
❑No
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes No
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes o
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes Y
No
NPD
ES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35) ❑ Yes No
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? —❑
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? (.-L/ ❑ Yes ❑ No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? &,r CJ ❑ Yes ❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? 6Vbv j ir5 ElYes ElNo
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required f im tnt? If a§, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
f .
f
ckin Fora Crop Yield F ❑ inspection After 1Minute Inspections ,Lo
3 No violations or deficiencies were noted daring this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
cv,.-� /�vl1��e. Gc,�t,d�P .,��tu,� `� Ce�n�g2n.�p Tez,.
U
PA N .��, �;a� � �v la neOz &Ct4tadzi M&14D &��O_AeL' _&di
12112103
O. DC the
I

Facility Number: q q- Date of Inspection i 1
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tree.; severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes XNo
closure plan?
(I£ 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 App_liCation
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenanwfimprovement? ❑ Yes �No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. es
❑ No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those deslinaited 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?
❑ Yes No
A Yes _ NojKr--
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below --Ej-fer-[TW
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes tNo
o
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes
roads, building structure, and/or public property) XNo
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes
Air Quality representative immediately.
d V--&
edw
&0
&zd qv b-�L
0
ReviewerAnspector Name
Reviewer/inspector Signal
Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
#twu'y jvy ?�-
Date:
12112103 V iContinued

hnical Assistance Site Visit
• DWon of Soil and Water ConservatioAW
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 99 - 11 Date: 919104 Time: 1 10:30 1 Time On Farm: 30 WSRO
Farm Name The Milk House County Yadkin Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 2324 Shore Road Yadkinville NC 27055
Onsite
Representative Walter Shore Integrator
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
QQ Routine
O Response to DWQIDENR referral
• Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Fallow -up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Ca aci Population
❑ Layer
1E] Nan -Layer
El
Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Dairy
® Non -Dairy 225 200
❑ 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
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 Beef WSP
Level (Inches) 45
CROP TYPES So bean -Wheat 1corn, Grain Fescue -ha
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPE Ct132
Ld62
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03
❑ Dairy
® Non -Dairy 225 200
❑ 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
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 Beef WSP
Level (Inches) 45
CROP TYPES So bean -Wheat 1corn, Grain Fescue -ha
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPE Ct132
Ld62
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

•
Facility Number 99 - 11 Date:
919104
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 wlproducer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
® 13, Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
El
❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
[114. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30. 21-1.0200 re -certification
[116. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (POA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
[121. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
[122. 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
❑
❑
ReaulatorV Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
El
El
❑ Other...
43. Irrigation system design/installation
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certificationlrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5'
56.Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6.
58. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil andlor waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 99 - 11 Date: 919104 1
MENTS:
Waste analysis: 3-03-04 LSB 0.63 Ibs.N11000 gals.
Mr. Shore stated that he has not had any waste application (Irrigation) this year. Louis Shore keeps up
,ith the solid waste application.
# 13. The waste pond embankment needs to be mowed on the steeper area when the weather and soil
onditions allow.
* Remember to have freeboard readings weekly.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 9/10/04
Entered By: lRocky Durham
3. 03/10/03

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 99 11 Date of Visit: 11/18I2063 Time: 1255
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted ■ Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold_ _ __ __
Farm Name: T.he.MbIkkilause..................................................................... County: XatlJ.t m...-•--•--•--•-.............-.__ i'.!' R.Q._....
Owner Name: Wancr.-.-.-.-.-_-_-._-- S4or .---------------------------- Phone No: (33I�.�7 . 45kOfi"tce�udHt---=-----
Mailing Address: U101t!PC6tad .............................. . Xadkiutxille..NC.......................... . Z710.55 ..............
.................................................. ........................
Facility Contact: Ault.tr SkAm .....................................Title:................................................ Phone No: 679,2251.24.4,05N........
Onsite Representative: �'Yeller_aSILQCQ._._._._--------.-------.-.---•-------- Integrator:._•_._-_-_•___-- -------____-•
Certified Operator: Walltex.G.............................. Mon ................................................. Operator Certification Number: 2X4.40............................
Location of Farm:
Fake Hwy 601 N. out of Yadkinville. Turn right onto Shore Road (SR1374). Farm is on right (red buildings/white trim) just A
fast the Shore Bros. Dairy. w
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 11 1561 Longitude 80 • 39 , 15
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 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:--•--MilkBam..... ...... Red Bar>1... ........................... ........................... ........................... ...........................
Freeboard (inches): Closed 42
05103101 Continued
AIV17l 1

Facility Number: 99-11 • Date of Inspection 1111R12003 •
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
1 I . Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Fescue (Hay) Soybeans
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ®No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ' ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ®No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
®No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ® No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit,
® Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
Milk barn WSP has been closed per NRCS Standards. Area has been seeded with barley and fescue. Germinated grass is about I inch
19. Spring 2003 records look real good.
19. Waste analyses: 4/28/03
LSB=0.93 lbs. N/1000 gal.
LSD=3.0 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Solids from WSP closure=0.87 lbs. N/ton
Reviewerllnspector Name Melfs a Rosebrock
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 99-11 Isof Inspection F/18/2003
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
®No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
❑ No
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted'? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ 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
aJ
J
O5103101

13 ...2bo-de- 1W- 9
• PM
Type of Visit T Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit qu Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: iI 'rime: I I A_S_
rO Not O erational Below Threshold
APermitted —O Certified jJ [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: 11 D �11 I us _P County: aJ Y p f �
Owner Name: %.0 Phone No: - 0 'T 6 �
r I ►� , a dos �. .
Mailing Address: L c } -� �� v` L i=� C hoM
Facility Contact: LjQ � TeX ` 7i�]� � Title: Phone No: a�-3 barn
a .osa-7
OnsiteRepresentative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: L I 6. Shoe- Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry JKCattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 ®4 ®64 Longitude ®0 6 =K
Design "Current Design CurrentDesign Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle CapacityAbapacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer Mairy
❑ Feeder to Fini 10 Non -Layer I IN Non -Dairy 0
❑ Farrow to Wean `
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity -11
❑Gilts Boars Total SSLW =00�
❑
Number of Lagoons ® ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Are' 10 spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid 'Traps 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges 8� S—tryam 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? (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? ElYes No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway ❑ Yes W No
Stru tur l tructure Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): Lf Z.
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: Z161 — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
13, Do the receiving crops differ with those Sesignated in a Certified Animal Waste
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?
Plan (CAW9IP)?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Rgauired 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 Ani a] Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigdtion, free oard, 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
❑ Yes
❑ Ycs
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
XNo
XNo
No
No
7'►' j°
XNo
�No
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes No
El Yes No
El Yes No
El Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
ElYes A
No
❑ Yes jNo
o
❑ Yeso
El Yes
ElYeso
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
k
Comments (refer to uestlon # Ex lain an YE33answers an or.
i-, < ,. , f P Y . V .: r Y,t recommendations ar any other comme
Use drawingsbafifacility-to better explain situations
.(useadditlonalp g try Field Copy ❑Final Notes
L14 "'' T Imo/ L/ 4/���fff V V` •
1/
L,58 -- 0.q3 . A) IrOO o I&S-tQ l�
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: Q
I
0 03Continued
of$ - ��7a
E►�s .�

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
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?
A¢ditionul Comments and/or Drawings:
05103101
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes KNo
—E3 N-eE3 mo�

Pale 1 of 1
0
file://C:\My%2ODocuments\Pictures\Wiley%2OShore%2OWSP%20Closure\DCP00340.JPG 11/18/03

Page 1 0£ 1
0
file:I/C:\My%24Documents\Pictures\Wiley%20Shore%20WSP%20C1osure\DCP00338.JPG 11/18/03

nical Assistance Site Visit
n of Soil and Water Conse
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number 99 - 11 Date: 122103 Time: 1 10:55 1 Time On Farm: 40 WSRO
Farm Name The Milk House
Mailing Address 2324 Shore Road
County Yadkin Phone:
Yadkinville NC
Onsite
Representative Walter Shore Integrator
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
O Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
Q Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by prod u cerli nteg rator
Q Fallow -up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy 1101 0
® Non -Dairy 1 �00
❑ Other
[phone]
27055
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3• Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
6• Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® 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 Milk Barn WSP Beef WSP
Level (Inches) 84 84
CROP TYPES mall grain ybeans Icorn, Grain = IFescue-hay
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES CfB2 LdB2
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
O Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
Q Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by prod u cerli nteg rator
Q Fallow -up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
® Dairy 1101 0
® Non -Dairy 1 �00
❑ Other
[phone]
27055
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3• Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
6• Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® 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 Milk Barn WSP Beef WSP
Level (Inches) 84 84
CROP TYPES mall grain ybeans Icorn, Grain = IFescue-hay
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES CfB2 LdB2
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
® Dairy 1101 0
® Non -Dairy 1 �00
❑ Other
[phone]
27055
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3• Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
6• Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® 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 Milk Barn WSP Beef WSP
Level (Inches) 84 84
CROP TYPES mall grain ybeans Icorn, Grain = IFescue-hay
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES CfB2 LdB2
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)

a
Facility Number 99 - 11 Date:
4/22/03
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
5. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
2
❑
❑
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
28. Forms geed (list in comment section)
❑
❑
El 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
30. 2H.0200
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
re -certification
[316, Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
®
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation design/installation
❑
El
El Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1 • The WUP was revised for beef, crop changes
47. Evaluate WAD certificationlrechecks
❑
❑
48. Crap evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
and added fields.
2. The beef WSP embankment was disked and
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
re -seeded as requested by the DWQ inspector.
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
El
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
❑
❑
MCI l471131

•
Facility Number 99 - 11 Date: 4122103 I
ICOMMENTS: .
The waste samples for the Spring applications have been sent in and Mr. Shore is awaiting the analysis.
The waste plan was revised for the beef operation, crop changes and additional fields.
Spoke to Mr. Shore about the requirements of the new State non -point discharge permit.
The local soil and water/NRCS office has.been contacted about developing a closure plan for the dairy waste pond. This
)nd has been pumped down and Mr. Shore has sent in a sludge sample.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: i25103 Entered By: IRocky Durham
3 03/10/03

Date of Visit: lUt8/2002 Time. 1000
Facility Number 99 11
rO Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
E Permitted a Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ......................... .
County: X Ad,�Sk.................................
Farm Name: Tbte.J.l'Ii�ls,.HR]uSe.......................................................................................... ......,...... WSRQ........
OwnerName:W..ilq....................................... SIXQJM ............................................................ Phone No: 03.fit).619-.4b.6........................................... I., .......
...
Mailing Address: 23.24.Shu.P.Road..............................:.......::......................................... YAdUrnift...N.C................................................... V.05.5 .............
Facility Contact: W.81ta.S:i or?...............................:...::..........:..Title:................................................................ Phone No: 67..9a253..... 44�0527........
Onsite Representative: .Y. alter-Sb1m.............................:..:............................................. Integrator:
Certified Operator:.W..Wftr.JG.............................. shm ................................................ Operator Certification Number:21,44,Q .............................
Location of Farm:
rake Hwy 601 N. out of Yadkinville. Turn right onto Shore Road (SR1374). Farm is on right (red buildings/white trim) just A
)ast the Shore Bros. Dairy.
❑ Swine [J Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude F36 • 11 6 1S46. Longitude 80 • 39 { 1S iL
4es! iN i&" a$ �"i y M g eL :1th h
4 - Design `Current " ' Destgn Current ; ` '' Design «,`Curt ent
. Swine ` Ca act Po ]at Poultry Ca acit P.o ulatton' Cattle s: C►a `ciLf Po 'ulation
ber'gf Lagoons �p ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
F Holdtnal?and /Solid Traps;- ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
r
❑Wean to Feeder
Layer
®Dairy
4(}0
0
[] Feeder tv Finish
; ❑Non -Layer
❑Non -Dairy
275
[] Farrow to Wean
V❑ Other
❑Farrow to Feeder
❑Farrow to Finish
'1
Capactty� 400
+
Giltsesign
❑ Soars
3 �'� SSLW � 560,000
i ha & Stream Imp
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 Wafter of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .......Milk.Barn.............. B,eef.Bam....... ....................................
Freeboard (inches): 84 42
05103101 Continued .

Facility Number: 99—I1 Date or Inspection 11/18/2002 .
5. Are there an immediate threats to the tityof an of the structures observed? ie/ trees, severe erosion,
Y Y
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? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Soybeans
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
® Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CA)VMP)? Byes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes IN No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Record & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
l8. 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
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
C�so menu efe to 'o # : x Ia lanswe , an nlanurecomm ndations or any other comments.
+ d swings of foci etter explain ltuatio s. lu a116agesias, necessary : ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
7. Need to mow/spray vegetation more often on the dam of #2 WSP.
19. Per operator, facility has not applied waste since the Spring 2002 Operational Review so no application records were required today.
Check next visit.
13. and 25. Waste plan needs to be revised for beef cattle as soon as possible. This was noted on last year's inspections also. Soybeans
need to be added to CAWMP (T-2514 F-1, 2, 10, 11, 12)since waste was applied to soybeans in Spring 2002. This is a violation of the
CAWMP and Permit. See technical specialist for assistance.
19. Still need to obtain 2002 soil samples.
Reviewer/Inspector Name el' a Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:1fl 11,0
05103101 Continued

,Facility Number: 99-11 D )f Inspection ll118/2002 .
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
Walter Shore (operator for this facility) is keeping records on all waste that is applied from the two WSPs. All animal waste
removed from the WSPs is applied only to fields listed in the CAWMP for this facility (#99-11).
mal dry lot waste generated by cattle owned by Louis Shore (#99-7) is applied by Louis on land contained only is his CAWMP
#99-7.
instructed Walter to just keep track of the amount of dry lot waste that Louis removes from the property.
,&I
05103101

Id .' 3o,om
O1 the�Ni;'f b,3 3 L N ei'•N 1 i i,,�eN,i i f-,14iia 3i ' % > B..FdN i i a9 ft- - �i33. ��, Ifi,. f .4.5 . i1 ill t, EtI i��
Via.-i, $
Type of Visit PkCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time:
PermittedA Certified 0 Conydiition�ally Certified ©Registered
Farm Name:_ __ i.� 1L.. /-s6 LS:eP_._
Owner Name:
Mailing Address: a
Facility Contact: I �� 1 ��_J_� !_� �� Title:
Onsite Representative: `w
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
r-t°
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
County: V12d C. )
Phone No: 7 CI . 0 �j y�
6
Ca ass-"
Phone No: 7 I a 2s3
a yI/.6sa7
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: R
r� a • ��1 �a t . y 601 o l' -
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry
Cattle
❑ Horse Latitude ®` ®°° Longitude
De§ign .
Current Design
Carrent 3i)e'srgn Current
Swine' .
Ca acity.
Po ulahon , i" Poult `�;'.:Ca acitV�' i:Pti ulatioii ,' , • � el!,_ � � �Ca 'acih• `�Po ulation
❑ Wean to FeederLayer
N
Da'
:.
❑ Feeder to Finish
l ;
❑ Non -Layer
ILI
Non -Dairy
s
❑ Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder
�' ❑ Other
I
❑ Farrow to Finish
s
TotM'Design Capacity QQ
❑ Gilts
+ 'Total SSL°°W°i
❑ Boars
t �
NutnberE of C.agoons i, ; i �h �fis"'' ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oon Area 10 S rav Field Area
i IN
a
HoldingaPonds I Sohd Trapsi �3�i, I' i 3 i� ❑ 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 Collectign & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway
Stru fur S cture 2 Structure 3 A Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: �
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
M 1
❑ Yes [ �o
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes , 1,
ElYes \10NO'o
❑ Yes
Structure 6
Continued

Faci6tr Number: — • Date of inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? Oe/ 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
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of
12. Crop type
Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
13, Do the receiving crops liffer with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reatilred 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 X No
❑ Yes idJ No
AYes ElNo
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes I] No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes ANo
9 Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
El Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes XNo
No
El Yes
❑ Yes Wo
❑ Yes XNo
[(Yes ❑ No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
� e t.
y E ... :. ; 3 E E f:' P Y 3'r f€ -.: ea` € E f &f . 4 4 € 4- € i I-- d; EL i 1 I •l7 '.'t. i
Comtnents (rcter t4 question:#) Explain any YES answe3rsncl/of any recammenclatigns ur any; o er�contments.
€.E�j :E Y. �.--.Idl..�.€—n,-». € i.. c3,V'�. i N `..333:— i �"i3 e` ti. ._F.EEi,"i'i V. E�ii..i,.t_E�� `,3�.I,. ...i &.itCw.3.F'i:diwYtiw ..en.'E.w.et&e.: � �E Dnd3deVsaEtS�,oVw.S,eNlil.ii l.iNl i' €fi �[—Ex�-�'
[lse drawtEngsE of facility to betterEexplatn st€tc�ations. (use addl on l8 pages ash necessary) t, Field Coy Final NotesJV
. l
a
�
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
JMIJ
05103101 1 ( 7 f Continued

Facility number: — Date of InspVction
dor 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?
❑ YesA No
❑ Yes XNo
additional Comments and/or Drawings: l
r
II /
11 ProMil
of f �/ /��►
14-
�-SMilli (a! I 14
05103101

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit *Routine O Complaint O Fallow up O Emergency Notification O Other p Denied Access
Facility Number 99 11 'Date of Visit: 6/13/2Q02 Time: 9:15
Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
■ Permitted ■ Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: 1U.11')bilk.Ham .....................:................................................................. County: Yjadhia .............................................. WSRQ........
Owner Name: W...Uey....................................... sixon ........................
Mailing Address: 23.245hoxtn.Raad..........
Facility Contact:
Title:
....... Phone No:(3.3G).679r8.416C............................................:...........
YAslkirnift..NC................................................... 2.7.05.5 ..............
............................. Phone No:..........
Onsite Representative: }.' Alipr..and.FEDAlia.salpxR................................................ Integrator:................................................................:.....................
Certified Operator:l'.4.AlXCr..G.............................. Sb.QM ................................................ Operator Certification Number: Z1.44.0 .............................
Location of Farm:
fake Hwy 601 N. out of Yadkinville. Turn right onto Shore Road (SR1374). Farm is on right (red buildingstwhite trim) just A
last the Shore Bros. Dairy.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 ' 11 i 15 •{ Longitude 80 • 39 6 1544
,��;s:,� •- 101
�,��.�,FF Des�gn Current ,Des�gna Current�mDest n t Current''� ltr. Cattlellatiany . t. Ca actt F,o ulation x, '�Ca actt :Po ulii<tion
t❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ® Dairy 400 0
❑Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer y ❑ Non Dairy 95
[] Farrow to Wean *sue r- l:.y�
I ❑ Farrow to Feeder } Other
�a ❑Farrow to Finish' ,r Total Design Capacity 400
❑ Gilts
❑Boars y N �x °..:� ToIt
-rta SSLW�$;:4,
560,000
Number of Lagoons ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagooe Area ❑ Spray Field Area
� Pondsr/ Ti�a s : Solid 2 -� _ �_.__.____ __�____ _�,�„ � r j •i
z.HoldnJ g ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System .Y
Discharges -&Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & 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: .......MUk.baza....... ........ bee£.barn........ .................................... ................................... ..... .......................................
Freeboard (inches): 84 100
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 99-11 Date of Inspection 6/13/2002
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees. evere 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 ADn1iCa
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Soybeans 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
M. 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
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
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
• Um -me nMOIRE fe to lion # : Explain a-15- E an e . and/or any recommendations or any other commen .
MY
d awin s f aci t to better explain situatio u a ditional pages as necessary ❑ Field Copy ❑Final Notes
WIN
13, 25. The waste plan needs to be revised for beef cattle on WSP # 2 and have soybeans added to the waste plan,
he facility will also need to have the complete waste plan certification completed for beef cattle.
Waste ponds were pumped down and application records looked good.
werlInspector Name Rocky Durhamwer/Inspector Signature: Date:
E
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 99-11 Doff Inspection 6/13/2002
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?
analysis: 5-17-02 LSD 7.4 lbs.N/1000 gals. B, 11.7 Ibs.N/1000 gals. Injected
4-30-02 LSD 0.61 Ibs.N/1000 gals. I
analysis dated 4-17-02
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
[:]Yes []No
J
05103101

Facility Number 99 11 I).ate of Visit: 10l31/2001 Time. 115U Printed on: 10/31/2001
0 Not Operational O Below Threshold
0 Permitted E Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .......................
.. County: YAtdlciil................................. . . WSRQ........
Farm Name: 1bl!~.1,!'iill�.ktnlaSs~......................................................................................... ........ .
OwnerName: Wined ...................................... shon............................................................ Phone No: Q3,61.6..7.9.:#466.......................................................
MailingAddress: VU.St1tur.13oud................................................................................. YAtdacxtXywe..N.C................................................... 27.055 .............
Facility Contact: Waltu.Scion.................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:
OnsiteRepresentative: WalJpr.Shor.e.............................................................................. Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:l3'il>ter-G.............................. Slmrc ................................................ Operator Certification Number: 21,44.0 .............................
Location of Farm:
Take Hwy 601 N. out of Yadkinville. Turn right onto Shore Road (SR1374). Farm is on right (red buildings/white trim) just A.
past the Shore Bros. Dairy.
❑ Swlne ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 11 15 Longitude 8U • 39 15
Yta� f , Design, Current Desrgn Current . -a
De§t Currerit +
s, �fi ,: Swrne Ca actt P,o ulatian Poultry Ca acit Y,aCattlCti actt '1'o ulationLi
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑Layer -' ®Dairy 400 Q
❑ Feeder to Finish ❑Non -Layer [] Non -Dairy 150. +t.
�, ❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other k,
❑YJ
Farrow to Finish Total Deli Ca acitJ� 400
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars M :w sR Tatal SSLW:r, 560,000
Number of Lagoons © ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Salid Traps 0 ❑ Na 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: .......Mil k.Barn....... ..... .Haif ro:.flat:n...............................
Freeboard (inches); 54 42
05/03/01 jek s� � G Continued

Facility Number: 99-11 • Date of Inspection 10131/21101 Printed on: 10/31/2001 1
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, vere 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 Wheat Soybeans
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
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.
men efer to I # : Alain an, a nd/o any ecommendations or any the COMMents.
d awin of foci Tette ex Inin situatio u dditional pa as ecessary : ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
7. There are two large, 6" burrow holes on dam of milk barn waste storage pond. These need to be repaired if WSP is not closed out.
_
13. If operator needs to appliy waste onto beans in the spring then "soybeans" need to be added to the WUP.
27. One dead cattle noted in lot. This is to be taken to landfill within 24 hours.
Facility only has beef cattle now. Some of the 150 cattle belong to Louis Shore. Operator will revise WUP within next year. They are
trying to decide what they want to do as far as the type of operation. No waste has been applied since December 2000.
Operator also expressed interest in closing out the milk barn WSP. Per Walter, this WSP did not receive Cost Share funds to build.
Eevlwer/Inspector Name iMel' aRosebrock
wer/Inspector Signature: Date: 10 3 Vo
05103101 1 1 1 Continued

Facility Number: 99-11 I • e of Inspection 1013112001 • Printed on: 10/31/2001
dor IJ5sues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge actor 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 Cl No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
.&1
05103101

IType of Visit (V Compliance inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint, O Follow up Q Emergency Notification O Other 1 ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: b . D Time:
Q Not Operational0 Below Threshold
Permitted gCertified 0 Conditionally Certified [3Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
FarmName:' ...LLB.1..1.IL:..A0Use ........................................... ........................... County:.... ................................................... ............
OwnerName: ..... lN.�..Lp. ...�hor........................................................................ Phone No:.....%.... .�9
Facility Contact: ....L�la p ......!a.O !.. ..... .Title: .................... ............. ................... Phone No: II..... 0...�07-7........
57—
Mailing Address: ....a...!? �?,.�........ .�n.re........... ....�....... Q ..[�j. ..I.!.Q.....r. .........�`..7.`.: LS-................................
1
Onsite Representative:.... �}�1:.�.a.:�....hQ- ............................................... integrator:
................................................................................................................
Certified Operator: ....... ,Q...1..Q...1 ............................................... Operator Certification Number:........
Location of Farm:
0 from pa IT tnvi o jTern rid47on+o 5 h6re
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry
•=Svvitue• .
Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • 4 " Longitude • 4 64
Design Current"
Capacity Po ulation' ".
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gifts
❑ Boars
Design Current': :` s 7
'otltiT Capaclity, , POpulation Cattle C
ri Non -Laver
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity C
'Total SSLW
0160
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JE3 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds ! Solid Traps. ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
a f
Discharges & 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)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/rnin?
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 St ctur� 2 Structure 3 111 ` Structure 4
1!!.1
Identifier: ....!...L.�L .rri......... l............1,1C._%....................................................
• eeboard (inches):
-, 5/00
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑/No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes�INO
❑ Yes NO
Structure 5 Structure 6
P(
Continued on back

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection •
.5. Are there any immediate threats to theOgrity 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 maintenancelimprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic O e -load
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ wA those designated in the Certified Animal
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?
Management Plan (CAWMP)?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21, Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
Yes )(No
❑ Yes )(No
VYes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes )<No
❑ Yes.X No
❑ Yes (No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ YesiNo
No
El Yes
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes NNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 6NO
❑ Yes )XNo
❑ Yes )<No
❑ Yes )KNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes XNO
0' � •yiormigt>js'er- 00014 .ndos -ft"re oo(ed dwiog this'visit; - Y:oot rAl-toeoite 4o fu>rtho
cor'res�ondence. a�vtiti thuis visit.
nest�On # IE lain a ue . rrr .'o r,•: u i e ts, t E re s w: e
°Comments (eefer,to' q =) xp rtiyIYFS answers and/or aayrrecommeadettocns or�anytother,comments �,ie'
Use dra of facili ,to better,'ezplaEnisituation !N( e"' additional,p#g*Asinecessaiy}'
ty t t
7 ahem
�3 ✓ JI�LAI_
a � ZdAW 4-
��
Reviewer/Inspector NameJVI�` �:.j1.
r d_���"i rt� E i�' P. �� :
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 0 6 5100

acility Number: — e of lnspection
Od I TT�
or slues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below —Q Yes Q�
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes *o
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes 9No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? e
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?—E3 Yes-fl•No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? -EiArL B-No
ana amments an or; rawinp:, q `, , '
I56 (�� Pv�� �8 Lm�l-a�✓�+' dlaratJ
4o��w. , dw C4. u.Aee
a'T. One Sse.! A#te 1mta/�J✓et,.
J
5/00

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit OO Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 99 11 Date of Visit: 6/13/2001 `l'iene: 9:3o Printed un: 10/2512001
rO Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:.........................
Farm Name: The.l!'milk,.Hatase................................................................................... County: YAdkin .............................................. !?4',SRO........
Owner Name: Wiiey.......
Mailing Address: Z3.;4.S11Qre.li.Q1Kd.......
Facility Contact: ................................
Molre............................................................ Phone No: 03.61.6,794.46.6 .......................................................
....................................................................:.. YA(Waxing..NC.......................... .......... ............... 2.7.05.5 .............
Onsite Representative: W.Aller.5ht7n.......
Certified Operator:.WAll>«lr.................................... SAlori:....
Location of Farm:
Title: ................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
....................................... Integrator:............................. .............
...................................... Operator Certification Number: 7.144.9.............................
rake Hwy 601 N. out of Yadkinville. Turn right onto Shore Road (SR1374). Farm is on right (red buildings/white trim) just A
)ast the Shore Bros. Dairy. !
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 3t5 • 11 i 15 {{ Longitude 80 • 39 6 15 «
Swine
Design '�i
Ca acit
Current ��Y Design i Current = �' Design -Current:
P.o ulation Poultry Ca acit Poyulation Cattle CaaTcit Po ulation '
❑Layer ®Dairy 400 75
❑Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy '
❑Otero
Total Desin CapaCity 400
Total SS560,000
Feeder
Finish
o Wean
KFedert
o Feeder
Finish
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps F_2
❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area
❑ Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges 4K Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure b
Identifier: ....... Mi.lk baxn........ ...... Heifer..batt`xt...... ....................................
Freeboard (inches): 48 57
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 99-11 0 Date of Inspection 6/13/2UU1 a
Printed on: 10/25/2001 � .: "..
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 markets with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ® Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20,
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
e e # : x lai an o an m ndatio an omm
w n a tte a ai tua t anal a ec a
❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
The facility has sold the milk cows and only has some heifers on site. No cattle at the milk barn. Mr. Shore indicated that they may All
change operation types and possibly background beef cattle. The facility will need to be re -certified for a different operation type.
9 If cattle will be kept at the milk barn a graduated marker will need to be installed.
Facility had freeboard, application, soil analysis, and waste analysis on hand.
Waste has not been applied since the Fall of 2000. The milking equipment has also been sold.
w
E
wer/InspectorName Rocky Durhamwer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

.Facility Number: 99_11 1? i1' Inspection 611312Ua1 • Printed on: 10/25/2001
dor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
aste analysis: 9/20/00 FCD 6.8 lbs.N/ton B
10/20/00 WSP I LSD 8.0 Ibs.N/1000 gals. B, WSP 2 LSD 1.3 Ibs.N/1000 gals. I
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
05103101

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
WINSTON-SALEM REGIONAL OFFICE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
January 5, 2000
Mr. Wiley Shore
2324 Shore Road
Yadkinville, NC 27055
SUBJECT: Follow-up Compliance Inspection
The Milk House #99-11
Yadkin County
Dear Mr. Shore:
On December 21, 2000, Abner Braddy, of the Division of Water Quality from
the Winston-Salem Regional Office performed a follow-up compliance inspection on
your farm. Enclosed is the inspection sheet which was completed during the inspection.
If you have any questions concerning this rl POA.' p!ease:.call the Winston-Salem
Regional Office at 336-771-4600.
Sincerely,
Larry D. Coble
Water Quality Supervisor
cc: Yadkin County NRCS/SWCD
Central Files
SRO Paeil'ity Eiles
585 WAUGHTOWN STREET, WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA 27107
PHONE [phone] FAx [phone]
DENR CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER 1-877-623-6748
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLEO/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

Type of Visit *Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint 0. Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other © Denied Access
Facility Number 99 11 Date of Visit: 12/21/20t10 Time: =:= Printed on: 1/4/2001
Q Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted ■ Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Thtt;Aft.Romn........................................................... ............................. County:YAdkla .............................................. W,SR.0........
OwnerName: W..Rcy....................................... shore ........................................................... Phone No: L33.(k.�3.�c 9lbf........................................................
FacilityContact:.............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: 23.24.Shtafcg.K9 d................................................................................. YAdUuA11c...N.0 ................................................... Z7.05.5 .............
OnsiteRepresentative:........................................................................................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:,WAjkcz.................................... shm ................................................. Operator Certification Number:1144Q
.............................
Location of Farm:
Cake Hwy 601 N. out of Yadkinville. Turn right onto Shore Road (SR1374). Farm is on right (red buildings/white trim) just A
last the Shore Bros. Dairy.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 11 15 Longitude 80 • 39 15
Swine
Design
Ca aci_t
► ► ►i:.
Current Design Current D sign Current
P,o ulation Poultry Ca acit P,o ulation ` Cattle Ca acit P,o ulation .. .
❑Layer ®Dairy 400
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
f
❑ Non -Layer
❑Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
❑ Other '(
Total Design Capacity 400
560,000 151";
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons JEF[3 Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps 0 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
❑ Spray Field Area
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 IN No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ....... Milk.Barn......... ........ Calf..Harn.....................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 48 54
5100 Continued on back

Facilly Number: 99-11 Date of Inspection 12/21/2000 Printed on: 1/4/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the*grity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tr*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
t3. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
t4. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reiquired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
Oel 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: .10-Violations:or deftciendes•were:noted dfiting•thigvisit;•;You:will ireeei've fid fttrthetr
come ofi ce. about this * i it.II.I....�.
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
[-]Yes. ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Each of the two waste ponds have been pumped since the previous inspection, and now have adequate freeboard and storm storage. #
Unable to identify a clearly gauged marker for "Start pump" on either pond, but since Mr. Shore was unavailable at the time of the
,pection, was not able to definitively confirm.
3. As noted above, Mr. Shore was not present during the inspection, but was contacted by telephone prior to the inspection, and
licated it could be conducted in his absence if he was unavailable.
** Was unable to check vegetaion or groundhog holes noted on pond embankments in previous inspection, due to snow cover.
I --- I V11
Reviewer/Inspector Name Abner Braddy
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5/00

��p�*,M,., P 'ru I � _y .. �. � ; _•.i u ''I'! r
T q� rsiory of Water Quality ,
I t 11� , .l l Ilia i £•,I „I + I i.? E]l a l . i°= €- 1 dl'I `` (t, l I �L J.. a . E
ll{¢€y.;i inlsri:ilil
- E 'If"I�" 1 u
li !"
1
sian'''of SoilY'and-FWater, Corservatiani Ili I II �illl� l:l ll ' i,i.I.i,II�`.lul
I I i II €..
' I
it{f sll.E.l:llliil,jt�i'I
ljv!O
II
Other . I '.I .' ' I : , it !
I' 3 3 II j
. i13 : I.II�.. S.. � 3 � •i..71(� i..I... rrY, 1.1 . EIE St: 1 I .4.=.
iAgencY
pp 1 VV 3
I £ - .}.rvi317.13 ilil I ,.. . Illil=Fi-f...IQ E.. {.. 11-l. l�ii4 hill•. ! '. � 1 �� � n_'miii.�ll�lili •Iri.381ii :i.i i � i .,., trl-E=..1 � Ili ;.lil.. 11 F.� 3 � �;II'.•�I,�,.i.i. iEt���L �i �.�r Iva:7..3iiil.irl.l
l„ i ii.n�l£i E:l� £
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
Date of Visit: 9/26/2000 Time: IoSo Printed on: 9/27/2000
99 11
Not O erational O Below Threshold
M Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .......................
Farm Name: "Tfa9.J.1'IiA.Dt►1tS9 ..................................................................................... ...... County: yAd.Icia .............................................. �'SRO........
OwnerName: WjJU.......................................'911or............................................................ Phone No: (3.3.kl.fi.7.9..- 4bf........................................................
Facility Contact: iY.httC.l:.ah.RCg................................................. Title: ........... ......... ..................................... I...... Phone No: f�(.?4,Z 3........................
MailingAddress: 23.24.Shaxe..>,aad.................................................................................. XadWhyi11k...XC................................................... 2.705.5 ..............
Onsite Representative: ..... Integrator: .......... .....
Certified Operator:yY I K.frn ............................• SDI.P.x�................................................. Operator Certification Number:2,14Q ............................,
Location of Farm:
Cake Hwy 601 N. out of Yadkinville. Turn right onto Shore Road (SR1374). Farm is on right (red buildings/white trim) just +
past the Shore Bros. Dairy. W
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle [I Horse Latitude 36 • 11 15 « Longitude 80 ' • 39 15 ��
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Po ulation Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
® Dairy
400
1250
❑ Feeder to Finish
10 Non -Layer
1
10 Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
400
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
560,000
❑ Boars
Nurriber of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 2 ❑ 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
i
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
Identifier: Mille Rain Call'Bam
....... ........ ....
Freeboard (inches): 8 5
5/00
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
® Yes ❑ No
Structure 5 Structure 6
Continued on back

Facility Number: 99711 Date of Inspection 9/26/2000 Printed on: 9/27/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the rity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trJavere erosion., ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ® Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ®No
11. Is there evidence of over application? [:]Excessive Ponding [:]PAN. [:]Hydraulic Overload. ❑ Yes ®No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required_ Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, reaps, 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?
N6 yiolatiogs;o;r &ficieneies,Were:nbted during -this; visit., ;You'Will ttcoM. h6•further� ;
correspondence about tbis.visit. .
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Use drawings (eof facility
uest�nn # .' Ex lain any YES andl' y r „ q ) p or an ecommendati6`ns or any other comments.
to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
7. Ground hog holes need to be repaired on #1. Need to mow vegetation on #1. Continue efforts to establish permanent vegetation on AIL
9. Could not see markers. Waste was above maximum level mark. Recommend gauged marker per'permit.
19. Operator will have Nancy keith revise WUP this week to have WUP acres match design acres.
22. Did not receive notification from operator regarding high freeboard level.
Will take soil samples this Fall. I
w
�.. y...'..,..: ,...1..Yr.A.�,.: '. '.�,...-, �,_.�,. -. :.. .....,'+,..tea. e.»..i..l_ -...» ..�y�w Y.........e.. ........ ..�.... .. «.: - .....-,. ._ _.�N..... .._._�..... .......... _...y
Reviewer/Inspector Name Mcl1ssa ,Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: L40,1 LAW AAA-A-71 fti 0 L1 Date: Uf hgL /00 5100

Facility Number: 99-11 Dat of Inspection 9/26/2000 Printed on: 9/27/2000
Odor Issues ..0
26, Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ®No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
J
5100

Wivision of Water Quality
ivision of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit x
Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other Denied Access
rime:
[�� ❑
Date of Visit: me: `-�""`—' Printed (in. 7121120t}4
FFacility Number
Q Not O erational Q Below Threshold
Permitted Certified (] Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated ur Above "Threshold:
FarmName: ...... L ke ...... .:.1.1... I.V...... R.... .......................................... County:...... ..� i.............................................
Owner Name:........ ...... .. ........ h3.[...v. Phone No. t� .J..�...�..7....♦.............
..�,, y .1 ............. ................... 7 UU
Facility Contact: ........ ..If .... .. .r ... "Title:................................................................ Phone No: 3.�.�t...a... .. ...L...... .... a.S
a
Mailing Address: ......a+ �...r�, .�..............5.ha.c . ................. ..........................
Onsite Representative: ........................................................................................................... Integ; ator:..........................
Certified Operator:...... Q, .......5. N ire,.. .......................... Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
o l rom i nYi e . -rum Rf an e, rn I S on
V O l-'
T
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Gattle ❑ Harse Latitude ®' �° C.� Longitude• �� �«
Design Current
VIA I I Ly
❑ 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 Q 0
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 1 400
Total SSLW I S`L Q
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lag ..nn Area I0 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps JCI No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges .Xc Stream Impacl5
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes )(No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Ficld ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was tic conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, nolil'v DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/inin?
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'? Vp illway
St)-uetur • I Su'u�%%'��ir,,� ��2 Structure ? Structure 4
Idcntificr: ...1..� n..........1..r.d. n........................................................
Freeboard {inches):
5100
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
XYes ❑ No
Structure 5 Structure 6
Continued on back

Facility Number: q= Date of Inspectionl 7�is Printed on: 7/21/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the 019rity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tree , severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
6. Arc 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 Annlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement'? ❑ Yes No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes] No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ withkdose designated in the Mrtified Animal Waste Management
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application'?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'!
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available'?
WMP)? ❑ Yes
*o
❑ Yes
YNo
❑ Yes
YNo
❑ Yes
:N0
❑ Yes
KNO
❑ Yes
O(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.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ irrigation,, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design'?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did 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?
�'Va viol'atiq . . . deiicier�cies were noted during �his;visit:... ..itl receive Rio #'urthgr
- corres orideike' about: this visit '
❑ Yes KNO
❑ Yes No
Yes No
❑ Yes 0 No
Y�
❑ Yes ❑ No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
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):
rwrd k)ble5o�eeel b k-) rej06U'r-,0d 6m 4j N t e- A +0 ron 60
V:e.0 t��1 by
ton -from (9nzat6e- reQat.rd i r
Reviewer/Inspector NamejVjah:5.5�LoC r-- 034Z
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: / jAdA,_ "Q A7 J Date: q la& b S—,W

Facility Number: — I�A inspection � Printed on: 7/21/2000
' Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or la o n fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? OM I -r
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? L('IN� r, ❑ Yes ANo
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 XNO
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ANO
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? dm 1 T azOO �o
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? q/ 9A�O�o
Additional Comments and/or Drawmgs:
N 4-g 5., (k) L) P om\ OJA
e t;h
47
>J 7
�-tn,aao tvvpZ:�o
free boo.rd Perm;4--
LOM -Ike sad 6aup1e5 �i5 Fall.
4
1
5100
J

! L : n Y ..i: i ;la I H€ n
Ii' 7il,e, I.1''.t OR
1 allill.�lfl fit 1,=,`«1 s I III I":�. ,g.i' Ill ,tr �Ip tril, III f. r' k �Ikll iikl,p i l
Ia1 f 0sion of .Water, (� AR I .L,
NARY,
[[[tEI? i III. ,isl ,, 1tf .„,a#f .Liax�l,I . gg I �, f I,i I ' EE'. J. r t ': yyI Il;i • °I tl-! J
l t ii PI 1 , ail r E �..,. { d I f1 ii {III I�I li�l" i ij d IIf I i
on of Sorl arid Water Conservataan I I at .�. I i Ill,_ f �i ,(1,
r r € I ,v!: II I. `IL. -�{ it r-- ! I
i - it { 4 1 9 LI lii:'ll I f! r �II I II;I ull-,.I
,Ilil I, I I i Other Agency €: il• t il,' I �I, ,
I k`i i I ! .. I A',« a . a V 1?I,
I r ,
.z� rail €fir,=§,..:��,rl l� l��i!� .,�� II'�i,�:€;¢Il!€itur,�,���eht�r9�lt[:'sri'i
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection © Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 7/6/2000 Time: 10:15 .Printed on: 9/25/2000
Facility Number 94 11
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Th!<.MU.HiFA1Sf<........................................................................................... County: Yadkiln ............................... ................ !' .SRQ........
Owner Name: WW..11ty....................................... ,slaox........................................................... Phone No:(3,3.61,6.7.9->34fG........................................................
FacilityContact: ............. ............................................................. ..- Title: ................................................................ Phone No:......................
Mailing Address: 23.2.4.Shu1CcAnd.................................................................
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:.WAJJer.,G.............................. $.h.QrQ .....................
Location of Farm:
... Yadkiniilx...XC................................................... 2.7.05.5 .............
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:2,1.4.4U.............................
Cake Hwy 601 N. out of Yadkinville. Turn right onto Shore Road (SR1374). Farm is on right (red buildings/white trim) just +
Fast the Shore Bros. Dairy.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Worse Latitude 36 ' 11I F-1-5--111Longitude SO . ' 39 4 15 66
awlllG
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity 'Population
❑ Layer ® Dairy 1 400 1 275
❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 400
Total SSLW 560,000
Number'of Lagoons i,.I ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 2 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
A
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify D W Q)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/mina?
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?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: .......... WSP.#.I.......... ..........W.SP.A.2........ I .............................
Freeboard (inches): 14 72
5100
❑ Spillway
Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes [--]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
Structure 6
Continued on back

Facility Number: 99-11 1 Date of Inspection 7/6/2000 Printed on: 9/25/2000 'R .45. Are there any immediate threats to the*rity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trosevere 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? IN Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ®No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ®No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ®No
12. Crop type Small Grain (Silage)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management PIan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21, Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
lvo•yiolations:o:r defeiencieswwere'noted duriilg•this visit.•'You'Will receiveno•flirther•' .
correspondence. abauf this ,visit.
Comments (refer to question #) Explain any YES answers and/or any. recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings,,of facility to better explain `situations.:(use additional pages as necessary):
0 4. Waste storage pond # 1 is above the max. liquid level, but not in the structural freeboard. Need to pump ASAP.
Operator stated he would be pumping in a couple of days.
4 7. Need to mow around WSP # 2 and continue efforts to get rid of ground hogs.
q 9. Markers need to be graduated with top of dam and max. liquid indicated.
q 19. Need to start keeping weekly holding pond levels per the General Permit requirements.
q 25. Need to have the WUP acres match the irrigation design acres.
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: 5100

Facility Number: 99-11 Dabinspection 7/6/2000 Printed on: 9/25/2000
Odor Issues 6
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 permanenthemporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
5100

Facility Number 99 11 Date of Inspection 12/$199
Time of Inspection 1430 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered 113 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ThCAR.Holm ............................... ....... ... County: Yadkin .............................................. WSRQ........
OwnerName: Wilcy....................................... 5htax.P............................................................ Phone No: Q13.61.67.94,46.6........................................................
FacilityContact:.............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:(33.61.619.4.46.6 ...................
Mailing Address: 23.24.Skoire..Road................................................ ... Yadkat�riUte...KC...................................... . 2.7.05.5 .............
.............................. ............
Onsite Representative: J'. allcr.5hai c.............................................................................. Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:ffA11cr..G.............................. 51wrt ................................................. Operator Certification Number:2144Q....
Location of Farm:
�A�ke.�kYY.6.Q�..HA.9.111.A.(..x�daLAtl.Y.halt....�4trA.JrJI�1X.AJiik9..Sa1Q�S..�A.afii.Q��.�.��:�4��...k.ArJ[171.IS. QIA.rl:gl�f�.(A:�f�,.b.UJllf�l[4gS�/.IYA#1lttR.kA
Latitude 36 • 11 15 Longitude SO • 39 15
esapp4n Curren[ >
Swine ' Ca acet w P.o ulatioa
❑ Wean to Feeder
'. . Lessvn�
Poultry ' Ca acit ,
❑Layer
prren[...5.�
P.o lation
uese n . Curren[
11
;, Cattle $ . Ca actt - Po ulation
®Dairy
400 140
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer
❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
`
❑ Other '' �` � ' :�' -.
al Design Capacity. 400
x Total LS 560,000
t-A
Farrow to Finish
Gilts❑
i
Boars
&Ho1dFi
nmbI❑ Subsurface Drains Present JJ❑ Lagoon Area J❑ Spray Fieldg Ponds 1 Solid Traps 2 1=10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges X 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 Stale? (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 IS 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: Milk Barn Calf Barn
Freeboard (inches): ...............A4................ �.4
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back
Printed on 12l9199

Fadlity Number: 99-11 1 1)a Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are noteLly addressed and/or managed through a was anagement or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
I L Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Fescue (Graze)
12/8l99
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required -Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) '
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iet 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?
. .. . yi. . . . .s deft i ... .were :noted .during this. v.isi ... .. 1 receive no further
correso oridence: abol'ti this :visit. ::: : :::::: :: : ::: :::::: : :
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
[:]Yes ® No
�. Need start marker for holding pond near milk barn. _+
19. Records were exceptionally neat and well organized. Certified operator is keeping records on his computer and has developed
spreadsheet to aid in his recordkeeping.
Reviewer/Inspector Name (Melissa Rosebrock Abner B
qV
ReviewerlInspector Signature'
Date:
Print d on 1219V
OUXi - P74� �AW#Lk) 4VA) O'LO Zt) dAA�—1 020

Facility Number 99 11 Date of Inspection 7/29/99
Time of Inspection 11:30 24 hr. (hh:mm)
El Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered 13 Not O erationa! Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: TIxe.MR.Ht2tastr....................................................................................... .... County: Ygt kliD .............................. ................. W5RQ ........
Owner Name: !' JIU....................................... Shore............................................................ Phone No: (3.3.0.6.7.9.46.6...............................
Facility Contact:.............................................................................. Title:................................. .... Phone No:
......... .....................................................................
MailingAddress: 23,2.4.Slxon..Road................................................................................. YAdW yMc...NC................................................... 2.7,05.5 ..............
Onsite Representative:WA1AQr,5bQ-r9.................... .... Integrator: ..................................................................................
Certified Operator .!wim.G.. ............................. shm ................................................. Operator Certification Number:11.44.0 .............................
Location of Farm:
Qt.Xi�tdkinYill�R..�.u�r�t.�ra hx.oi�tQ.S.have.�ioad..(S�i13T4]�... a�ua.is.�ut.�i t� ius�t.Rast..tU�e.SkxQ��.1#�os..............I •
w
Latitude F 36 • 11 15 Longitude 80 • 39 15
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑,Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (Ii'yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d, Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yeti, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes
® No
Waste Collection & "Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
❑ Yes
® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: Milk barn Dry cow barn
I
Freeboard(inches)...............36................ ...............6Q............... ................................... ........ I ........................ I.. ....................................
....................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
® No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99
Continued on
back
Printed on 12l7199

` Facility Number: 99-11 D' Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are nooerly addressed and/or managed through a was 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 Annlicaition
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain)
7/29/99
[]Yes
® No
® Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
® Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application'? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ® Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reauired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) .
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMPV
0: NO.9614tlgIls;or ;dehc' tencies•were:noteil :during this; visit.:You:rvil.l receive ino tu;rth;er
correspondence. about this :visit: - : • : � :::::::: .
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes. ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
7 Keep up efforts to get rid of ground hogs on WSP I and establish grass on WSP 2. AL
9 Need marker in WSP # 1.
ecord keeping looks good.
caner stated that when irrigation equipment is installed there will also be a pipe run from WSP 1 to the solid separator at WSP
The solid separator has not had roof installed yet. Operation was pended for a Wettable Acre determination because they are
'anning on having a irrigation system installed. The new system should be figured on effective acres.
M
Reviewer/Inspector Name [Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Printed on lZ7/99

Facility Number 99 11 Date of Inspection 7/29/99
Time of Inspection 11:30 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted ® Certified [] Conditionally Certified [3 Registered 10 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ToteAURQM59........................................................................... County: Yadkink....................... ....................... WSR.0........
Owner Name: W.ilu.......................................shorc ........................................................... Phone No:(33.()..b.7.9r.8.4f6.......... :.............................................
Facility Contact:..............................................................................Title:.................. Phone No:
Mailing Address: D24.210re.Raad................................................................................. YgdWay.j&...XC................................................... 2705.5 ..............
Onsite Representative:,y,}?AIW.,SktACg........................ . Integrator...................
Certified Operator:.WAjjCr..Gr .............................$Jh.grg ................................................. Operator Certification number:,21.4.49..............................
Location of Farm:
��tke..t��x.i6R�..lYn.aut.of..xatdkiu�YiAI�....xux�t.�:igh.t..onto.Shaxe.load.(Stt.1,3.7.4]....�a�ant.is.an.xi�lltiluSt.Rant.Shtt~.ShtQ�:e.1��rOs..............1 ..
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .
Latitude 36 • 11 1511 Longitude SO • =1 15 •'
Design Current
Swine Capacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer
10 Dairy
400
30{}
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
..Total Design Capacity ' 400
Total SSLW
560,000
Number of Lagoons - -� -w,:4' ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ I -at ����n Area ❑ 5pra Field Area
. '`'
:4 'wHoldidg Ponds / Solid Traps,,0 j 'r ; , ❑ No Li(tuid Waste Management System
Dischar * .s R titrean Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. It'dischar�ge is oh.served, was the conveyance man-made'? ❑Yes ❑ No
- •.--_—_—.---__-b..-If-discharge is iibseryed, did it_reach Water i3f_'t_h_c-St.tte'? (Ifyes. notify DNYQ- _ - ----❑Yes _..❑ No_.
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmrn?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (It 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
Wastc Collection K 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure h
Identifier: Milk barn Dry cow barn
Freeboard(inches): fi ....................... ............................... .................. ...... ...................................................................................................................... .....
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back
Printed on lZ7/99

, c1Vty Number: 99-11 Date nl' Ltsprrtion 7/29/99 WF
b. Are there structures on -site which are not rly addressed and/or managed through a wa•anagement 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 Aimlirat
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain)
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?
lb. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment'?
Renuired Records & Documenis
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) .
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
'No violations;or deficiencies wer.e noted :during this; visit. ''You, ''Will' receive tno further
correspondence: about this Nisit. : . ...... .. . .
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
7 Keep up efforts to get rid of ground hogs on WSP 1 and establish grass on WSP 2.
9 Need marker in WSP # 1.
ecord keeping looks good.
caner stated that when irrigation equipment is installed there will also be a pipe run from WSP 1 to the solid separator at WSP
The solid separator has not had roof installed yet. Operation was pended for a Wettable Acre determination because they are
anning on having a irrigation system installed. The new system should be figured on effective acres.
Ir
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Printed on 12/7/99

I
:vision of Soil 4PWater Conservation [3 Other A
vision of Water Quality
10 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWO inspection O Follow -tip of IISWC review O Other I
Date of Inspection —� _9
Facility Number Time of Inspection Q=24 hr. (hh:mm)
registered © Certified © Applied for Permit 0 Permitted 113 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: 7.�t.......r X' \.1►1 ........................................... County:....., ` ~'`^.1..............................................
Owner Name:....&.\oA......I—,...... I........ .�............................................. Phone No:Q43�'S]...1����h����A� t�...
Facility Contact: . .\�n.....�.�l Oe e'............ Title:...........................................................I.... Phone No k33�' loom. .0...1.�k...
Mailing Address: a�� s�o« �...�............. 1�,��:\� N t.....................o...S
Onsite Representative-...W Q ..SROC ...a'... .Y1 1 .... Integrator:.......)h ..................................................................
Certified Operator;...V�\.P—'< Q%gvC J................................. Operator Certification Number;,
Location of Farm: '31
I ..Q,c...... W.... .... '�....... Q .......t1w...A.. ...... U. RR.a..`� 5.�`...c\... : ...P.(1 51... . 5►t4'.. ... Q,............. �...."
...►..........a.........:..�C..:....,A'.............Scc.iQS.4...?4,
Latitude = iL I:ongit.ude EM • �' ="
-:Design Current , Design Current Design' .';Current
Swine`, Capacity Population . Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Popuiation
4A
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑.., No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes t&Ko
Discharge originatdXat: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is obser)Kd, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed',qid it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, w
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon
the estimated flow in gaUmin?
m? (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, [I No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes Urn
❑ Yes girNo
❑ Yes ff 'No
❑ Yes N
❑ Yes ;�N/o
kql-

.Facility Number: —
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on !Rhich need to be properly closed'!
Structures (Lagoons,11olding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
( S ructure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: �`���� .,� R.e� R,
Freeboard(ft): ........ I ................ .......... v $.............. .........................................................................
10, Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes Vio
❑ Yes Vo
Structure 5 Structure 6
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
r �
15. Crop type bC.4t.. �rt.iz,� �?..................................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
No vio'la'dons'or. dWciencie's:were-h6ted-duri_ng this'visit.-.Y.ou:will r_eceive'i o'-ftirth:er�;
: correspQ�a OO about this: visit:, : : .. . : .... .: . ... .:.: ' .. :: . : . ' ... :.. .. . '
Cb --,W
r
❑ Yes 9Qo
❑ Yes Rltlo
❑ Yes �] o
E Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 040
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes TNo
❑ Yes 9no
❑ Yes 2<o
❑ Yeso
❑ Yes FrNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:

,AA "
State of North Carofa
Department of Environment,
w Health and Natural Resources
Mooresville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary
Mr. Wiley Shore
2324 Shore Road
Yadkinville, North Carolina 27055
Dear Mr. Shore:
lk"A'A
00
1D1HHNFZ
DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
May 23,1997 RECEIVED
N.C. DePt. of EHNR
M �Y 2 8 1997
W jnz,A0 1--Sa"e '1
Regional Office
SUBJECT: Operation Review Corrective Action Recommendation
The Milk House
Facility No. 99-11
Yadkin County
On May 12, an Operation Review was conducted of The Milk House, facility no. 99-11. This Review,
undertaken in accordance with G.S. 143-215.100, is one of two visits scheduled for all registered livestock
operations during the 1997 calendar year. The Division of Water Quality will conduct a second site inspection.
During the Review, it was determined that waste was = being discharged to the waters of the State,
and the animal waste collection, treatment, storage and disposal systems were properly maintained and
operated under the responsible charge of a designated operator. However, the following management
deficiency was discovered and noted for corrective action: failure to install start pumping markers within the
pond. This management deficiency needs to be addressed and corrected. You are encouraged to contact your
certified technical specialist if additional assistance is needed. During ensuing reviews, this same deficiency will
be re-examined to determine if corrective actions were implemented.
In order for your facility to remain in compliance with environmental regulations, animal waste cannot be
discharged into the waters of the State, and the animal waste collection, treatment, storage and disposal
systems must be properly maintained and operated under the responsible charge of a certified operator.
Please remember that you are required to obtain and implement an approved animal waste
management plan by the end of this year and have a certified operator. The plan must be certified by either a
designated technical specialist or a professional engineer. For additional assistance with the plan or the
certification course, please contact your local Soil and Water Conservation District Office or local Cooperative
Extension Service Office.
919 North Main Street, W 4k FAX [phone]
Mooresville, North Carolina 28115 �� An Equal opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 704-663-1699 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

�l • •
Mr. Wiley Shore
May 23, 1997
Page Two .
The Division of Soil and Water Conservation appreciates your cooperation with this Operation Review.
Please do not hesitate to call me at 7041663.1699 ext. 277 if you have any questions, concerns or need
additional information.
Sincerely,
Jos ph C.' Immerman
Environmental Engineer I
cc: Yadkin Soil and Water Conservation District
Q—&ey Bassir-ner,sDWQ:inspecfor-far Yadkin=Cti.
DSWC Regional Files

�Clr
16 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection 5112197
Facility Number 99 1i
Time of Inspection 15:22 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: Registered......................................................................... (ex:1.25 for I hr IS min)) Spent on Review 2.25
or Inspection (includes travel and processing)
FarmName: Tb�e. it Htlluse............................................................................................. County: YAdkiln............................................... WSRO).......,
OwnerName:..!1lcy...................................... Slmre .......................................................... Phone No: 09.72.2.53 ...................................................................
Mailing Address: 2324.5borc.Road ............
Onsite Representative: W..9Ux..Sl org.....................
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
...... Xaalkilln. M.Ac................................................... 1705,5 ..............
.. Integrator: ....................................................
.. Operator Certification Number:,..........
�3Z�.Sb��x lRaad.a .fiAl............... ............... I .................... . & ................................ ... ... . ;;;;;;j V
Latitude 36 • ll 151 Longitude 80 • 39 15kc
[3 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Type of Vperatton anct vestgn Capacity
Swine Number
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Lj Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to FinisH
General
Poultry Number Cattle Number
❑ Layer JCM Dairy 210
❑ Nan -Layer JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Number of Lagoons 1 Holding Ponds 1 J ❑ Subsurface Drains Present
❑ Lagoon Area I 1[:l Spray Field Area
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ®No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (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 IN No
3. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ®No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes 0 No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes ®No
maintenance/improvement?
Continued on back

6. Is facility not in compliance with any appli ble setback criteria?
T Did the facility fail to have a certified ope in responsible charge (if inspection after 1/10.
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is structural freeboard less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Lagoon 1 Lagoon 2 Lagoon 3
...................7......................................... I ............ . ................. I ............ I
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adquate markers to identify start and stop pumping levels?
Waste Application
14. Is there -physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ............... CAMCSxla,gCA..GxdW.............. ..Sa
16. Do the active crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the cover crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available irrigation equipment?
For Certified Facilities Onh"
20. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
21. Does the facility fail to comply with the Animal Waste Management Plan in any way?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Lagoon 4
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
23. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ® No
24, Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with owner or operator in charge? ❑ Yes ® No
Comments (refer to question #):. Explain-any'YES answeriind/or:any reconitiiendations:or'any:othei:comments. 99-11
:Use drawings of facility t6-better7explaiit:§ituati6ns:;(tise additional pages.dinecessary):
Question 13: Pond needs level marker as part of certification process. A
Comments: System is in place and is good for parlor/bam area. As part of certification prcess a new pond will be built accruss the {
road for the heifers and dry cows with a solid separator. A separator may be added at the existing pond. There is potential for
problem/discharge currently at the heifer lot but there is none at this time and this has been addressed in proposed plan. Otherwise
operation is in good shape and working toward certification.
�..
Reviewer/Inspector Name iiQ h �'.: L" ` 4 ' ' s . �`: o y
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
cc: Division of Water Quality, W er Quality Secttdn, Facility Assessment Unit 11/14/96

.. OPBRATIOMS BRANCH - WO Fax:[phone] Jul 20 '95 11:04 P.11/18
SITE MITATM RECORD
Data:' �w LA1 �995
Cwr.ar; °� - _ fdrrR il�+jic: ! !�� %' ,"�1 tL{oL,5
CCtr.ty:
Agent Visiting Site: �-�I_ R N. Key` . Phor ' t ?0:52
Operator. w [ 5 _ fl re „ _ Phone:
CnZte Representative: Phone:
Pt•.ysic2l A.�dress:
4lsi.ir�g �+Gdr�ss: r
T;+ra o° 1.`p :cticn. ,.� , Swine Poultry Cattle
Oes; , CacscFy: d0 NumterofArimson, S:;e: !'l o
Type �i ,.s 2c:;cr: ✓Crcurd .� Aetlal
Circle Yee or No
Coe- ,b!'Naste La;oon havr suifzi;nt freeboard of I Foot _ 25 yesr 24 Icur S(cr 7 event
:,srprc4<,mately t Fcct+ 7 inches) CY -es-) or ,Jc
r'v .:Ci rre8l1c9:�. _ �eGf S,
f ac;lities with more than :no lavgn, please address the other iagccns' Fteebcard under the
.cmrrfir,ts sectcn.
W+V 3 ar.;, sae;ge aw,,e-d from Irez tagcvk'sj-, Yes Cr
1+ fl=s 1?A�e _resic rn of the dam? Yes G( (�D
is adecuva 'ard avaiiable for ;2rd ap;;rica"cn? or No
is 'he cc',erGCp adey'u3te7 Aga or No
fi
141,�5