790001_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: (A Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:. Arrival Time: :®p Departure Time: I � County:�"'nUh(A'(N Region: WSR a
Farm Name: t�UC��I�s���Qrfy 1
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 4- Title:
Onsite Representative:y
Certified Operator: �45s)' I VC1 es+—YnVV
Back-up Operator: &ZA( A' P [A 0_S4_yDV✓
Location of Farm: Latitude:
Owner Email: (A-6 _ "MDN
Phone:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
tb IWOIS00e. �� ,+wy ise. OL &ft 15a U bs.
, Cyop ovY-D i4W 2�014 �tk }D tW/ '1() i r � MroCMy\. e,-R�, ��� Smc�hers
Design
Swine Capac�y
Current
Pup.
Wet Poultryrfop.
r@apacirtil
rrent
brm O�nf! :'
Des :
k cattle Cup�cityup.
. T117l6a
3a
Current
Bps
.
Wean to Finish
La er
'p DairyCow
.,.
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
k
I)r, P,oultg+
Layers
Design Currt
Ca acit +' Px o en°
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
D Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
j Beef Stocker
Gilts
Boars
Non -Layers
Pullets
' Beef Feeder,
IL Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Turkeys
TurkeyPoults�
Other
l
11�
& v
Discharees and Stream Imuacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
�0 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 DW R)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DW R)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
LJNNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: ' DDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes OQ 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: pt1 C r
Spillway?: �Jy(5 l�•C.5
Designed Freeboard (in):-
11
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
� Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
1171 Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
T'
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes IN No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Pending ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate
Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
1
N�
12. Crop Type(s):C;`a�l��U ✓y `1
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes (� No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. 6Q Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application Weekly Freeboard Waste Analyse tndlysiS— ` rarrsf2tS Weather Code
LPL Rainfall �Stocking� Crop Yield �120 Minute Inspections Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge'? TTT""��� ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No M NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste ap}�tion equipment as required by the permit? W ❑ Yes 'KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No 7" NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
14 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
1ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of faciiitv.to better exDlain situations (use additionn[Daees as:necessarul.
neCK Cay\d a� or
of gross = emlakm< MWx +. Not W(V) �- Y&W
Q-Y11Aa_AAIA u
�v Cyov ck(WA
4b WuF"
U54-ed in cvrrtml;;�, M,�r&nS "I us' d
u->up.
C4�.LLC,k �IQIL+in�G1�p1;ca-hour -ti>'t�,S.
,tl
WGS CoV, ff o� pe���ICOC, rzeitvej NOid ;VAP-W f acS•
soy I f6i oue 2O ICA • LLW-k that+ oslt fr &M-r 4-cs+
G�ck we e anral �si3 wtndoN�. MiSst 1�2C b wye� -,used T\s0616I
�b e[ hU� tie �� reec��2s• 12ece�rct�' �� Vo"kUe-
Cc lk of-a_;t4 ay) die.. DUc acr.r) S�oIcl -
6Wg_ Pp A?[_\J6l' %ZG-�p in 0.46 ns nL �i�yv11.
spa; r ,,1((j-r19_41,, re 5urve t $ vie eCt,66 r U
_6t \ Pic Vow , 1m9Lacldk.
Reviewer/Inspector
Reviewer/Inspector
6/t /n 6 _7S
(kilo/'I 6• lam'
Phone:%A&—CiV5
Date: i 1 I ��j 1�
2/4/201 S
Page 3 of 3

Type of Visit: RCompllance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: % Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: _'4 County: Pcgg%jGhhLh Region: WSRO
Farm Name: 0464 fl FI411 Owner Email: k3cK,}Ca uc
�nt �V3
Owner Name: IDWO Whufflim Phone: 1I
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: /QLE l;lk-, KU.0 hMD1UW1, ► L �^r o
Facility Contact: PhK_15st+lRit►J Title: Phone: b�3 �9aI
k
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Integrator: f(Ow ( ftf)
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
em LNG 2 �jo" EAOT. MBQt;6 t-J )Awl 61, N 1 p Mfw2(rE UI
o
8 80 N &100A ok- r ceauapam PM v6m ewonnk
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.Wfet
Poulfry
€
Design @urre.nt !
Capacity Pop.
R8
({ t
3} r Design Current
Cattle xx Capcity Pp.
S t I t $'$ "Zits b.
Wean to Finish
La er
i
Dairy Cow
,I
;
it
Wean to Feeder
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Feeder to Finish
MOO
;.
Dr, P.oultq+
Layers
Design .,Curren'[
C•.a tacit ,. P,oIN
Farrow to Wean
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
a
j
Beef Feeder
p
S
t
oar Bs
Other
Other
Pullets
Turkeys
Beef Brood Cow
tk
a
Turkey Poults
Other
1
Discharees and Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DW R)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [�(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 9?N
❑No
ElYes,No
Yso
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - O- • Date of Inspection: L
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
5jTNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: 66C=W =
,t
Spillway?: 60
��
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
CS�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental
threat,
notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑. NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[,gNo
❑ 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
MrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
'
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
PVrNo
❑ 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 ❑ Evidenceof Wind Drill ❑ Application
Outside of Approved
Area
12. Crop Type(s): R� E C SU�E;d� (3R_QH0Q"PT5'$
i
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?
Ef Yes
E] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
,
K I No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
C
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
JEd No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
CKNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
KYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
E]wi:4P fists eEivaps �ease-fcgreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes jKfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
941"AprFi 4In n •"--'-' Eawmr*m� -f�e,e- [-]Waste Transfers
ED�rg 94"X_Y_L 1 fanT"Mft+"ft__etions ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes F� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - O Date of Inspection: r
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applic ion equipment as required by the permit? VW []Yes K�No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes rNo
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes rNo
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes CK No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Xj No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [5dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ZNo
❑ Yes 5�'No
❑ Yes [ZNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
a.1�5oi� s OQ& P-aok --CKC Ck- M'` T GOD RF co R05 a01G Nocc- w
t1
'.5) POA pe 5. Ow w
106, 1 YCMt
7> Gates
es�tc sKsO
o�.,
cnn�tav�Gw� ? n w o'. 6%t Neeps
1
(3s n�otJ6��
-MP
*47 6M( n6 COULD vsc- df A:5s.
15) c�P Nc-Eos � 3E P��f� w�tl� 30 ones aF APPu ��t�
A'�_s_ �� \�6 �b�roo0 WG
koI UL
A-LS 1 N , 0.9 PI fh 1.oOo ANIr
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatui
Page 3 of 3
e-ayl o 1F MA + coc -No PGmA t-NEe
�o f, OECQAt�a2 2015
p pis - (Mm_C'R } HR --
A -LA = N' U-aS cbl(o.& cnL_
Phone: 13561 Lot - k l-t 3 .
Date: 9 (1-7 L&
21412015

for Visit: (lRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: �J' ' Arrival Timet
Departure Time:�}cqunty:� Cgiftd14 it'14yIt,Re�g/ion: W5 P4
Farm Name: /412 Ah A 117 A I� Owner Email:
"`�—'7C—
Owner Name: U" U)0.JC. 4-A-) Phone: C.4 t0 & 13 - Nd-1
Mailing Address:
)Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �0 A A 11.JA Q�J j(1/Yi[tle:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Phone:
Integrator: 6AJ
c
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number: _
L urllx(�t NCB Follow NG65al1 c en S.Mdylti(il))
Location of Farm: (� / Latitude: LonUct et i ude:
n Y I -TV 6 j US Hwy 6? N) �� , N V 10 K E L
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feede
Boars
r
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
tv.
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No
[:]Yes 0 No
❑ Yes 9No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page I of 3 21412014 Continued

]Facility Number: - . jDate of Ins ection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 StructureJ2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: Prl 5�
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? [:]Yes b(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a [—]Yes [(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks) 77,,��{{
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 CR#"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [—]Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Pending ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving
15. Does the receivi
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes r)no
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ( V
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? Yes E] No
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes i M No
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design [:]Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other.
21. Does record keeping need mprovement?-Ffye�ehe h-fit Yes ❑ No
❑JVaste Applic tion Weekly Freeboard Waste Analys' Soil Analysis �fers
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
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?
Page 2 of 3
eyes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ r
❑NE
Weather Code
Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
to NA ❑ NE
21412014 Continued

Facili Number: - • Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes jj No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes /�� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
���{{{
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Otherlssues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes jM No
❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
TT''
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [%No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes [X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes 06No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes 14 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
ot/ 6&q 1 14„a.017. h-'ao
a Aw ?NO
a PoH uir�l� aql
1 WU Q2Q ?NO
1
214,12014

P66V15E t5u p'I L
Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O
O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time:®YlDeparture Time: Itj�3p p County: G "o e ion: c5
Farm Name: t' A_p 12 Foy l �5 �D4 Farm Own�e'r'E'm�ail� b Y 2 S
/ q Q �12,
Owner Name: 1 0oula �00'1 V_6( Phone: G K6 13 I 1 �I (LL (Y LI Oro us
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
C ertification'Number:
Longitude:
w (I
Al
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
IxNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
,❑/
[/] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Q 1 Date of inspection: 1AM
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
'd p o
Identifier. �
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): Z 91
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? 19 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes Z 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 C6 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes od No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ["U'&o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): r� eAa i r V
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes En No
❑ Yes �ZNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[yNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ��Y////No
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
w21. oes record keeping need im rovement? I +",chai;Whe- 0 Yes ❑ No
aste Applica ton W ekly Freeboard Waste Anal 's Soil Analysis -8:w f rs
[� Rainfall []Stockingp Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 9No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes [ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
LLNe ❑ NE
`���"'-e
L� ather Code
Mudge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection: 0 Q
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes [X No
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately. �[
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes IYI No
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application) 7�
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
HA
LAj No
❑ NA
❑ NE
CZ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments. I
Use drawines of facility to betterexulain situations (use additional oaees as necessarv).
f 1f ��Q a did T- 93 t, F- I A t�
�e to
/O
6, 1111 111111110 I
r '
V
II/ 1 l /0-013
to] 30/ao4
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
aTe
= a• So 119-6. N/l0 00
Phone: % I — SoZ gg
Date: /0,l/�Z0/�%
21412014

Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: (Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Z'j Arrival Time: Departure Time: 1.1 County: RZC-K-thglAtWegion: W6R6
Farm Name: 6t 4ke- r 0.LIs flog
F0.r M Owner Email: —�d—
Owner Name: a IV I A J 0. k K-eX 1 Phone: (i CQ 13 - l 9 a-1 73 ro-4
Mailing Address: (n 3 0 &o-Q < c Volts RA . , ked I $ ot1 , N c__., a -7 Q a-S
Physical Address: l0 a2 a- Ci" Ie- Fo_U5 Rdl
Facility Contact: B ra� PZL.4 e 54ro-Oritle:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone:
Integrator: c-
&r0 t't't 0. P t IU e
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude: 3& a 95" aa" Longitude: "1 q6 4 91 Q 3"
4LL)_A* ISg EI uS tf wy 8 alp
NI
NC
wy 70 It E ,
�
Swine
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
p
Wet Poultry
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La erI
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
eeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Non -La er
Dairy Calf
Design C•ucnent
Dr,+P,oulh,+ Ca acit P,o
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
La ers
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Boars
Pullets
Other
Other
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
[:]Yes [0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes 19 No
❑ Yes [Z No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
d
Page 1 of 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of inspection:
p
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus stone storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
[:]Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: jZ900n
Spillway?: u 5
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): t1 41
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
Q(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
JZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
7�
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes "A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? IV V
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes aO No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc..))
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): N) \e aTr v e , P aS tv f'e-
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes �N NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? Yes NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes �� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 26No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes j(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑,O..,t/her:
2l. need i provement? I pprapriate boxixlew. j p Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
ante Applicat' n board Waste Analysis Soil Analysis ❑ e a Bather Code
Rainfall Stocking ❑ Cro Yi Id l20 MinutSe Ins ecti�,ns� pn onthly and V Rainfall Inspections [ESludge Survey
22. Did the Facility fail to install nd maintain a r ga�uge'!he�s v ' "�� ❑ Yes MNo n NA n NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No YNA ❑ NE
Pagel of 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection: if 142wI
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste ap ation equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes I\d"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. i "
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
XfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
10 NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?'
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
7�� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
7Q
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
eeevvv
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
XNo
``''''
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
No
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
X
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
D4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ YesPd
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments:
?
U_.%Krawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
a�)
2o�a ao 1-3Soll
+es+ ?Coed tit.. �(3:
�u2a-lacc L4,, o'LO 17,
. CQL►br-aj4orx c1 ue,
�0 •
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 7 7 —S1g
Date: d-7 0-0.3
4/2011

q( S0C�1_ �-1uhe I5-' nRV_+ Ur
for Visit:
Referral
Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: - I Arrival Time: Departure Time: : O O County: U A h"egion: ( SA6
Farm Name: Era I(. Fa Its dn4 Farm Owner Email: p /�
Owner Name: �OJVIA U36.I 1i Phone: 10 b 13 — 1 d- 6 r-o—j
Mailing Address: 630 Em I e, Fa I Is )U - t !qa 50y !N C, a
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 3i ra
Onsite Representative: �B r O—j
Certified Operator: \k
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
`H'-qAmrlle:
Phone:
Integrator: OAr-ol ing Pride,
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
,i '7yg'
Latitude: 3/o n a S I as Longitude: 4f 031,
65 y I.SB E, U51 Wy 81v ao►2f « NC LO -704 C.
o wde lr le -/s ate o n !�
Swine
Wean [o Finish
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
O esign Cu,r nt
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
��esign
Cattle
Dairy
Dai Cow
Current
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dairy Calf
eeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
0
Design Current
Dr.+P,aultr,+ Ca acit P,o P.
La ers
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
to Feeder
Fattow to Finish
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Turk e s
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[:]NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes 1 No
❑ Yes K I No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: 0 , Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
11i Structure I
Identifier.
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
Structure 2 Structure 3
Structure 4 Structure 5
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 which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?,
eNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑No ❑NA ❑NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes �6 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? 14 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? 7ttt❑" Yes Oo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes DjrNo ❑ NA
❑ Excessive Pending ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
Oyes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
�1
L
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes 02<o
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ WUP []Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. es record keeping need improvement? 4­­ ' Gh- riefe be bebw. k Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Applicati [Weekly Freeboard Waste Anal ❑/Soil Analysis Weather Code
Rainfall Stocking [:]Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections [�]1Nonthly and I" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes4No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes R<O ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - ,I Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey []Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
I
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately. I''
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes jNo
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yeso ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use dra ings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
e8e.&Aiov\- oh t° Mow; 651
doll ffLR0tX solult-S? aotl
a Ca,.a Ott 8-L I o l2
tvuP revlseo ? No+ e+- See lU a°l
dzoV Y We l l !e e- uDor-l--
a{ C:�" 0. w�-4- 3`$llad Sow �9 ra
q ! { $ ao d
ta
,Q,1nt,C p 4
aop�
> 6113/1� a ^^Q
Reviewer/Inspector Name: L` Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 3 of 3 214/1011
h

Type of Visit: P Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Q(Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: F /o l Arrival Time: 1, :� ,� Departure Time: County: �� ftgion: Q5
r (�(}
Farm Name: liT�e�f oA f in Owner Email:
Owner Name: a i a L'o a 1 ` SPX' Phone: 1—) % 1 3 — 19 a / 8 fad
Mailing Address: 1p 3b ffo-a Le- FaI15 N L a 7(7as
Physical Address: nnlO a;L
Facility Contact: n f`D.A� t�C� r f q 4) Title: Phone: 11
Onsite Representative: R ro— Integrator: CJ� I(O l I Y� Q Pr i d e
Certified Operator: V/ Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 6 (o Longitude: -7 "1 N 9 03
• ♦ i s aIL n nr a e �d4
p
�� � 4< '��.�
I 1 J � I I
I �
,rly�lly ly l••l I I f � � �� > iS
Mao
I � I I
i,
;I r III >
{�
y�fi
3.�
t I' i
■
• • .. •.
--
■
• �.
--
:.,
rs>.
�®��
�
����
sib
�
• .���
.
i.l r i.3: Ft�#r. �bK„�
rI311
�' 1�'t�
,�■�--
i
i� # k � � t d
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
[N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [� No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Pagel of 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - • Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: a°
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
[)(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
[(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
X 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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
06 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Pending ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
t No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? rae,k 7
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required
Records & Documents
19.
Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? x-below— ❑ Yes No
❑Waste Application ❑Weekly Freeboard El Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Tr nsfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: 0 Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applfCdtion equipment as required by the permit?
Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
�] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
/❑� Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments. ;
Use drawines of facility to better explain situations fuse additional Daees as necessarv).
S aUIbN doll S_ ucigeo i Jo la�roorl ?,2olU-ol�.
C(�3-ems
Cr(i b °5n/ �o f .a° ( of i+e,it� be . add
Zotaj`�O� P
? cJa5 e_ �e rn bettl r -tjs Q
Ali �eldS }n wuP �
a 010 5011 +e5f re57u J S . C 00-t-d OVtl , c to e .
PA
_J"
(((M A, /l %r I. �1�}a Q� c1�91�v-� % �/ �o �►2 l2r
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
f
Phone: d 0
Date: 1,3
11
21412011

Type of Visit I� Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit l/Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: ®2 County: 9606WA IM Region:
Farm Name: r4L11f= E2 115 H63 EQr IM Owner Email:
Owner Name: �LAAJk 0.I IL -K Phone: & 1 6 l 3 - l9 a/ B t-4¢
Mailing Address: (03 b E0.A le FL1ll5 2d - ,aj iSO Y) � N c. a -7 o a5-
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Represents
Certified Operator:
V
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
L ee
R-a h-e s+�Lo
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: E�Do ®{_ Longitude: ®o®,
U S 14-w I 191 E., US
N-w Y& 19 N/ U S a.zo N o NO--
hLu-3 y 70Y tSa
Le P+ onto (ro uAer
RA, +u rnS i k+a C c
le FeL l �5
on
n
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
10 Laver 1
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer I
❑ Dairy Calf
I I-
Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Non -Layers
El Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turke s
Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes > No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 2SJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ,�N\ o ❑ NA ❑ NE
s
Page / of 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: % — ( Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: P n- eo
Spillway?: t' S
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): !� �I-
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 XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes []No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes XNo [INA ❑ 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 XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ YesNo ❑ 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 El Evidence of Wind Driftl ElApplication Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) _ f&,t SMgjA pt jbt i h ( �ye 1
13. Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes \T�fNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes No
[I NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes %No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
.. £r,an t C .�.6 ( o saoribl,$1 i
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any, YES answers and/or any recotnmendahonstor#any other's%omm. ....... " „t£
t
Use drawings of facility,to:better explain situations. (use additional; ages as necessary).. = ` Tds '
f'1Dlr.J /IAK���Jt'(Gnu^��J/�,s'e���-iz�
— CSMt, !pt{f(Dc✓
Reviewer/Inspector NameF('t Phone: 0��
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Ilk Date: Q
Page 2 of 3 V 12129104 Continued

Facility Number: — of Inspection ((Z •
Required Records & Documents �M
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? *es No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check //////�❑Yes 3<No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other PM
21. Does record keeping needy improvement? 9Yes No El NA ❑ NE
63 Waste Application weekly Freeboard aste Analysis Soil Analysis-e'Waste Transfers
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield 20 Minute Inspections onthly and V Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? Yes ❑ No El NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ,❑`Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ")B�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? XYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by ❑ Yes )UCNo ❑ 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 KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes k<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
�Jmle� huh Sts:
-r, oV/0 0 - 9
Page 3 of 3 12128104

��oF wArE�oc Incident Report
>_ y o Report Number: 201001682 N D • / 01,010 H, - 05g 3
Incident Type: Non -Compliance Reporting
On -Site Contact:
Category: APS -Animal
First/Mid/Last Name:
IncldentStarted, 02/08/2010
Company Name:
County: Rockingham
Phone:
City: Madison
Pager/Mobile Phone: /
Farm #: 079-0001
Responsible Party:
Reported By:
Owner:
First/Mid/Last Name:
Per_,-�--'AWS790001
Company Name:
Facility: Eagle Falls Hog Farm
Address:
First Name: David
Middle Name:
City/State/Zip:
Last Name: Walker
Phone:
Address 630 Eagle Fall Rd
Pager/Mobile Phone: /
City/State/Zip: Madison NC 27025
Phone:
Material Category: Estimated City: UOM
Chemical Name Reportable City. lbs. Reportable City. kgs.
DD:MM:SS Decimal
Position Method:
Latitude:
Position Accuracy:
Longitude:
Position Datum:
Location of Incident: Eagle Falls Road
Address:
City/State/Zip
Report Created 05/14/10 01:26 PM Page I

0
Cause/Observatlon:
Action Taken:
Incident Questions:
Did the Material reach the Surface Water? Unknown
Surface Water Name?
Did the Spill result in a Fish Kill? Unknown
If the Spill was from a storage tank indicate type.
Containment? Unknown
Cleanup Complete? Unknown
Directions:
Comments:
Conveyance:
Estimated Number of fish?
(Above Ground or Under Ground)
Water Supply Wells within 1500ft: Unknown Groundwater Impacted : Unknown
Access to Farm Animal Population Spray Availability
Structure Questions
Report Created 05/14/10 01:26 PM Page 2

•
•
Access to Farm
Farm accessible from the main road?
Animal Population
Confined?
Depop?
Feed Available?
Mortality?
Spray Availability
Pumping equipment?
Available Fields?
Structure Questions
Breached?
Inundated?
Overtopped?
Water on outside wall?
Poor dike conditions?
Waste Structure Type Waste Structure Identl Inches
Lagoon LOWER 14.00
Plan Due Date
Event Type Event Date Due Date
Incident closed
Requested Additional Information
Report Received
Referred to Regional Office - Primary Contact
Report Entered 2010-05-13 12:55:55
Incident Start 2010-02-08 08:00:00
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Plan Recieved Date Level OK Date
Comment
Report Created 05/14/10 01:26 PM Page 3

0
Standard Agencies Notified:
Agency Name Phone First Name M.I. Last Name Contact Date
Other Agencies Notified:
Agency Name Phone First Name M.I. Last Name Contact Date
DWO Information
Report Taken By: Report Entered By: Regional Contact:
Melissa Rosebrock
Phone: _
Date/Time: 2010-05-13 12:55:55 PM
Referred Via:
Did DWO request an additional written report?
If yes, What additional Information is needed?
Report Created 05/14/10 01:26 PM Page 4

V
Division of Water Quality
Facility Number 1 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
t em
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit X Routine 0 Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: a Arrival Time: EaFs� Departure Time: pt County: PzciLiRegion: C1 S2--6
Farm Name: — 4e L� - I � �0 �O'wwnner Email: � ! (p � 3 1
Owner Name:. U'1A ,1\I<� 1 Phone: C to 1 �
Mailing Address I !� 3 0 (� le. Fa 115 1 ISon �1 Oa S-
Physical Address: (D .1a
Facility Contact: Nt cxa 'v Title:
Onsite Representative: i✓r0.d
Certified Operator. f
Back-up Operator. ee. t_ -e Sr 4
Location of Farm:
US t >r Iss tr , US
(tee? f+ On+o Crotk AeV'
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Other
❑ Other
i7 . fur. 077 o
0�216/
Phone No:
Integrator:-4TI-,5- L �H 11__
Operator Certification Number: Need (0 flrS,
Back-up Certification Number: b t 3 1161
®o � o
Latitude:
wy 6s AJ ) uSaaaN.
(Lo" t turns 'Inio
Longitude:
rve ,y a esa ,
L a� le Fct (IS r2d� Far n�
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Laver
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: FE
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 piNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
0
El NA
El NE
❑ Yes
[,I No
El Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
)( No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection J_i •
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: r r eC0 aq
Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
������...////(J,,
No El NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
/`
'`
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
KNo ❑ 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?
0 Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No ElNA [INE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
*o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
El Yes
,
Lkl No [I NA El NE
El Excessive Pending El Hydraulic Overload El Frozen Ground El Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
T'
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drill ❑ Application Outside of Area
_
12. Crop type(s) ��Efb.� �% /d/) �lw,� ,(�,/�4W
13. Soil type(s)
�n
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? N Yes
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
Cl NE
[RI No
❑ NA
❑ NE
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
VNo ❑ 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
LMIA
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — *of Inspection a , •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 0 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 El Other
21.
DD.o�,eess,record keeping need improvement? % ❑ Yes
�ste
❑ No
A.
❑ NA
❑ NE
�..,,(..J,, %%Waste Application 2"Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis 2 oil An lysis
❑ Zthly
Transfers
-� ­.-I�^^•'--
Ok' ainfall L Stocking ❑ Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections L and I" Rain
Inspections
❑
Weather
Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑l No
)j�NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit'?
❑ Yes
No
0
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
10 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
*o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CA WMP?
Yes
I u
*o
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
El Yes
�[
' 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
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
['No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
?.. �. \ - t 4 ea 4g� 1 1` 4 it S. 4
Addttional,Cgmments.and/or;Draw�ngs ;q St wt ;,. #7a"'c: sa , ,1<#`.al ^s+.,i)['tt''
as Sludge sUr�� o� aoo871 c "Co
eaoo?
? ctett
0� o2C08 �Al� �esf 1 eSu1�S? ,(� -
:�,-�r3��- n dZ,/ P loo PION 7S P
LOU
(2
Page 3 of 3 V
12128104

Division of Water Qualitw
Facility Number , •Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation 1 o2A rh
0 Other Agency f
Type of Visit (I Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 70 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 2 a Arrival Time: Departure Time: = County: y dMRegion: �� N�+
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: 0. e l
n 1 (�' - 1 Phone:
Mailing Address:� �. �( ) �L �fA� I� K!�Ir &Ajl zSon N -
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
OnsiteRepresentative: f� {�cr
17P.sdiraA,1 Integrator: fn
Certified Operator: r n4rd W Operator Certification Number: Amal
I
Back-up Operator: L.0 _ l«a_,o Sif_QAA) Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ®oI a®.11 Longitude: ®o®. [n"
LIS 4 ty I sB£, us 6„y b$N f us 220N 1 1',x t,wy lcw/
urr)5 �n+o Fein IP Rn I IS I?A Fox nn lo-r —
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feede
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: M
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
0
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ o
❑ Yes N
❑ Yes JNo
12128104
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Continued

Facility Number:, . Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes XO
❑ 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: ar
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): L
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
�0 No ❑ NA El NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
d'
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
qNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
jNo ❑ 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 ElNA ElNE
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 Drill ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) K\4 4e,
13. Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
0 No
[INA
ElNE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[-] Yes
$No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
rNo
El NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
'1. Jt?fleAth lion on axle erman4A+�, -�U - -LA
`1 a `f r� rG-cEin Qtrla i oo1�S4xkter Y S omee Gros
o
suaey
Reviewer/Inspector Name br Phone: —5
Reviewer/Inspector Signature Date: I eq'
io
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — ate of Inspection e7o� •
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 CA WMP readily available? If yes, check ❑yes �:;o/L[E]
A ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Doe ecord keeping needovement? If yes, chec the appropriate box blow./Waste
❑Yes N ❑ NE
aste Applicat�We/y/ply Freeboard aste Analysis L—�"S/oil alysisTransfers
Rainfall Stocking Ltd Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections onthly and I" Rain Inspections Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? bUe I ❑ Yes
�lLi4111 �G•{.O$
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? p U Q}J ❑Yes
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
0 aoo7 So'lI to6+resu14s; KO-rc-n 31 — no
� `SET
p
f ri n'layj 5lud3e re6u RS fior D001 ?tJSe.C�l'13& q
urVel tovgke.ted for &.I'Id a007
U e_ Q0 0.1 r) 64 ' 0?oc s
jlq/69' w(Zsfe� N/ 1006
�I No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑L No
[XNA
❑ NE
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
A No
❑ NA
El NE
`❑ No
N NA
❑ NE
No
❑ NA
ElNE
No
El
❑ NE
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
ICI No
❑ NA
❑ NE
ANo
El NA
El NE
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
SIud9C'
12128104

IFacility Number I "'_ 1 Q
Type of Visit ,,,,Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit i Routine 0 Complaint
Damon of Water QualitA
Division of Soil and Water
Other Agency
Igom
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: i'J- / S f/ p /I Arrival Time: T� V I Departure Time: t IT-J County: �J W bCthyegion:
Farm Name: TF 7aiie En -its Ho Famrm OwnerEil:
Owner Name: 1)Q V 1 I ��P� Phone: ��� S i el
s o ��y- �
t (� E� fie- 5 C.r11 i a Iv
MailiwWlss:
Physical Address:
(PxoL bails (�d., Nodi!Gnln, N(_ !Jaoas
Facility Contact: z I QLIJ w Vn 7i H—Q Wfitle:
Onsite Representative:
/]�� R,nQ_4e:5*rg`L:�
Certified Operator: f' r" IZF.\L'�Q S'I l�l
Back-up Operator: Lee— �t`�eS+f-a-LU
Location of Farm:
u5 4W y IS"
Leff- on4o
Swine
Other
❑ Other
`frt 7OZ
Phone NoAM14
Integrator: ea i Q
Operator Certification Number: �10
Back-up Certification Number: R V �nt3
Latitude: �e IP �y�2 Longitude: Eo
t) v s 4W S us L44w y aa0 N I N C
Crowder 12iy horns info Eo4 le roaL5 ".) I
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
. _ ❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
a
4 -7N �e
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dai Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
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
[I Yes
}0
M No
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued /

Facility Number: — D • Date of Inspection IJ/3
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
>/
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: �r�MseroviJary
Spillway?: f
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):_
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes *No ❑ NA ElNE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
)� Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
�(
❑ Yes p(J No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
ft
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes L1p No El NA El NE
maintenance/improvement? �No
/�11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ElYes ❑ NA ElNE
ElExcessive Ponding ElHydraulic Overload ElFrozen Ground ElHeavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Accepta* Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drill ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determinatio �❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
a► aooc� Soil +eSt resuits7 aooZ % 0240(
1g Pre55w,� aau�e' on Bun ? (2ws,,aoo&) yet- e-P� . dLC0i
Obeds curl �+-o l Its ? I4&A>e • q4
Reviewer/Inspector Name
(0 Phone: % 7 I' I
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu�ijlll
I I i JW gm 0 P 4 ar k Date:
12/2�8/04 Continued

Facility Number: � — Q 4te of Inspection IS% •
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 appropirate box. ❑ WDp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Doe record keeping need im ovement? teztpprvpriate b ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
ste Applica[i n Weekly Freeboard ,Waste Analysis Soil An ysis Waste Transfers On
Rainfall Stocking 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and V Rain Inspections PoWeatherCode
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? I ❑ Yes
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? Oe+• t 07 ❑ Yes
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? bue- Oct .IQ(o + [ Yes
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? d CA- `0_7 ❑ Yes
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
❑ Yes
XNo
❑NA
❑ NE
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑No
El NA
El NE
L1Q No
/❑
❑ NA
El NE
No
NNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
lAdditional Comments and/or Drawings: ;j,)5 - 1rh 1 AIJU_j� tti 1 A A/..t a trM _ Le469 . 0006 e,
M
9
Ol��tu�p
SecAnda� t• 10.100o Sjvjje SurtlP��
lei ed o '66AN\ Cprl ma�t- 1 4, secov,,a.e- d
W_ fig- anQlv�slS
dolb� - L LI 16S
0�
1
leeh to be.
�pl► c' adlons
.Q 16. .
'0 600,+ S.l�
A
! Q Qa� Ga /itYt/up
12128104

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 790001 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS790001 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comnlgance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Rockingham Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 09/08/2006 Entry Time: 01710 PM Exit Time: 02,30 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Eagle Falls Hoo Farm Owner Email:
Owner: David Walker Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 630 Eagle Fan Rd _ Madison NC 27025
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
_7�
Latitude:36°25'22" Longitude:79°49'03"
From WSRO: US Hwy 158 east to US Hwy 68 north, to US Hwy 220 north. Take NC Hwy 704 east. Left onto Crowder Road (tuns into
Eagle Falls Road) Farm on left.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Brad G Rakestraw
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 20431
On -Site Representadve(s): Name
Tide Phone
On -site reprepentative Brad Rakestraw
Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Brad Rakestraw
Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melissa Rosebrock
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
7. Need to control broadleaf weeds so grass can fill in on the dam.
18. Still need pressure gauge on the irrigation gun.
21. Don't forget to obtain 2006 soil test results.
DWO to send irrigation specs to Brad for calibration. DWO to send copy of COC, also.
8/1106 waste analysis=1.4 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Page:1

Permit: AWS790001 Owner- Facility: David Walker Facility Number: 790001
Inspection Date: 09/08/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
O Swine -Feeder to Finish 1,800 1,640 .
Total Design Capacity: 1,800
• TotalSSLW: 243,000
Waste Structures
type
Identifier
Closed Date start Date Designed Freeboard
Observed Freeboard
agoon
PRIMARY
12.00
agoon
SECONDARY
24.00
72.00
Page: 2

Penult: AWS790001 Owner -Facility: David Walker
Inspection Date: 09/08/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 790001
Reason for VAslt: Routine
Discharges B Stream Impacts
Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0011
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
01111
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
0110
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑
■
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
■
❑
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does anipart of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
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: AWS790001 Owner- Facility: David Walker
Facility Number:
790001
Inspection Date: 09/OM006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No
NA
NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 Ibs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Sorghum,
Sudex
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Other
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
'
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ ■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ■ ❑
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■
❑
❑
16. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
■ Cl
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yea No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
■ ❑
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page:4

Permit: AWS790001 Owner - Facility: David Walker Facility Number:
790001
Inspection Data: 09/08/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after> 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑
■
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
■
❑
_Other Issues
Yea
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
110
❑
❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
❑
■
❑
❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AWS790001 Owner - Facility: David Walker
Inspection Data: 09/08/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Other Issues
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 790001
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

jType of Visit otCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
for Visit (jRoutine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: -1tf�� f 0 Arrival Time: ,�L � ` � Departure Time: � 0 ounty/•: el Region: ULr0
Farm Name: - F &&P- `Q-\ S F6 Fa—�Ownner Em�f J 3--A (p . 3-ri8 , is—;? a
Owner Name: iJiit-1/ lea\l4etr Phone: 33(a 1,S34,
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representa Q l
Certified Operator: ., A ^/n�0—KyeS�r-1-7
Back-up Operator: 1,e-e-
Location of Farm:
L fLe t{ 21- 3
//Phone No: (r'
Integrator: l0 tS — K L.5 2
Operator Certification Number: a 0 / 3
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: 3i0 ° ®— Longitude: ®° ®• ®••
U6 H4-0�
u5
i (n$ N L"5 (mil a4O N I !vG i4wy 70 E.
•
te-4 onto Crot,Xle-k-
W • (urns i n+o
le- Fa115 PI ) fa.rn1 on [e F�
.
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Population Wet Poultry
Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La er
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
I IS6011
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
I
IUry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ La ers
❑ Farrow to Finish
El Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑Non -La ers
El Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other ❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
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)?
0
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
[I NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
o
[]NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — •e of Inspection I "1 IIS /O(DI • (,
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 appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design [I Maps ❑Other
21. Doe record keeping need im vement? 4£�}esrelaee�te bczd�F6w. ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
to Appli n Week y Freeboard }Vaste Analysis 1]—d'S/oil Analysis [�'tl7tiS[2"7t2nafers[ `�
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield—Ly'I/20 Minute Inspections Iy—'[v/Ionthly and I" Rain Inspections Weather Code
❑ NA ❑ NE
0 Yes E, No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
22.
Did the facility fail to install and m ina rain gauge?
❑ Yes
o
KIN,
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
El Yes
o
t5(NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? I
tko
❑ NA
NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? dONO
�*#,f- 1 I aoob
El Yes
YesgNo
No
❑ NA
El NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? �
El Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ NE
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?
Comments and/or
a� ao05_.4 a004p So►j +e5+ ?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
it No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Facility Number: — 0 1 Date of Inspection I� / •
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
El NA ❑NE
3� Structure I Structure 2 � Structure 3 Structure 4
a Identifier: Qr� SaCO
Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Desi
ed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): ca—
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes ICI 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 XNo ❑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
envi mental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
ElYes ElNA [INE
*No
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes I No [I NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? / `
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes p�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding El Hydraulic Overload El Frozen Ground El 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.
13.
Crop type(s) G pi f LP
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 opgrate Per the irriggattioonn -design—or wettable acre determinaiion ?
yes
❑ No
[INA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage o n aplilicauon?
❑Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
§(Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
�r,SSUre=
nA16
toUle ®h irri�a`hon tjun 7
NO
�-4-�
'
Reviewer/Inspector N e 'r
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Phone: M
Sol?
Date:OG
Page 2 of 3 1
' l ' V 12128104 ' Continued

❑ Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 790001 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS790001 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Rockinaham Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 02/24/2005 Entry Time: 12:00 PM Exit Time: 01:30 PM
Farm Name: ogle Falls Hoa Farm Owner Email:
Owner: David Walker
Mailing Address: 630 Fame Fall Rd Madison NC 27025
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Phone: [phone]
Latitude: 36.42 Longitude: -79.82
From WSRO: US Hwy 158 east to US Hwy 68 north, to US Hwy 220 north. Take NC Hwy 704 east. Left onto Crowder Road (tuns
into Eagle Falls Road) Farm on left.
Question Areas:
Q Discharges & Stream Impacts 0 Waste Collection & Treatment 0 Waste Application
0 Records and Documents 0 Other Issues
Certified Operator: Brad G Rakestraw Operator Certification Number: 20431
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Brad Rakestraw Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Brad Rakestraw Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Mary M Rosebrock Phone:[phone]
Ext.383
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
7. Continue efforts to control vegetation and ground hogs.
18. Will need to obtain pressure gauge for the gun.
19. DWQ to send operator another copy of their COC.
21. 2004 soil test results are ok but are dated 2/10/05. Need to obtain 2005 samples.
21. Discussed new permit requirements with operator.
1/5/05 Waste analysis: N=0.75 lbs. N/1000 gal.
DWQ to send copy of irrigation calibration and sludge survey method.
Page: 1

•
•
Permit: AWS790001 Owner -Facility: David Walker
Inspection Date: 02/24/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Regulated Operations
Facility Number: 790001
Reason for Visit: Routine
Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 1,800 493
Total Design Capacity: 1,800
TotalSSLW: 243,000
Page: 2

Permit: AWS790001 Owner-Faclllty: David Walker
Facility Number: 790001
Inspection Date: 02/24/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
Num Desc
Close Dt Start Dt Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
PRIMARY Lagoon 6.00
SECONDAR Lagoon 24.00 38.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWS790001 Owner -Facility: David Walker Facility Number: 790001
Inspection Date: 02/24/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Dicchames & Stream Impacts yem No NA NF
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
0
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
M
❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
0
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M
❑
❑
3. Were there any adverse Impacts or potential adverse Impacts to Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑
Vas
0
No
❑
NA
❑
NF
Waste Collection. Storage & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe erosion,
❑
0
❑
❑
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑
0
❑
❑
closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks
❑
❑
❑
and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part o1 the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
M
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application,
yam
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or improvement?
❑
s
❑
❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
0
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Pending?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/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
Sorghum, Sudex
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Other
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Page: 4

Permit: AWS790001 Owner -Facility: David Walker
Facility Number: 790001
Inspection Date: 02/24/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Annliration Yes No NA NE
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan(CAWMP)?
EIN
❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need Improvement?
❑
E
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the Irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
0
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
E
No
❑
NA
❑
NF
R cords and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
E ❑
❑
❑
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
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
E
Weather code?
0
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 Inch rainfall & monthly?
0
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fall to install and maintain a min gauge?
❑
N
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to Install and maintain a minbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑
0
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
. ❑
0
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fall to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
0
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWS790001 Owner -Facility: David Walker
Facility. Number: 790001
Inspection Date: 02/24/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Other Issues
28, Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
Vee
❑
No
0
NA NE
❑ ❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those mortality
❑
M
❑ ❑
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 DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

Type of Visit tX compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit X Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Dale of Visit: ITS Arrival Time: Departure Time: ®County: f-(Je--- -1 n �GtDI Region:
Farm Name: (P FL1I k ' Farm Owner Email:
Owner Name: CLV1ed WOL I K6 Phone: r
(030 E a GQJLS 2d • Y1/la � so hi t'yG a 7oa��° 3y � ' �Sa�
Mailing Address: r i i
Physical Address: lit y'oown— nopo5a 1
Facility Contact: broA K-&-eArdtj — Title: Phone No: A_3Q
Onsite Representative: ��2`.�1ra.11.� Integrator: 5
ertifiedOperator: —oze l Leep P&Ae5" to f Sf: Operator Certification Number: A L/ 3
ack-up Operator: V 1 Iv 0 e 5 V r—Q o Back-up Certification Number: a0q ✓I
Location of Farm: Latitude: ® e EET EA21 Longitude:
�US y IS seas U,5 Nwy &p nor US Hwy aa-0 nor j_-0
1°l�wy -7oq ,eAdf,;, (.eR u116 Crowder Q� C`wr+\5 into e Fa Us
Swine
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
E]Dairy
Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
E]Dry
Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
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
0
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes )� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

-Facility Number: — Q * Date of Inspection I�/atY//lei •
Waste Collection & Treatment ���777�1TT�
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure
Identifier: Qrt�
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Structure 3 Structure 4
❑ Yes tANo
❑ Yes A No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA El NE
Structure 6
Observed Freeboard (in): l 1Z 7S
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
ElNA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
% No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
[-INA
ElNE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
[IYes
No
❑ NA
[I 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
yyy���
t�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 IjVo El NA [I NE
❑ Excessive Ponding El Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.) (`
[]PAN ❑ PAN > l0% 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) v
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes *No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes t�vo
[I NA
El NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination'Yes ) "No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes XNo
[INA
ElNE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
1•
0
o �-
6V
0 PS`�
Reviewer/InspectorName ('� .� _ ".�, ;�'' Phone: % � �—
Reviewer/Inspector Signature i ��� Date: a4/0
T ° 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 1 — Q Dief Inspection IaLl.l41 G61 •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? 7.1 Yes ❑l N�o�lrp�❑�, NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check Z Yes 18IQo LI NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other i c'
21. Does record keeping need im vement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ ste Applic on Wee y Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
Rainfall Stocking Croup Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and V Rain Inspections laCweather Code
r !W
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?
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
❑ No
*A
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
I No
El NA
❑ NE
El Yes
/ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
(� No
❑ NA
❑ NF
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
1 aooy �!� o � � ��" ��® a��°%s• � `� oar°-�.r� ate„
COCA
al �+a ade�gtie�t� �k� OJ
P
$'l3ROJ — 12128104

(Technical Assistance Site Visit
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number 79 Date: 6/2/04 Time: 10:45 Time On Farm: 75 WSRO
Farm Name Eagle Falls Hog Farm County Rockingham Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 630 Eagle Fall Road Madison NC 27025
Onsite
Representative Brad Rakestraw Integrator Icarolina Swine
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operat
❑ Operating below
IN Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
Design Current
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
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands?
❑ yes Ono
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 Ono
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
❑ yes Ono
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment
❑ yes Ono
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure?
❑ yes Ono
Structural Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Identifier Primary Secondary
Level (Inches) 12 62
CROP TYPES lCom, Grain lWheat Fescue -graze ISudan Grass Graze
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES Cc
McB2
WhB
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section) .
03/10/03

Facility Number 79 - 1 Date:
6/2/04
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste .spill contained on site
10. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
El
El
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
Cl
❑
29. Missing Components (list In comments)
❑
❑
[114. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
[115. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30.2H.0200 re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
N 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
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
[124. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker checkicalibration
❑
❑
Regulatory 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 certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
2,
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer Improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
El
❑
5'
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6.
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 79 - 0 Date: 6/2/04
JVaste analysis: 11-10-03 AES 0.45 Ibs.N/1000 gals. I
Last soil analysis dated 4-29-03 looked good.
# 18. Mr. Rakestraw had a couple of applications in March that were slightly over the 60 day window on
e waste analysis. Mr. Rakestraw has sent in a waste analysis for the April and May applications.
Continue efforts to control the vegetation on the lagoon embankments and around the hog houses.
Contact the technical specialist for the insect and odor control checklists.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 6/4/04
Entered By: IRocky Durham
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
I Facility Number 79 1 lime of Visit: 1/23/2004 'Time: 1000
0 Not Operational o Below Threshold
Permitted ■ Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified 13 Registered p:ttc Last Oper:rted or Abovc'I'hreshold: .............
Farm Nattte: 1 ag1e.F.Wls.FAag.F.arm........................................................... County: RQgkjngbaM ........................... Y. MQ......
Owner Name: Acrid-.-.-•---•-•--__--- Ralkrr__.-.-•-•---•-•-•-•-.---•---- Phone No: (331t) 548=15221u[346.392 GS36 .---.-._..
Mailing Andress: 63O.EAg1C..F.til1.RQad........................................................................... Madihau...NC.......................................................... Z7.02S...............
Facility Contact: BrAA RakestraW................................Title:............................................... Phone No: 33b.427.,37bb/ .42.7.1.61...
Onsite Representative: 8fAd-RakfSh'asY.................................._. Integrator:OlS.--------_._._._.-._.-.-.-.-.-._.-•--_-.
Certified Operator:RUSSRI.I.Lte.......................... RakcstrAwAr................................. Operator Certification Number: 20.432.............................
Location of Farm:
?rom WSRO: US Hwy 158 east to US Hwy 68 north, to US Hwy 220 north. Take NC Hwy 704 east. Left onto Crowder Road
tuns Into Eagle Falls Road) Farm on left.
® Swine [3 Poultry [3 Cattle [3 Horse Latitude 36 • 25 22 „ Longitude 79 • 49 03
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated Flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:.......Piimary........ ...... S=udar ..... .......................... .......................................................
Freeboard (inches): 8 70
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 79—t • D:rtc of Inspection 1/23/2004 •
�i
5.
Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
® No
seepage, etc.)
6.
Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑ Yes
®No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
8.
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes
® No
elevation markings?
Waste Annlication
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12.
Crop type Rye Fescue (Graze)
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
®No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
®No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ® No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes ® No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Comments (refer to ue lion # : Explain any Y ans e s and/or any recommendations a.r an. other comments.
Use drawings of facll to better explain situations. us additional pages as necessary : ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
7. Suggest filling in the low spot between the upper and lower lagoons. Looks like the area has settled due to machinery traffic.
1. Operator needs a copy of the newest COC and permit to keep with his files. Brad is to obtain permit online and COC from
Rockingham S W CD.
22. Need to pull the checklists and emergency action plan from the old waste plan and keep with the new waste plan. Checklists and
emergency action plan were not onsite today.
3. Recordkeeping looks real good.
11/10/03 waste analysis = 0.45 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melissa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu jug Date: ) 'y
12112103 r v Continued

I
Facility Number: 79-1 1) A Inspection 1/23/2004 •
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ W UP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form []Rainfall ❑ Inspection After V Rain
® Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
'diiional[Comments and%o7t)rawin---
12112103
12112103

n
IType of Visit T Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit (v Routine O Complaint Q Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Facility Number
Permitted 0 Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered
Farm Name:
Owner Name:
Mailing Addri
Facility Coats
Onsite Repres
Certified Operator: I`—V 'T]F
Location of Farm: T-0.1
4wv 2 26 nor+l) -Fr
Time:
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
County: L L
Phone No: 2. 2-Or .342-a
i sagTby C- a 7 pa, A_ 6s36
Phone No: ';t.A %, ti 2 % • 3 i 5f
Integrator: Q�!rz.Lr'CIt n;3'4Z' 716
Operator Certification Number:
ib�t,
on
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude I—+>Rta ®. =1' Longitude �' FTT, 231'•
Design Current I Design Current Design .Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultr Capacity Population Cattle Ca aci Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ La er El
Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -La cr I ❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish ?
Total Design Capacity zoo
❑Gilts
(c iM Total SSLW 0
❑ Boars '.
Number of Lagoons ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Arealoll
Discharees & Stream Facts
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? (It'yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated Bow 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? I.. Y"Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 _11 Structure 3 TTT Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: r Q,r SGC,0oao-fir
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes$No
❑ Yes X] o
Structure 6 T��
Continued
L. U
�L

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection I 1 / •
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below [}yM—Ea1qpr
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes M 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 �kNo
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fans) 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
05103101

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection I I i aO
5.
Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
El Yes
���///
I.)Q No
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
❑ Yes
��....,,
Po
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
1 No
8.
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
I%Rl`No
9.
Do anv stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? -
❑ Yes
No
Waste Aonlication
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenanceiimprovement?
❑ Yes
. 11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Printing El PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
No
12.
Crop type
13.
Do the receiving crold differ wA those designated in a Certted Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ YesjNo
o
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
El Yeso
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yeso
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
A No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
X 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, freeb�// oard, waste analysis & s ib 1 Sample reports)
Yes
,hNo
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
Cl 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
XNo
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
XNo
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit. .
i .e w isuo--ten .a..w srv'r rr�r rwrsw+ ¢r e-xivk t.,,, u,
Comments (refer to qti shon Ezplain anywYFS answers.and/or any mommendations or any other comments' A t'� a r p j
Use drawings of faciLty to better ezplam sttnatons (use addrtionai pages as necessary) , t
Final Notes
alb- �
Reviewer/Inspector Name :` ! „ u rf .r b 'It1t
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ,t I,t, in . 61 Date: I /-I ;ii /AIL
n4/n?/nr
Atj10/0� 0,1-15 Ib5 N�lGhh

Assistance Site Visit
of Soil and Water Conservatiorlll
Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number 79 - Date: 10I8I03 Time: 11:07 Time On Farm: = WSRO
Farm Name Eaole Falls Hoa Farm
County Rockingham Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address 630 Eagle Fall Road Madison NC
Onsite
Representative Brad Rakestraw Integrator
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
No An
❑ Operating below
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
Design Current
Caoacitv Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
laoo
o
Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
Response to complaint/local referral
Requested by producer/integrator
Follow-up
Emergency
Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
Iff Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
27025
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
27025
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
❑ Other
27025
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
Structural Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Identifier I Primary Secondary—�
Level (inches) 1 13 46
CROP TYPES ICom, Wheat Fescue -graze udan Grass Graze 10rchard Grass raze
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES Co MCB2 WhB Cw
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 79 1 Date:
10/8/03
PARAMETER
pp No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
El 10. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
® 13. Waste
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
structure needs maintenance
❑
❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
[114. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30. 2H.0200 recertification
[116. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
[118. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
[120. Late/missing soils analysis
[121. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
D 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
❑
❑
❑ 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 3-04-03 to add crop
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
rotations and fields.
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. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 79 - 0 Date: 10I8I03
COMMENTS:
Waste analysis: 4-30-03 ALS 3.1 Ibs.N/1000 gals. I, 1-15-03 ALS 1.5 Ibs.N/1000 gals. I
Soil analysis dated 4-29-03
The facility has been without hogs since the last week of May. The facility should be getting hogs next week.
The curtains and feeders were being replaced today.
# 13. Continue efforts to control weeds and groundhogs on the lagoon embankments. Looks better this year.
Records looked good.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 10/10/03
Entered By: lRocky Durham
03/10/03

siou,of Water Quality 'T ' "' • "" + +
tsionoGSoilandlWaterConservation+
in
,
OOther Agency a
A
(Type of Visit O• Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit O• Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 79 Date of Visit: 5/20/20 Time: 1210
O Not —Operational O Below Threshold
®Permitted ®Certified 13Conditionally Certified [3Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ................. .......
Farm Name: l agle.kallS.Fd.Qg.kaXnx............................................................................... County: RQ.&IjIgbatu ................................... WS.RQ........
Owner Name: R,ayid...................................... wAlkcr ....................................................... Phone No:(3d.G).S.A$.:x.S2.2..RK.3J.k,3.92.6.53.G.....................
MailingAddress: b3.Q..Eagle.Yalls.[i0.ad........................................................................ M.adjun..l`.I.Q......................................................... 27M ..............
Facility Contact: Bcnd.)iakOstraw...........................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: 33.6A21,32$8 .......................
Ousite Representative: Rr.8d.RWW.5.(K,a3.Y.......................................... g .............................. Integrator: iwuadY..s............ ......................... ................
................
Certified Operator:Ruscl..lace........................... HAkestr..aty.Jr................................ Operator Certification Number:2.Q.4.32 .............................
Location of Farm:
zrom WSRO: US Hwy 158 east to US Hwy 68 north, to US Hwy 220 north. Take NC Hwy 704 east. Left onto Crowder Road
tuns into Eagle Falls Road) Farm on left.
® Swine [I Poultry [I Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • 25 22 Longitude 79 • 49 03 ..
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Po tulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
® Feeder to Finish 1800
❑ Non -Layer
10 Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity '
1,800
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
243,000
I Number of Lagoons 2 1❑ Subsurface Drains Present JLJ Lagoon Area I❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps, ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection &'treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:.........P.riamy.................Secondary................................................................................................................. .......
Freeboard (inches): 8 45 _
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes []No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Stmcture 6
05/03/01 _1f �-1—e � �.Gonrinued

Facility Ntimber: 79-1 Date of Inspection 5/20/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the in rity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ treesoevere 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 M No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
9. Do any smctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes M No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes M No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes N No
12. Crop type Annual Ryegrass(graze) Fescue (Graze) Johnsongrass(graze)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes M No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes M No
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 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 M No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes M No
0-No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
C'ommentsl(refer to question #): Explain any YES answers' and/or airy recommendation`s or any other comments.,
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary): ❑Field Copy M Ftna] Notes
7. Brush on dams has been killed with herbicide. Brush to be burnt and then dam seeded with fescue and rye. Looks much better so far.
Continue to control groundhogs and repair burrow holes.
15. Tracts 935 and 936 need lime per soil analysis results.
19. Operator to still take 2002 soil samples.
25. Application windows are being revised by Rockingham SWCD currently.
Lagoon waste analysis: 3/6/02 = 2.5 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melissa Rosebrock '
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 79-1 D01Inspection 5/20/2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a pemranendtemporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
rtonamments'an ors rawngs.JlIIi!I :` "� .. ,1 .;..�d hu n. , i
Both Brad and his father, Russell are certified operators for this farm. Their mailing address is 350 Bakers Crossroad, Reidsville,
NC, 27320.
05103101

I Q:00 pm
Type of Visit XCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit )SrRoutine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification
Facility Number DateofVisit: k'
p{af Permitted LYCertified 0 Conditionally Certified [3Registered
Farm Name: T
Owner Name: LC2r
MS`ee Abde-101si _ ,,1 j�,, 1,
Facility Contact: ®roj RS-aV- _.S+rr0A 0 Title:
Onsite Representative: 'Rr A Q. K,.,.��./.5,`'%'Q. �
Certified Operator: QQt J.- 5�' J �. IV(�A.7K-�L' s4m LJ
Location of Farm:*4L.Yt�I4 F^"r'-�'�(4�
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Time:
Date Last Operat doAbThreshold: _
County: pOyzlNa jo
Phone No:
Phone No:.34. Yn2. / . , ) 7 X TS
Integrator: `V� S /�RJ 1 440 i Q a( 1 J o�
Operator Certification Number: 'V 64 -AM 1
B.
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
ine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Po elation Cattle
Capacity Population
Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑Dai
Feeder to Finish
❑Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
Gilts
Rnarc
Total SSLW
-)d 2, n0
-„Number of Lagoops _ 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oon Area ^I ❑ Spray Field Area r,,,
Discharues R Stream Img@£s
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes KNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ 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 Dow 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 XNo
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 Continued
NC, al 3 a0 U

•
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection ago
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?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
❑ Yes
No
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
A 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
, O No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
V No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those4desitnated in the CFrtified Anmal Waste Management Plan (CAOWMP)? 'U Yes IYo
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 fended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes WNo
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
25:No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
'�5*0
Reauired Records & Documents Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
XNo
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) / ✓
El Yes
4,No
t9.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
El Yes
gNo
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
El Yes
tgNo
yy 0
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
o
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ YesjNoo
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Field Copv ❑ Final Notes
°°`j3�����
Uld - 0
Is 4310
lq..�zQ aooa-
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
05103101
Date:
Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection gap —
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?
O5103101
❑ Yes ANo
❑Yes xNo
❑ Yes ///��� No
El Yes No
❑ Yes A No
-Ei-y�

Facility Number 79 1 1 Date of Visit: 1 3/13/2002 •rhne: 14:00
O Not Operational Q Below Threshold
M Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Eagle.l':a11S..i Qg.F.nxjn................................................................................ County: RuWaghAm ................................... W..S.RQ........
OwnerName: Raxid.......................................Walker ....................................................... Phone No:(33.61.S.A8-1.S22............................................. :..........
MailingAddress: 630..Kagli.Xall...Rnad.......................................................................... Madiwo... N.0........... :............................................. 2.7.025..............
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Ousite Representative: P B.rod.ltalszslraw........................................................................ Integrator:LuadY.s.....................................................................
Certified Operator:R1LssellL99.......................... Rakeatraw..dx................................ Operator Certification Number:ZQ.4.32 .............................
Location of Farm:
From Wentworth NC Hwy 65 West to Settle Bridge Road - 2 miles to Eagle Falls Road on right 1 mile turn left.
M Swine [3 Poultry ❑ Cattle [I Horse Latitude 36 • 25 22 Longitude 79 • 49 03
Design Current
Design Current
Design, Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑
Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
®
Feeder to Finish
1800
400
❑ Non -Layer
10 Non -Dairy
❑
Farrow to Wean
❑
Farrow to Feeder
❑
Other
❑
Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
1,800
❑
Gilts
Total SSLW
243,000
❑
Boars
I Number of Lagoons' , 2 ILI Subsurface Drains Present ��lJ Lagoon Area IU Spray Field Area � I
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps r ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes M 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 D WQ) ❑ 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 M No
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? M Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:.........P.rimary.................Secondary.......................................................................................................................
aby=:4m
❑ Yes M No
Structure 6
Freeboard (inches): 6 46
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 79-1 Date of Inspection 3/13/2002
5. Are there any immediate threats to the itty of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tre*ere 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 Annual Rye grass (graze) Fescue (Graze) Johnson Grass (graze)
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 Pemut?
(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
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer uestion # Ex to q ): p y answers and/or any recommendations of any other comments lam an YES
Use drawings of -facility to better explam shuations.'(use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
# 7. Continue efforts to get rid of groundhogs and control weeds on the lagoon embankment.
May want to have the application windows adjusted for the crops in the WUP.
Soil analysis is calling for one or more tons of lime per acre on some of the application fields.
Mr. Rakestraw stated that they were now under contract with Lundy and that they have been without hogs for a couple of months.
Reviewer/InspectorName RockyDinhim
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
O5103101 Continued

Faellity Number: 79-1 Da of Inspection 3/13/2002
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ®No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ®No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
analysis: 10-25-01 ALS 1.1 lbs.N/1000 gals. I
3-06-02 ALS 2.5 lbs.N/1000 gals. I
O5103101

Type of Visit U compnance inspection u uperaoon rtewew V Lagoon tvaivaaon
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 79 1 Date of Visit: 2/23R001 Time: 1145
O Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .. .......................
Farm Name: Ragt¢.Rath.C.1199 Arm................................................................................ County: IfwI ughtim.....................................W.SRO.......
Owner Name: Aavid...................................... Walkea:....................................................... Phone No: J3£c142rbS3k.LFactn.atitcel.............................
MailingAddress: 9.Q. l..tlQm.R.d...................................................................................... Lgrtact... Y.,A.............................................................. 22.9.7.9 ..............
Facility Contact: Da:ad. ak¢S.tA',aN'............................................ Title: ...............................................................
/Phone No:....................................................
Onsite Representative: Rt'a1tl..R.allcsjr.aA:....................................................................... Integrator:,3; .... T° 3 37'2!3 J�, �^ �^ j�
......................F �.t�....................
Certified Operator:R%t&&gU................................... RaUstrAw ...................................... Operator Certification Number:Z04 Z.............................
Location of Farm:
From Wentworth NC Hwy 65 West to Settle Bridge Road - 2 miles to Eagle Falls Road on right 1 mile turn left.
® Swine []Poultry []Cattle []Horse Latitude 36 • 25 22 Longitude 79 • 49 03
".
Design
Current Design Current. .'1. Design 3a�Ctirrent >'
Swine 't>
Ga aril
P,o ulation Poultry Ca tacit P,o wlation !. Cattle Ca acilPo�ulation {
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer I
`
® Feeder to Finish
1800
1040
JE1 Non -Layer I❑Non-Dairy
g
❑ Farrow to Wean^
,
❑ Other '1
Total Design Capacity 1,800
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSI W` 243,000 'I
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges _& Stream Im tp tots
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? (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
01/01/01 Continued

Facility Number: 79-1 • Date of Inspection 2/23/2001 • t
Waste Collection & Treahnent
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: .........�lltnaxy.......... .......Sec..ondarY....................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard(inches): .................b................................25...............................................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
® No
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
12.
Crop type Rye graze Johnsongrass graze
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
17.
Are rock outcrops present?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Is there a water supply well within 250 feet of the sprayfield boundary? ❑ Unknown
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ On -site ❑ Off -site
Required
Records & Documents
19.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
20.
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
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
22.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
26.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
®No
27. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ® No
Odor Issues
28. 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?
29. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
01/01/01 Continued

Facility Number: 79-1 1* A'Inspection 2/23/2001 •
30. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
31. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
32. 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.)
33. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
34. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
Printed on: 2/23/2001
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
►am en efer t u do # : i p ain a • IFEWSy om ndation o an of e c nimen
d awin s o aci '4y t ette ex lain Ituat in addit oval a e a e e a y : ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
7. Recommend contacting SWCD regarding use of herbicide to control brush and re -seeding dam. Continue efforts to control trees and
burrow holes.
13. Punpkins were not in the WUP (at the time) for the June application of waste that they received. Tract 3006 field 3-3 is listed as
corn now in the WUP but it needs to be orchardgrass. Per operator, SWCD/NRCS is aware of the discrepancy and is working on it.
Most recent WUP is dated 11/2000.
19. Four application events in 10/2000 and 12/2000 were two weeks outside of the 60-day sampling window. Sample timing is much
better this year. Continue efforts to to stay within 60-day window. Operator is going to revise his N balance to reflect the N value
obtained from the most recent waste analysis.
15. Field 3006 may need lime as the pH was only 4.5 according to the 2000 soil test.
Reviewer/Inspector Name !Melissa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
O1/01/01

Id
p Omer Agency
Type of Visit )D Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 116 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number }C� Dale ur visit: '�7�'Ji b1 1 Time: E"-=
10 Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operat d or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: ✓ I Q FQ �............... .:.f.'i'1............. county:.. ...._.L.'.. h.....!:1.. . k1. l...................................
/I` /
OwnerName: ..............Q... ...................1 ....�. � .......................... Phone No: P..... ..... .. t.....(!! .................
Facility Contact: ...f./rI�.GC.....1.`t/`FesS4naUf .Title:.................................................../............... PhoneeNo: ............................... ....................
Mailing Address: ........... .p� %.�DOPr.S FQ........................................... 01"TOYI.......i...... V.../4.......................... a.....a.679
Onsite Representative:
Integrator:
Certified Operator:f U.,55.. ff,,,,,,Q9 „ „KaK45't ,,,,,_,,,,�„✓f ; Operator Certification Number:......ab.7,3�
..........
Location of Farm: aQ �3
rom t i : -FoLke �G wy 65- ties+ 4o se e b ride
F - lelp IL_-
] Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®• Longitude [M• E �, ®"
,�
uesrgn
Swine Capacity
a.urrenr .. uesrgn utrrent - g . ueslg0 WR'ent l Ni
Population Poultry Capacity 'Population ` Cattle CapadtV Po ulation.,, t
❑Layer ❑ Dairy
Q ❑ ❑ Non -Layer " Non -Dairy
❑Other r 'I99 k1
'
Total Design Capacity O d
Total SSLW oZ �3 r QO 0
Wean to Feeder
ceder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑Boars
Holdin Ponds/ Solid Tra s ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System ray Feld Area
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Sp
B P
, r
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 V No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? 0 Spillway
Structure I CStructure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:. iwlar. �....... $g� cm.d................................................................
Freeboard (inches): _ i „
5100 W
❑ Yes A No
Structure 6
Continued on back

Facility Number: 1— • Date of Inspection 0 Printed on:
5. Are there any immediate threats to the Integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4.6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
1 /9/2001
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
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes VNo
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ty No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes &(No
12.
Crop type V 5 _ 5 !: 2 ej
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with t os designated in the Certified Nnimal Waste Management Plan AWMP)?
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
TT
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ 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
XNo
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
XNo
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
XNo
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
'N(No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
,,,_06No
®No
/`
: IQ•Yiglaiigqs;or.. ilgfciencies •iq-Vre i.448d. dieing tltjS;vpspt; • Y00 w)ti•�•eceiye qtl f4 ther • ; • ; •
.
rres orideitce:abotifthisvisit:•::::::::::•:•:•:•:•
cti:•:•:•:•:•:
Comments (refer to question ti): Explain any YES answers and/or, any recommendations or`any other comments `
'r0!
Use drawinss of facility to better eznhrin situations. fuse 'additional napes as necess
f
r
i
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signatude!�AA ir% A J b .� Date: „ ZLaL/Q / sroo

Facility Number: — of Inspection a0 / • Printed on: 1/9/2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ONo
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?
reel End, ,?v 0ra55e5fAt!i5tied ?XO-
Ore, ardI r0.s5 added 7 -Pu►npk► h added ? N
r
-/dA Z�" -3
�� lip {. �-i � i• / � ,/ ,.,
1 �
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes) No
❑ Yes � No
[]Yes XNo

Facility Number 79 1 Dah• of visit: 0/23/2000 'Time: 11:15 Printed ,a: 2/15/2001
Q Not Operational O Below Threshold
N Permitted N Certified [3 Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Eu1cXell5..E1agk'.acxn............................................................................... County: KQ.ckjjtghaLm ................................... WISRQ........
Owner Name: I.taxid........................................Y. WAlkcr ....................................................... Phone No: 9t0'a42.:b.SabalFat.ru_o[Excel.............................
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:.............................:.....................
Mailing Address: 9..UQQ.kAOues.Rd.......................................... I ertRn..Y.ta............................................................. 220.7.9 ..............
.�... �dt` a73-75-
Onsite Representative: D.1:ad.Rak.v;Ar,AW........................................................................ Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:R05S41.1M..........................&k¢StF.a.W..,1.C�......................r....... Operator Certification Number: 2Q432.............................
Location of Farm: 356 bo-U i-5 X. Qcoati � ,S<';' pyi� a739a
From Wentworth NC Hwy 65 West to Settle Bridge Road - 2 miles to Eagle Falls Road on right 1 mile turn left.
® Swine ❑ Poultry []Cattle []Horse Latitude 36 25 IF 22 Longitude r 7970 F 49 1 F03711
est'g•n
:Cu.xr�rent
`. 4 s�'Destgn; ;Current pDes� .Pn
et
SwmeA a ac`
❑ Wean to Feeder
ation
. o wlation Population
❑Layer + ❑ Dairy
® Feeder to Finish 1800
1140
❑Non -Layer ❑ Non Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
"Al - ' 'i
❑Other s
Total Destgn�.Cap�a�city, 1,800
rts.
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑Boars
�` �i Total'SSLW '243,000
ber of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Arca
011onds /Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
1 +
Discharges ft 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. It'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 Val/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: ..........Primary .......... ....... Scrondat y........ ................................... .................................... .................................... ....................................
Freeboard (inches): 12 31
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: 79-1 Date of Inspection 8/23/2000 Printed on: 2/15/2001
4
5. Are there any immediate threats to the in rity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tree , 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 ADDlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Fescue (Graze) Timothy, Orchard, & Rye Pumpkins _-. Tobacco
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?
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?
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? lie/ 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?
lie/ 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 viola'tions;or ;deticien6e*s were:noted :dorin this; visit: 'You'vQil.l deceive no further
corresooiidence about this visit.:
7. Continue efforts to get rid of small trees and weeds and establish grass on lagoon embankments.
13. Will need to have orchard grass added on some fields and pumpkins added also.
cords looked good for the most part.
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes .® No
Reviewer/Inspector Name !Rocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5100

iraeility Number: 79-1 of Inspection 8/23/2000 • Printed on: 2/15/2001
( dor Issues '
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation'?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application'? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
® No
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
®No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
® No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
❑ No
5100

Facility Number 79 Ol
Date of Inspection 3/8/2000
Time of Inspection 1300 24 hr. (hh:mm)
® Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Not O erational Date Last Operated: ..........................
Farm Name: Ettgll Fells.. b9fartn..........................................................:..:.................. County:RQ.ckjvgb;tm ................................... WSRO........
Owner Name: Duld....................................... Wwlicr ....................................................... Phone N
gt>3t� 3 3b Id - 7 I...t......
Facility Contact: llrad.lialtcskra.W...........................................Title:................................................................ Phone o: 33b.i 2.: 7.$B.....................
MailingAddress: 9..O.QQ.Haws..Sd..................................................................................... LOTtanAA............................................................. 220.7.9 .............
Onsite Representative:ft.ad..Rakgair,Aw....................................................................... Integrator:
Certified Operator:Br.nd........................................ HAIjg5ftU.W ...................................... Operator Certification Number: 20432.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 36 • 25 22 Longitude 79 • 49 03
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
1800
1400
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds/ Solid Traps
Poultry Ca ac ty mlation Cattle Ca Tacit Po uI tion
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I❑Non-Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 1,800
Total SSLW 243,000
r(
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: Primary Secondary
Freeboard (inches): ............... 25 ............... ................. 8 .................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
❑ Yes ® No
Continued on back
Printed on 3/9/2000
01& 9? w

Facility Number: 79-01 ate of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which0cnot properly addressed and/or managed throtlwaste 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
12. Crop type Fescue (Graze)
3/8/2000
[]: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?
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?
Rcauired 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?
.... yiolatitins:oi :deficiencies wete:noted:during•this:vish: You:will:receive 1 further
.. corresuotideilceaboutthis
.vtstt:::....:..... .
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Several old/recent groundhog holes in embankment of lagoon. Several 4-6 inch diameter trees on northside of lagoons, up about
ee feet from toe of dam. Operator is to hunt the groundhogs to get rid of them and cut down the trees around the dam.
19. Last waste sample report is dated 03/10/99. A sample was taken 03/03/00 but the results have not been received.
One pipe above liquid level that poses no odor problem.
IReviewer/Inspector Name jMelissa Rosebrock David Russell I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
on 3/9/2000

Facility Number: 79—01 ate of Inspection 3/8/2000 .
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
® Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
® No
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
® No
32.
Do the Flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
®No
W,dditiUn5aILU-LmnfiF-n- n or w s
7
Printed on 3/9/2000

Facility Number 79 O1 Date of Inspection 3/8/2000
'rime of Inspection 1300 24 hr. (hh:mm)
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Not O eratianal Date Last Operated: ..........................
Farm Name: EAgte.Fa.11s...Q& Fax'xn............................................................................... County: I. ckiosbam................................... WSRQ ........
Owner Name: I,iANX......................................
Phone No:3Gr342rbS3.G. (FaCaa.xztTxet ).............................
Facility Contact: 11rad.) mWitt:atx...........................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: 33.6.-.427.-3.7%8 .......................
MailingAddress: 9..0.01HO.QuAd..................................................................................... UrUIXA& ............................................................ Z2079 .............
Onsite Representative: ftA:ad..H,akSSbx'RIkY........................................:............................... Integrator:
Certified Operator: Brad ........................................ HAKeafta.w ...................................... Operator Certification Number: 29Q32.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 36 • 25 22 Longitude 79 • F-4791 F 03 1,
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine
Ca tacit P,o ulation
Poultry Ca racit P,o uiation
Cattle Ca Tacit + $o tulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Layer
❑Dairy
® Feeder to Finish
1800
1400
❑ Non -Layer
❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity 1,800
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW 243,000
Number of Lagoons
F-277❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Ar:,:,:1jj
Holding Ponds /Solid
Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges $t 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: Primary Secondary
Freeboard (inches): ............ X9,1,
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 3/9/2000

Facility Number: 79-01 1 ate of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which not properly addressed and/or managed throtrwaste 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?
3/8/2000
❑ Yes
® No
® Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
11. Is there evidence of over application'? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Fescue (Graze)
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?
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?
l..r. No violatiotis:o� di ficieneie$ were noted :during this: V'Nit 'Ydu'vvill receive uo ftirther• :
corresooridence: about this visit.
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
Several old/recent groundhog holes in embankment of lagoon. Several 4-6 inch diameter trees on northside of lagoons, up about
-e feet from toe of dam. Operator is to hunt the groundhogs to get rid of them and cut down the trees around the dam.
19. Last waste sample report is dated 03/10/99. A sample was taken 03/03/00 but the results have not been received.
One pipe above liquid level that poses no odor problem.
Reviewer/Inspector Name jMelissa Rosebrock David Russell
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
on 3/9/2000

Facility Number: 79-01
*rate of Inspection 3/8/2000 .
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
® Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
® No
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
® No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
® No
n
Printed on 3/9/2000

/'30
IFacility Number I
review O Other
Date of InspectionMUM
Time of Inspection jj 300 hr. (hh:mm)
A Permitted ❑ Certified [3 Conditionally Certified Q Registered 0 Not Operational
Date Last Operated: ..........................
Farm Name: ! 115 ....... .Q�=t...._F,.rm........................... county: ...... I`•Q,L.K�j..haft.�... .......................
\J
Owner Name: ,., �/ ' .,^ 1' P�
.....L�......1.A.1't�:,.,...^f�...%.�...�..,.................�..�.....�................................... Phone No:'.�.uJw�..'.�.�.�-7'...��...�::�'. c �.+/..'�-7�2r1�'1 ^�
Facility Contact: U.a7�5 I..I.....4 K ...A.`....PL. !t ifk .............. I �...aperA Titldine No:.1313.4...... 72..1.:�aJ..L.d O/
000o (f n n tar. V..... a a6 q ps
Mailing Address: ...................1••t%!!? �.sS(j..../ \/ ..'...r.....I......L Q.►...!.......%7../......IQ.....................................••1............................ .....................
Onsite Representative:....�..r RO.,L."o.J..�I'Vao....................... Integrator:...................................
Certified Operator:_ .c�;a(',,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_.........___...._ Operator Certification Number: ......2..6..q � a
Location of Farm:
Frans... . Z ... r..........Ce... WLY.. .S..... .:e5............ ......... C !"....... m.l. e5.............
t3q�.e....:.Fc .I.LS........ ....:Q.r�....rlr�h..... ....fu.rn.......�r......................... :.......................... ............................ ......._..
Latitude Longitude �� �1 � 3 I11
Desr n
��Po
Current gn urrent
Design Current "h n= �! �,C7�u' Deatgii a C
Swme� 'Ca ac
ulabo� Poultry
n Y Capacity Po ulahon ; Cattle .;, x' j�:,;capiicibjilllPo`>ulation
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
i;Fi
❑Non -Layer �! ❑ Non -Dairy
. ;
- ❑ Other
Total Design' Capadty' Q
Tiital SSLW, q 000
a
Number of Lagoons ' '
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
holding`fonds Y Solid Traps
g _ y ,
❑ No Liquid Waste Mana ement System 4
qManagement
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
oQ
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow [o Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Discharges & Stream tninacts
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'? (II'yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: Plrlfylary SeC,ohda.�y
Freeboard(inches): ............. �I1.........:.................. II........................................................................................................................
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
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes ❑ No
[]Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑Yes
�[No
❑Yes
No
❑ Yes
�] No
Structure 6

Facility Number: • Date of Inspection Q 00
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed thro a waste management or �(
closure plan? Yes IX1 No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an T
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? Yes No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes XNo
Waste Applieation
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes AJ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes P(No
12. Crop type re 5 L.Ue,
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
o
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yeso
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes J�F..IrNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes✓` No
Reuuired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes] No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) �3 Yes XNo
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) )6Yes ❑ 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 Q(J ���(((No
K'd,vi4a,6¢'s:opilQticjenciesogrepgte�3•¢�ttiilgihjs:vjsjQ; Yoit:w.i1j•teceiy....... . •:•:• /\
.......
oiideike: abotik this visit: • : • ::::::::::::::::: : s
;.
Commentsa(refer to question #). Explain any YESlanswers and/oc any r... I .. endahons�or any other commenkv �t i�1whll ,' I
Use drawing5,of facility;tito better explain situations (use.addtbonal pageslas necessary) 04.' 14 t N :;,'' #Niiiiti uz,iG IFI 'iP'i ±' i
man er is braA I N P-0.Ve5-kai,) . FoxM is o_+ $`70 " k Falb nda •
4140'1b5. PAN%yr. — Irrly-W . .6S_. ( Aere5 (algA) 40,7 AereS( J
Sinttllgraln�orche�ro��rr�5s_Fe6.ro,rJl� Aprl
TM
QO si-ora�g Z
3)Z107 163/PAlv1 t land app� �lelry Syr5• 6For5ludge)
r P• y.:
• Reviewer/Inspector Name P.�%ih�fi�, 1;M � A/ 1 ..0 S.Se I e-�� �� �." • it
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: A .fvmp Date: n i A9 (�

'F'acdit Number: Date of Inspection
Odor Issues T�
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 *0
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 KNo,
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes K.No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes 777�No
Additional ;Comments and/or,Drawings:
. S�vu�l old��e f yoond hc> h les i n
J
D� o�qcx)°1 l7an K r "
1 o S -wero A 4-(� I a 1 -�- i ree5 Gn 11br —
6 4Q, o C I Gq oon ) 0 p ? 31 Siam .
44' b'Q, ,'PdZ OAOvvO- �,$uid le"� uses 06
9' L�sf u-- s+e maple repor4- 1 s dcz-i--ed 3 /1Q/q9 .
�1� t7ok-e-n 03/03/66 — f-esv Rs n6+ 6,e y,+.

19 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other 1
Facility Number 79 1 Date of Inspection 10/4/99
Time of Inspection 8:00 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Not O erational Date Last Operated: ..........................
Farm Name: EAgle.Falls.H.Q.gFarm................................................................................ County: &ckirigh m................................... WS13Q........
Owner Name: >AYA...................................... .Y.Yalkcr....................................................... Phone No: 91Qr.J.42.:b.Sab.iFat m.xtQCtce).............................
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
MailingAddress: 9QQQ.H9aeS..Rd..................................................................................... LAFtan... YA............................................................. 2203.9 .............
Onsite Representative: B.r:ad..Raka.1rA Y........................................................................ Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:,Rµmelt.Lee........................... Hmkeatraw..Jr................................ Operator Certification Number: ZQ432.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 36 • 25 22 Longitude 79 • 49 03
1 ylai&' ''beisign Curren S tt ° 'Design rrentt i Design , Current
St�wtne ik a Ca facit P,o rulatton PouItr.Y -'apse [ Po elation + Cattle ' ,. Ca aciE P,o ula i n;"'
❑ Wean to Feeder °, ❑ Layer ❑Dairy f
�� ® Feeder to Finish 1800 ❑ Non -Layer I Dairy >"
`",` ❑ Farrow to Wean dwy''MA&
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other qo q
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design C•apaCi 1,800
❑ Gilts ,
❑ Boars ?Total SSLW 243,000 �{
Number of Lagoons � ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
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? (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: Primary P Secondary 2'
Freeboard(inches):.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: 79-1 Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which a nooperly addressed and/or managed throug a w anagement or
'closore 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?
10/4/99
❑ Yes
®No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
®No
® Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
®No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Fescue (Graze) Rye
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 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
CYINIONMa,
ioris:oi defcienetes were;noted ;during this: visit.::You:wiII recerve-n¢ 1u'k6r
.-.
corresnotideilce.ab6uithisvtsit......... .
I. Need to pump
2. Need max/min markers
IReviewer/Inspector Name iDavid C. Russell II
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

Facility Number: 79-1 4rJPf Inspection F-10-14/99-1 •
Odor IFS M •
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

\77
IFacility Number
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection
24 hr. (hh:mm)
13 Permitted ® Certified (3 Conditionally
(y/C, ertified [3 Registered � Not Operational Date Last O eraterl: ..........................
Farm Name:(....`..Y....�r..�j.,fly.....p...1......1 (r�.......t!.l'.V.h%.'......(......f._•...............i.......... County: ......... f �/..��{..`!.'1...................................
Owner Name:".l1%/.U�..... 0.lr!,4).f4....
�....... 1.(.Irr:t.jA.....!�...H..1A. r.. Phone No: ............................. .......................7...�.7..p......
Facility Contact: /s}bl......910451/.t` �. ..........Title:...... 2 .. Phone Nd�J.
........................................
Mailing Address:. ..0........... - l�lN:.iL_5........ "' L}.�...... �%!cc�......... ..... 5.V�./t.K,. ' �. �'..( ".o.....
_� �Q...... .......................................... .
Onsite Representative: BR(!r� �5................................... Integrator:.............
Certified Operator
Location of Farm:
Latitude ®•®' ®,,
Operator Certification Number:
Longitude ®• [— ' ®"
Design Current. ` Design Current Design Current
..Swine Ca acit Po ulation ' Poultry, Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Po iulation
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish +� ❑ Non -Layer I I ❑ Non-DairyI I
Farrow to Wean ,�''"
' ❑ ❑ Farrow to Feeder Other f
t I'
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity I NOQ
❑ Gilts,
it
<;? ❑ Boars Tot
1 , al SSLW
(Number of Lagoons . ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 10 Lagoon Area ` ea j
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps E 1 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
❑Spray Field Ar
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes x"o
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If ycs, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/ruin?
J. Dues 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? [IYes r1No
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.0 , �J
Freeboard (inches): !.... eL�............................................ ................................... .....
5. Are there any immediate threats o the integrity of any of the struc res observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
'N)
❑Yes 10No
Continued on back
4J`T
3/23/99

Facility Number: — • • •�of Inspection 7-100y
4Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
El Yes
�(yNo
(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?
❑ YesrNo
8.
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, auged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Yes
❑ No
ek'j-j<, O9NA hti'j,
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
�DNo
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pending ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
00
12.
Croptype� Gb�e I)2cl�eres� 2�t
13.
T�oer-
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
No
P
14,
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
PO
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
WNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
9I0
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
)dNo
16,
1
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? tX.7 ft a.) S,QR�-JI� pAd 6o_ �Br+
nes
❑ No
Required
Records & Documents � spa f"A lb A
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
gNo
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
o
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
I
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
[]Yes
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
tb�iNo
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
�rNo
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
XNo
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
No
lVo •yatigtis or deficiencies ire )i0 ed.O(Wiitg this'visit; • YoQ will•Ke0iye lid fui•titgr; •: :
• : • correspondence: aboulthis ::::::::
3/23/99

Facility Number: — 010, Inspection `/ Q _ •.
��ir 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 fans) 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 Vo
❑ Yes ��Io
❑ Yes A0
❑ Yes %VNo
❑ Yes WNo
❑ Yes �no
[:]Yes X No
Aamttonat;,�;ommencs ancuor i.,{rawm s: , . '
.. _ .. _ ... � uy i ,�F,F i •.?,li-0.�i I„, , s..
3/23/99

AMOW Water Conservation 0
of Water Quality
Facility Number Date of Inspection I `160e6l5I
Time of Inspection / ` '� 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Registered Certified 0 Applied for Permit 0 Permitted 10 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ?!�_A Ie T11.IlS 4..... f "fi/'h...... County:........ fJCK„iN... !'. A/iN
.........................
W Phone No:..
................................. ........................ Owner Name:. i� N ........(finn_! 1 r?.` ... . ILL/.IO U 1..5�:..............�:.....................
Facility Contact: t�/4171 ....�P.. �.....b 7 6?�W Title:......1 (�.4 .... Phone N � S
Nj
'..c........................?.....s.....�.....e......Mailing Address:..Aso ::a0<s CS 9 :................................r.......:
OnsiteRepresentative:..LK .....l�dT........ w................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
fi /t
CertifiedOperator:................................................................................:..........I................... Operator Certification Number .........................................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ®• ©, 0- Longitude [�• ®, ="
N
f Design -._Current a Design Current Design Current ,
SwineCapacdPo ypulation. Poultry; Capacity ,Population Cattle Capacity Papulation,;,
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish Q
❑ Farrow to Wean
a ❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design`Capacitg 00
❑Gilts..
❑ Boars Total SSLW`;
�.-
Number of Lagoons"/Holding Ponds ® ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
�.
- e ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
a z
❑ Layer
- ❑Dairy
❑ Non -Layer
�. ❑Non-Dairy
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes �o
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes *0
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 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 [ko
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes WNo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes �'o
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes �No
maintenance/improve men t?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes o
1
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes o
7/25/97 *— / _ /G

Facility Number: — •
8. Are, there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes , No
Structures (LaEoons.Ifoldiniz Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes KPO
Structure l 5ttructure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
�(0jt2O'IJ
Structure 6
Identifier: .(F..,.Y�O...11.?.:....!.N.. ......).'....h..5....NV...................
Freeboard(ft):................................................................................................................................................................................................................
10.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
ko
It.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
to
0
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
LjF�Vo
Waste Application
GG
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
)Io
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
o
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
(V/No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
o
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
21.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
((��
JTNo
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
\P(No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only.
�Io
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
24.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
�No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes
o
No.violtitions-or deficiencies were noted during this:visit. You'Will receiveilo ftirthee
. '
etirrespotideilce iitioiit this:visit.. ; ::...:..:.':..
�Ai5� Ape)1,4 V hv�u.5rr,
ouA9xiatur .6- \
fh'W" rY�wh^ WJAv' Jeva � # Orza ke2S
7/25/97

Dat�ulli spection
Facility Numher ^7TimInspection l5S 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status.
Registered ❑Applied for Permit (ex:.1.25 for 1 hr .15 min)) Spent on Review
Certified ❑ Permitted or Insnection (includes travel and nmeecstnol
❑ Not Operational) Date Last Operated: ..................... _...... _.......................... ......._.......„�....._......__..............._................_........_.......
Farm Name: .......IQ�2.„.itl7!,s....... ��j...6`,,iBRh�..........._....__......._....... County:.... `� T'..W._3!I............ .......... _...........
Facility Conctact:....�/.SOS,:...._.............. 044
........................................, Phone No:.......................................„..............................................
Land Owner Name:....��� ........ y, o ..
ty �5................................... Title:.......... Phone No:....CL./_ Q v
MailingAddress:.. 3 s0 QF�c�a S s nn� �¢ AS V i �� L Z� Z0
5....t.S..........................................1.........................................a.:..................., ..........................
Onsite Representative: �,{� (1C! t S Q•,. /d)Y2-% '� tegrator:.....................................„. '
0.................................................„.
Certified Operator: 1' R0k% p({�� �A �-/ Operator Certification Number: /...
...................... _,,
�" ........._...
....N.. a ........... 5........_.
Location of Farm:_ I�oirt � K9 ij� 'q
Latitude ©•© F72�7" Longitude ®•�•0«
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes e6 No
❑ YesxN0
❑ Yes No*
❑Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ContinuYNO
n back

'Facility Number: ............... . .............
• 6. Is facility not in compliance with aW-able setback criteria in effect at the tin# A%n? ❑ Yes (16 No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes )!�No
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes 11�3No
Structures (I agoons and/or Bolding Ponds) CCCC
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 'E'No
reeliguil (ft): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 StmctCCure 6
�� QeF5 f i
�,r, S_....._.... ....... __.................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes Aldo
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 6No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes YNo
(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 ,��ttttaa��((ccers?
/hAy, vat
❑ Yes
❑ No
AO t9 tr.. tj M ORAAS 'nrL, N
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
,A
ENo
(If in excess of W,M/P, or runoffJentering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type .......f�:�...y.-`-�%l.�j�.....................................................................................................................................
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
�fNo
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
o
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
lJNO
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
'GfNo
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
o
tNo
21.
For
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
Certified Facilities Only
❑ Yes
22.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
23.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
�10 RN )4 fin -S
0
J_At00nl MPX,
Reviewer/inspectorName AU"
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: % (/ 2
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97