820511_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

i
Type of Visit: ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: I® Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up O Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: Aja Arrival Time://��� Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: -� T_— Owoer Email:
Owner Name: r'M Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 00 w-ts "I Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: A(V2L!"
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Des ign ' Car �
Swine Gapacityk' Pop:
Wet Poul#ry
Des'
�;
Capacity
Cnrrent _ � Design C*arreot
Pop: Cattle Capacity Pop.
❑ Yes
can to Finish
La er
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Daig Cow
❑ NA
❑ NE
can to Feeder
—Layer
Daia Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to WeanDesign
Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D Ppultr
Ga aci
P,o .
Non -Dai
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turke s
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
I
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 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 o No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ` NA [] NE
[—]Yes ❑No NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
h NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Qr No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
y No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facqy Kumber: Yt'— 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
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier;
No DNA ❑ NE
❑ No P NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
❑ Yes
O!pNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Observed Freeboard (in): j
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
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?
❑ 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 DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
r-'3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
9. Does any pan of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Avvlication
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 N 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 off Wind Drift❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): (� 4m �1 �f </� ! ��? • n1L �� Y�2�Q
13. Soil Type(s): "06
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
O!pNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
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? [f yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0, No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis [] Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield [:1120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes n No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes n No ❑ NA [] NE
Pine 2 of 3 2/412015 Continued

{
Facility Number: t Date of inspection: f
24_ Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
0 Yes
No [] NA ❑ NE
25. is the facility out ofcompliance 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
Ej Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
25. 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
YesNo
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?
❑ YesNo
[A E] 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 0 NA NE
33. Did the Reviewernnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
Yes
r
No L] NA NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
Yes
No [—] NA NE
Comments (refe!, to gti&tion #) Explain any V ES answers and/or aoyadditional, k0tommendatioos or, any other cornmeaks.1' .I
Use"drawtnzs of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 3� 3CD
Date: -
2/4/2015

Type of Visit: 0 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: V (r Arrival Time: Q epartureTime: f County-S4A�j"04egion:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: TMJ LJ,' Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: !`Q%
hne-
Certified Operator: Q r Woo JCertification Number: g��
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
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 0 NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes' No
NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 214/2011 Continued

Facility Number: -2 jDate of Inspection: D Z
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
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No tNR NA E] NE
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �3
it
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [4 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? 0
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 jP No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks) TT
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding 0 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 Cr p Window Evidence of W' D 'ft Ap 'cation Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):S
13. Soil Type(s):�
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes E] 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
ElNA
NE
acres determination?
TT®
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 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes P No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes @ N
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:]Yes � N
E] NA ❑NE
[:]Weather Code
El Sludge Survey
No ❑NA ❑NE
No
❑NA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/2011 Continued

lFacifity Number:- Date of Inspection: j
T
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ( No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Yes]
❑ Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑ NA
❑ NE
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
r
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes [�g No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
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?
❑ Yes
No
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 file drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other.
r
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
0 NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments _
Use. drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: W 13-:�?3Ao
Date: t o �16
2/4/7011

Type of Visit: 4P Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:Arrival Time: jJ'�/sj Departure Time: ,2,' County: lh� Region:
�"
tl
Farm Name: it �� �� Owner Email:
Owner Name: Pe-r_4��
§Se_ i'n.S Phone:
_ _ , 1 _. .
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �ry,pS La"...L Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: I r Integrator:°.. kmC_
J 6e � . d o ` 99YV3
Certified Operator: Wry Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Discharttes and Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
Design
Carrent
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity
Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pap.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
[ NA
❑ NE
Layer
Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
M
INon-Layer
I
alf
Feeder to Finish
2(?L
�� "'''`'
" '_
"' '"
Dai Heifer
Farrow to Wean=-
Design
Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
'oul
Ca ac i
P,o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
11-a
vers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharttes and Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
® NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes ❑No
❑ Yes No
[:]Yes No
® NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page I of 3 214/2014 Continued

Facili Number: Date of Inspection : 12,6&T
S'WasfelCollectiou & 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
Structures 6
Identifier:
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[)4 No
Spillway?:
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed 2
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
Freeboard (in):
4. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
V] 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
N] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[P No
If any of questions 46 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[)4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
7�
4. 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
0 NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, cheek the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN [] PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift �❑+ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): 0194,( av4 S-5 6,9_�
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
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes Q0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
1P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑WUP [—]Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes N No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1 " 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 [�3 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/2014 Continued

Facility Number: Y- Date of Inspection:
-.--
i4. 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
IV), No
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ f=ailure 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
[�q 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 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
F
[:]NA E) 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
[;g No
❑ NA ❑ NE
[Comments (refer to gnestron ft Explain. any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any otlter�comments ,, "a Ar`' .
Use drawings of facility-tn better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:/O-
Date: 5
V4/2014

n . .. .
I ype of visit: W Compliance inspection V Uperattiott Review t;,,) Structure Evaluation V t ecUiucal Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral O Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: � Arrival Time: Departure Time: QSs County: Region:
Farm Name: —T Owner Email:
i
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone: r
Onsite Representative: y S _ � Integrator: � C L
Certified Operator: (�BOOOt-.-6� Certification Number: 3 3
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
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
Design Ctirrent
[:]NA
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Pop.
kWet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
❑ Yes
a
® NA
❑ NE
Wean to Finish
La er
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
I
iNon-Layer
DaiTy Calf
Feeder to Finish
a
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Curr) nt
Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D . 1P,oultfr
Ca aci
Pio
Non -Dally
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Ot
urkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
[qNo
[:]NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[]No
C@NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
® NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes ® No
[:]Yes [ No
NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 2/4/2014 Continued

Facili Number: $ - S Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? [—]Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No �] NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3 3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes M 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?
❑ 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 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)
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
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 C9 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
CfropWindow ❑/1Evidence ofj
f[:]Wind Drift Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): &rm� L ejL 55 J A%J_ 1 %456- 1 (4 I n 0 . ra'l J -
13. Soil Type(s): &Q
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes [9 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
&I 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
® No
❑ NA
[] NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Ig No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? 0 Yes 'E] No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes J5 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/2014 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Ins ectioa:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? [—]Yes 2? No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes Pq No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA F] NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
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.
❑ Yes
am' No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
JMe
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 questionz ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessarv)...
...�,
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
21412014

' 1Division of Water QuaEity
Facility Number ®- si I 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
©'Other Agency
Type of Visit: 40 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 4D Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: fi 00 County:9 ,kdRegion:
'--l
Farm Name: _j Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:QVI Title:
Onsite Representative:ys��
Certified Operator: riI
1
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: e
Certification Number: �] 886L�
Certification Number:
Longitude:
�
G WA
961
11 Desi Cuirrentry
® NA
-OWDesign Current
Swine �
Capa ty Pop. Wet Poult � CDpac�ity
Pop nt
Cattle apacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
'e .
D , aPouit �, kaa aci
Piop.
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
-
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
. ,.
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
® NA
❑ NE
[—]Yes
❑No
NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
[:]Yes
❑No
[:]Yes
EP No
[:]Yes
[n No
® NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 2/412011 Continued

F,Scyity Number: - T Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ YesNo ❑ NA [:]NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? F1Yes No � NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in).
Observed Freeboard (in): 3t
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 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? T
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
I 1. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes W 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 Acceptably Crop Window ❑ Evidence of ind Drift ❑ A%�pp`lic�ati�on Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): �-�(,i� � �S N� J) S . [ `� 'L Owz_.ed
13. Soil Type(s):
r
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?
Reouired 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
❑ Yes [P No
❑ Yes E;� No
❑ W UP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design [:]Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes F No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard p Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ 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 rainbrcakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
0 NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ONE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/2011 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection: - 8
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 1P
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes foNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey E] Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
24. 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.
PApplication 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
�9 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ®No ❑ NA ❑ NE
0 Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments. I
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
jgeeovo{ S Y -E 9 -/ y-14,
.�e ✓i �W 6-11, 5-90 4 ( ,
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
2/4/2011

Type of Visit: • Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: d Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:Arrival Time: , pOA Departure Time: _ �0 County�/1) Region:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
.. fYff
Owner Name: TICS S '17PI,C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: , n f)5 A,pi7[�
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: Prdm
Certification Number: % mold
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design
Current
Design.
Cierrent
Design Current
A..,54Oil
Swine Capacity
Pop. i,Vet Pouttry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
❑ NA
❑ NE
can to Finish
Layer
Dairy Cow
can to Feeder
1,1 jNon-La er
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish,_
r
"-
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean:_
Design
Current
Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Dry P,nu!
Ca aci
Po ,
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
I I
113eef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
I 10ther
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
[:]Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No
El Yes 0 N
R@ NA ❑ NE
10 NA ❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes
❑ No
P NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? [:]Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes
fp No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Ndmber: - Date of Inspection: 29
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
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
® No [DNA ❑ NE
❑ No ® NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Observed Freeboard (in): 31
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
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.)
7�
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?
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
ER No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes�p
No
F,
E] NA
C] NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
TT
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 [M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window [D Evidence o Wind Drift E] Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): �--CJi s E A&rh-r4ck "ssi -soh • Cw&-k Q
4 /) A / r
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
1P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
19. Is there a lack of property 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
P 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.
TT
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [] Yes No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall [:]Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? [:]Yes No
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

Faodity Number: - / Date of Ins ection: 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 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 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
W 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 the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
T
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 reviewlinspection with an on-site representative? ❑ Yes C� 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 additionat recommendations or any other comments.
use drawings,:of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 33-3 3 tYD
Date: q/ Z
21412011

� Division of Water Quality J
1 Facility Number Eau a Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit & Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 49 Routine O Complaint O Follow up Q Referral O Emergency 0 Other
❑_Dlenied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Lv� Departure Time: County: -tel, ," Region:yor -41
Farm Name: _V—
Owner Email:
Owner Name: re T,SlC/ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: T W A(A LAAJ (,, Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: ++ Integrator: t e—
CertifiedOperator: De wl`S PO- h Operator Certification Number: 70S
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =0
= =" Longitude: = o = =
Discharges & 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 DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
a
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 P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA
Design Current
Design C
Curren
rr
Design Cuent
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
EINE
❑ Wean to Finish IEJ
Layer I
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Non -La er I ❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Dr3 Poultry ❑ Dry_ Cow
Farrow to Feeder
EllNon-Dai
❑ Layers
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
El Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
❑ Turkeys
Outer
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ other ILI
Other
Numiier of Structures:
Discharges & 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 DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
a
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 P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes `P No E-1NA
1A
C1 NE
[3 Yes No ❑ NA
EINE
Page 1 of 3 11/18104 Continued

Facility Number: 897Date of Inspection
❑ Yes
�] No
[3 NA
Waste Collection & Treatment
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
1p No
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
T No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ NoNA
ElNE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
S eture 6
Identifier:
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
J0 No
Spillway?:
❑ NE
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):�G
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑Yes
No
0
[I NA [I NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
F No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4fi 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
ElNA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
ElYes
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
El Yes
r No
[__1 NA [j NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
ONo
E-1NA El NE
mai ntenance/improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA EINE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift [:]Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
�] No
[3 NA
[INE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
1p No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
IF) No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
F1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
J0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Cominents (refer to question,#) Explain any.)(ES answers and/or any. -recommendations or.'any other com>Aten s
is . �4
Use drawrngs of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary)
paaorjs v -&t cr lh Com+ eI1119,
Reviewer/Inspector Name
ReviewerAnspector Signature:
Phone: l 3-,33ao
Date: IOA-//0
Page 2 of 3 12/28/04 Continued

Facility Nttmber: — Date of Inspection
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 ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I " Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the 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 ❑ No [NNA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NF
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
'� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
[--]Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
`P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
to No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12/28/04

It
Type of Visit • Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 4D Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: .4 Arrival Time: 'Q Departure Time: �a��?I' County: SAMPSON Region:
Farm Name: _ _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: G2 Pwm s _Ji, c, _ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: �
Facility Contact: t` A X14 I> �a'e T Li?T Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative:Qv►s + Integrator:
Certified Operator: h t lt�, ., Operator Certification Number:
q8�d IS
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o =I ="
Longitude: Q
Swine
❑ Wean to Finish
Design Current
Capacity Population
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capty Population
❑ Layer
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Popnlation
❑ Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dai Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ Da4y Heifer
Farrow to Wean
1152
Dt7 Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
NA
❑ NE
ElNon-Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
[I Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Yes
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑Boars
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Turkeys
❑ Yes
't e it -i I❑Turkey
❑ NA
Poults
other than from a discharge?
❑ Other
10 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
�INA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
DNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
LtPNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12/28/04
Continued

s
i
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
t'
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
Facility Number:— y Date of Inspection
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination: ❑ Yes
l"J N [1 NA
❑ NE
Waste Collection & Treatment
❑ Yes
UV N ❑ NA
[INE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
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
Stn cture I Stnicture 2 Stntcture 3 Sintcturc 4
Structure
i
Siructure
6Identifier:
I
Si3ilhvay?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):H
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
[�bNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
El NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
$. 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 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste ADDhCB60H
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes E?<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? //
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. El^^
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 ❑ Evviisdenc-e of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Croptype(s) ��( � ur �7"'1�{3� Slit , Cj-f� 0
13. Soil typepey'_41
i
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
�N, ❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination: ❑ Yes
l"J N [1 NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
UV N ❑ NA
[INE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
L] Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or soy recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
i
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: "3
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:fg&�LDate:
I Zrldf/U4 Lonanuea

r
Facility Number: Date of Inspection q a�
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 2rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes B No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ NE
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
&j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
O'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
El Yes
B"No
B"
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
L1dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
12 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
El Yes
,/
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
&j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
El Yes
B"No
B"
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did ReviewerAnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
ilJ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
dN o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128/04

IType of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit • Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time:�. _ Departure Time: '/ County: ^5�p5014 Region:
Farm Name:
T'
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: e I Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Phone No:
Integrator: , 'Prfdo4p—
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: =' =' =" Longitude: = ° =' Q «
Design Current
n Current
gig,
Design Current
Swine Ca acy Po ulation
��ity
Wet Poult Papulation
•
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
❑Dai Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
�"
Dry�ultry -
❑Dai Heifer
❑ D Cow
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder-.-
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑Beef Brood Co
R ...
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other I I
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
ElYes. pu No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No A ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No A ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No PNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ElNA ❑ NE
ElYes PNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
12/28/04 Continued

L
Facility Number: PV7Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
r No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
�ffNA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
r
Observed Freeboard (in): 3 J
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
§DNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
91 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
QTNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
19 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
t6No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
q9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) l I &C" &at�� ).
% - �+ ,yf
13. Soil type(s) �s,� ,G6+�•p •—(9�OTj &/7-Iry
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
V No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or Iand application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
BNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[:] Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
J9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name ri V116M Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: DID
Page 2 of 3 12/28/04 Continued

J
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes V No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and l " Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 10 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes NJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
nNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Q No
Cl NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
19 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
5 N
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
fA No
❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
JBNo
❑ 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
In No
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
12/28/04

J-&
r Division of Water Quality
Facility Number a. s O Division of Soil and Water Conservation `
- - - Q Other Agency (0
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit f Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: i .7 tY7 Arrival Time: © Departure Time: County: 5J+r"P50AJ Region: PO
r
Farm Name: P--/
f7
Owner Name: r
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Facility Contact: &n4 Title: Phone No:
h
Onsite Representative: Integrator: --
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gifts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Latitude: 0 0 =' ="
Longitude: E__1 o = i
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?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Po_ pulaiion ,
❑ Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cod I
Number of Structures: ILI
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the Statc?,(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 qNo ❑ NA EINE
❑ Yes
❑ NoAn
NA
EINE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
UNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
JK No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�C No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number:�/ f Date of Inspection /DLJ
Waste Collection & Treatment
. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 1A No ❑ NA EINE
a, if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes )4 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 IM 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 XNo. ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes rg,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 Anolicati:on
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes o El NA El NE
maintenance/improvement'?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ryOu No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop typeEar s) w�J, Q l �' ,C , f 6,, 69 --
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):
[ rv. o,� S-Jda-%-A V-11
S VA\, r tQ,,5 4EXusLo- r. avN i nen 6L O 6a^,k-
13.
Soil type(s)
0
ReviewerAnspector Signature: Date:LZ&—=
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
+io
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement'?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[:] Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
1� 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):
[ rv. o,� S-Jda-%-A V-11
S VA\, r tQ,,5 4EXusLo- r. avN i nen 6L O 6a^,k-
k1w
Reviewer/inspector Name rt`s Phone:,7 Q) `133-3360
0
ReviewerAnspector Signature: Date:LZ&—=
12/28104 Continued

Faei ity Number:2-9j Date of Inspection O']
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 CAWM P readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
;qNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
`
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28/04

Type of Visit +WCompliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine Q Complaint 0 Follow up Q Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit. A K Time: Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name:1 Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative.
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =0
=6
=6 Longitude: =0=1
u
4 „
Design
Current
Design Current
DesEgn} Current
Swine x
Capacity
Population Wet Poultry
Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity�Population
❑ La er
❑ Dairy
Non -Layer
-Cow
❑ Dai Calf
L
J❑
❑ Dai Heifer
Dry Poultry
❑ D Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑Beef Feeder
�'
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
------
Other
10 Other
F
..r
Number, oftStructttres
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean �. 7 �
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Cilts
❑ Boars
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? El Yes �l No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: El Structure ❑Application Field El Other �, /
a. Was the conveyance man-made? El Yes ❑ No l(XNA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) (I Yes ❑ NoNo �0'1�A ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the Slate (gallons)'? �r 1
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) 1:1 Yes ❑ No �A ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? El Yes �eo ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State El Yes LTNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 12/28/04 Continued
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other

Facility Number: Z — �~ 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 U ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ u0m those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
[�(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
Q'No [INA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environ
tal threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes
❑ No ❑ NA EINE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
2No
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes
,_�
O o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
Waste Application
❑ NA
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ YesP<o
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
EITIN"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 WindowEl Evidence of Wind Drift El Application of Area
1Outside
12. Crop type(s) I�.J��i M" (�` / IxAr Z:)rn et.l� Q
4u'yy
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ u0m those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
D o
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
hfo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
ET"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
2No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (re&r ta'question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any'recommendations or any other comrttents.
Use, drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use. additional pages as necessary):
to uxcAc n' vv --v a vi-�,'n qo a t' v -c,
S_kQLb % l i _ta4L-'9Vj s
T
_
Reviewer/Inspector Nam I L �1 Phone: X33 3
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 1212NI04 Continued

Facility Number: Yz—s Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes QNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Q -4o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 'L`SNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes L`TNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes 0-16' ❑ NA ❑ 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?
❑ Yes
P,�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
j?Tlo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
93"No
❑ NA
EINE
❑ Yes
S No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
U No
❑ NA
❑ NG
Additional meats and/oir.Drawings:
Com
L
r
Page 3 of 3
12/28/04

O�OF W A t19QG M ic6ael F. Earley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr.. secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1
Q Alan W, Klimek, P.F- Director
Division of Water Quality
January 3, 2006
CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIVED
RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED JAN 2-4,2006,
Prestage Farms
P-11 OM •FAYMEMLLESE-GONALOKE
PO Box 438
Clinton -NC 28328
Subject: Notification for Phosphorus Loss Assessment
P-11
Permit Number NCA282511
Facility 82-511
Sampson County
Dear Prestage Farms,
There is a condition in your recently issued Animal Waste Management General NPDES Permit
addressing phosphorous loss standards. The permit condition quoted below states that if the state or
federal government establishes phosphorus loss standards your facility must conduct an evaluation within
180 days. The Federal Natural Resources Conservation Service has now established this standard. A
computer-based program was developed to determine how much phosphorus was being lost from
different fields. Instructions on how to comply with this requirement are provided below.
In accordance with your NPDES Permit Number NCA282511 Condition 1. 6, your facility must now
conduct a Phosphorus Loss Assessment. Condition 1.6 states:
"If prior to the expiration date of this permit either the state or federal government establishes
Phosphorus loss standards that are applicable to land application activities at a facility operating
under this permit, the Permittee must conduct an evaluation of the facility and its CAWMP under
the requirements of the Phosphorus Ioss standards to determine the facility's ability to comply
with the standards. This evaluation must be documented on fortes supplied or approved by the
Division and must be submitted to the Division. This evaluation must be completed by existing
facilities within six (6) months of receiving notification from the Division.
Once Phosphorus loss standards are established by the state or federal government that are
applicable to facilities applying to operate under this permit, no Certificate of Coverage will be
issued to any new or expanding facility to operate under this permit until the applicant
demonstrates that the new or expanding facility can comply with these standards_"
The method of evaluation is the Phosphorous Loss Assessment Tool (PLAT) developed by NC. State .
University and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. PLAT addresses four potential loss
pathways: leaching, erosion, runoff and direct movement of waste over the surface. Each field must be
individually evaluated and rated as either low, medium, high or very high according to its Phosphorus _
Carolina
Aquifer Protection Section 1636 Wail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1636 Phone [phone] CustomerService
Internet: http://12o-errr,st8te.nc.us 2728 Capital Boulevard Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
Fax [phone]
An Equal Opporturi4lAtrurnative Acton Employer- 50% Recyded110% Post Consumer Paper

Prestage Farms
Page 2
January 3, 2006
loss potential. The ratings for your farm must be reported to DWQ using the attached certification form.
The PLAT forms must be kept as records on your farm for future reference.
From the date of receipt of this letter, a period of 180 days is provided to perform PLAT and return the
certification form to DWQ. Only a technical specialist who has received specific training may perform
PLAT. You are encouraged to contact a technical specialist now to run PLAT on your farm. Your local
Sol] and Water Conservation District may be able to provide assistance. This information on the attached
form(s) must be submitted within 180 days of receipt of this letter to:
Animal Feeding Operations Unit
Division of Water Quality
1636 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
NPDES permitted farms will need to have implemented a nutrient management plan which addresses
phosphorus loss before the next permit cycle beginning July, 2007. If you have any fields with a high or
very high rating, then your waste utilization plan will require modifications. The purpose of performing
PLAT this early is to allow adequate time for making waste plan modifications where necessary. With
the next permit, continued application of waste will not be allowed on fields with a very high rating. For
fields rated high, only the amount of phosphorus projected to be removed by the harvested crop. For low
and medium ratings, phosphorus will not be the limiting factor. Once the PLAT evaluation is completed
an your farm, you will knoyv if you have fields that need further work. You are encouraged to begin
- developing and implementing a strategy to deal with any issues as soon as possible.
Please be advised that nothing in this letter should be taken as removing from you the responsibility or
liability for failure to comply with any State Rule, State Statue or permitting requirement.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone] or
the Fayetteville Regional Office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Paul Sherman
Animal Feeding Operations Unit
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office
Sampson County Soil and Water Conservation District
.Facility File 82-511

,
--------- -- ®Di 'sion of Water Quali
► ,ty
CiU Number 1 L�2 Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation () Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ® Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral Q Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Uf Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:Region:/
Farm Name: P Owner Email:
Owner Name: Pr c + ate_ F-4 I w► sPhone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title.
Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Q„� rQfl_�L_ _�Yc �'�ak _ Integrator: r
Certified Operator: Z44- Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ❑ n ='
=66 Longitude: =0[=j
o[=j
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish 3 ❑ La er
❑ Wean to Feeder i ❑ Non -La et
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean 7Y.P76
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
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 Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures:ED
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?
M
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28/04 Continued

Gommeats (refer to question ( Explain any YEYanswer's1andlor any�recommemdahans�ar any other comments.
Use dram of fa ' ' to hettersei lata sttvaboies: use additwaal a es as neves
i:. _cry , . p ( - 3e�..P g _s s
7—
Facility Number: -Z - . Date of Inspectionna-
'SPOTf Oh 14n4061J
+'..—t---�Sap.
l�Ov.��v���pp
'r Waste Collection & Treatment
J5'
Ilef►IOJ�
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:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): %9 �' . 1.21.2 rises
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
P 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
W No
[INA ❑ 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?
DA Yes
❑ No
[INA ❑NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
4. 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 EINE
maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below_
❑ Yes
m No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside
of Area
12. Crop type(s) e - h n 0-S
13. Soil type(s) P 10 N- rl
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination%❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Gommeats (refer to question ( Explain any YEYanswer's1andlor any�recommemdahans�ar any other comments.
Use dram of fa ' ' to hettersei lata sttvaboies: use additwaal a es as neves
i:. _cry , . p ( - 3e�..P g _s s
7—
130rc
'SPOTf Oh 14n4061J
+'..—t---�Sap.
l�Ov.��v���pp
+v
J5'
Ilef►IOJ�
dverSCr_'Z G.­U�
QPYD±�v�]� W LtrJ�
CU��r��i� tUjJ
w }1G�dJ
Reviewer/Inspector Name ,L , �a / i Phone.
7 I • U 1
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:a % l05
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: 512 — S1 1 Date of Inspection
""Regubled 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.
❑ WLTP El Checklists El Design El Maps E] Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes m No ❑ NA ❑ NE
/.47
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
m No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PIAT) certification?
❑ Yes
© No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
[Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
A�dditioaai'Commentssnd/orDrawiitgs ; : .'' ���`._
12/28/04
12/28/04

of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 3' o Tine: 1 L)"00
Facility Number �'�
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
M-Pernutted D.eertified © Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .. .
FarmName: J ��..M_ County:
OwnerName:.......p� e�T4� R... �4�M.5................................................................. Phone No:................................W._ - �.�. ...�...�._.
Mailing Address:..W P__. �� . �1[ _- ,1� ......._..
Facility Contact: .._. �........ :aal."ocack...... _... Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative:..Integrator:
�F—WW__----
Certified Operator., - ?� - P Rt l eY Operator Certification Number-..._ Ia� ; Ali' &_.
Location of Farm:
wine [3Poultry [3Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • r.4 Longitude • «
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes M -Ko
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes 9190
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes B -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 p -No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes M-90
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes EINO
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
❑ Yes Mwo-
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier
Freeboard (inches): Zig• _
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection `
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental thereat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes D - go
❑ Yes B<a
(]Yes B -114o
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelmprovement? ❑ Yes ff%
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes 2Fllo,
elevation marlangs?
Waste Application
10_ Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? [I Yes Eg-Ko
H. is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ONO
❑ Excessive Ponding E]
E]PAN E] Hydraulic Overload [:]Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type [e�M.4 4�rr.
_ rte?
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ,ENO
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes MNO
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes EINo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes Eallo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes S -No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes 04o
Odor L -sues
17_ Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes [9 -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 E+'No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes Et) 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.
Ax"v � "Y v5 _.� Ti T •:,. ...�. ,.� ,._. x� .. ;"..'_.�'v.. �'� 'g-' :7
:c6ffiments (refer to gneshod#) xEzplam any YFS ara�weis.and/or arty '-'n5 or.any otue comments. ti
YJse drawxngs.;�f'fat�Ti3' to better � srtuatrni�. (use `at�6o�asl-pages as �']'} `ti. Q-1=ieldxCopy ❑Final No .` -
r
ReviewerAWspector Name .,
( .-
ReviewerAnspeetor Signature: r3 Date: 6 9 c/
11/12/03 - - Continued

• Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Re uired Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie! WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(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 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
❑ Yes Q'No
❑ Yes 0,140
❑ Yes ❑Vo
❑ Yes D No
❑ Yes U -No
❑ Yes Ugo
❑ Yes (Flo
❑ Yes Lfiio
❑ Yes [bio
[a'c'es ❑ No
❑ Yes [gf4o
❑ Yes 2 No
[�'es ❑ No
0- 'es ❑ No
❑ Yes M No
U"No violations or deficiencies were noted during this vet. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit-
ddrtxonal Cbameats and/or Drawings �`
,s,1 n �^ 1 / r
3 3 Gncl y /'I J- , +C] ql' e t o d S Tu �e d +Aa Alj e 4,7,e? I
�
yr vey and h e �crl,'6ra {:oH U 1 c, 44,ch
ICGJV,"PIrjP,7f A/uu/rte! el p le iPe/ Jy 1-16 e_ ef110' C, 1414 00f
/', rJc![7,17
o� escc � �rl,Ss Gave,- Gln /tip
the /�5
ear
F6 s'n 10,1(s gac ci
12112103

Site Rewires Immediate Attention: No
goc-,J �Pe�err Facility No.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: 'J 8 , 1995
Time: 1 P. So
Farm Name/Owner: % t3 � e rl4 r "s P- 11 ��o.,, ted.• � ,t;crr .�
Mailing Address- T� 1>c 3" Chi .Y c 7 :, ze
--I
County:L_G_YN7L//*„-...W - - - - - - -
Integrator:_ o ra•H.�� - -, Phone:
On Site Representativee: M & C Jnn_ Phone:
Physical Address/Location:
f
Type of Operation: Swine t/ Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: 2 . o Number of Animals on Site: 2 u �- 2 4 „✓,s��f.
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: Longitude:
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon ha sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) eesbr No Actual Freeboard: "Z- Ft. __(Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)') Yes orLl§ Was any erosion observed? Yes or09)
Is adequate land available for sera? or No Is the cover crop adequate? es or No
Crop(s) being utilized: Q s I � - r, u -d -
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings, �or No
Yd
100 Feet from Wells? (-s or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or a
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line: Yes o>s1
Is animal waste discharged into water of the state by marc -made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes ord9o� If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management recMr
volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)'! No
Additional Comments: 2 k b,t sP i., F_ pJP✓ -_ -
0- k lv� � �f -5 'JcAle L 4 L", , ,
Inspector Name Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.

WMTR CAROLIlM DEPARTMZNT OF , miALTs a NAT[YRAL RZSOM=
DIVISION OP ZNVMONMZNTAL MMGE CRT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance inspection Form
.� "wHa.F.e
-w:�.'.��yr•,•,��.w'�ie'.`•�€•:/ri.�+•a+d+ r„�"'o- �,4`■^.�-.�._.�.� - ;:-
•i',;+ + /,WAI�,.Li �;:i:?: r,++' .ry
=,
'.==Cyy:'`DAT
LLLP(es�ja cQ, tit r rn
:W :..a r -..u- Y �, .y.�: �- _K,
W w•�- Y a „,p,Y;�:q�,TMA�;ia�7T +-��f.�yyp.:�w�T�y�p -
I
�n- �+ y.. ����.:.wyc �:++rp^••
y��- �.�.��yy...f
�� ,,.4i:".wh'r' �•{«yyiiFL7 ..�SiriAavr.7V ..�r%�-v.�""�`Lce�3r�.s -wx V�'i"� ACIL :,-i ria.4'�t a3V+E s. .:f�4+�� �.'.+.
CI+n Lin z z
taiga ��+
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the, Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections;
n=ION I
f
Animal Operation Type: 1-0y'(0VI/
Horses, cattle wine) poultry, or sheep
$F=ZON I
Y I N I COMMMiTs
1. Does the number and type of animal meet or exceed
the (.0217) criteria? (Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), .and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal operation T TRATION?
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12 -month period?
4. Does this facility have a CERTErM APTiM
WASTE MAKAGMCMT P3.AW
5. Does this facility maintain waste management.
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
6. noes this facility tweet the SCS minims=
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc:

A
SE�L`PIdN III
Y N COMMENTS
Field Site Management
]. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
C=Structiom within 100 ft, of a USGS
Map Slue Line Stream?
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream?
3. Does this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
4. Does the land application'site have a
cover crop ib accordance'with the
CERTIFICATION PLAN.
5. Is animal waste discharged into waters of
the state by man-made ditch, flushing system,
or other similar man-made devices?
F. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices
(SMP) of the approved OBTTFICA71ON?
7_ Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? {Approximately ) i
6. is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
st?MON TV
Co=ernt s

I i
y r ► 4y w � � s� ti
T '
ry, i _ F
• -••fir Oji �j .- � � j 0 s PI y �
i
r•'
TVA > ::
ZZ
E� a •-- ..
_ r �
• Y � f• r «
A
-7=
Ile
µ r
r�
a r .j � ��• 1.1 30 L _ _
CLSp 0
a v •_ u`
a I '1 p �
j N ar DIRECTIONS TO F-11 (HARGROVE SCHOOL FARM)
4
~ From Clinton take 403 towards Faison; go about 5 miles. Go
past SR 1752 on the left and a bridge; at the bottom of the
hill, Farm is on right.
� N
OP
f
' s f

tk=-GIS'7'.R-3,7:0N IDRM Fri.=, ANIMAL E L07 0zF-kA7,0NS
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division o Ezavironmenta? Management
Water Quality Section
If the animal waste management system for your feedlot operzc_on
is
designed to serge more than or
ecual to I00 head
of cattle,
75
horses, 2w0 swine, 1,000 sheep, or 30,000 birds t at
are served
by
a 1 icuid waste system, t;ie_^. this
form :nus , be .:i' = ed
our. and mailed
by Oecemher 31, 1-993 pursuant t:.
15A NCi,C 2-'-:..02'-,7 (c)
in order to
be
deemed pe= -.teed by DF -4. ?lease
print clearly.
?,I 1
ar:n Name
Mail_na Address.
Ccunzv --
Owner (s) Name:
Manage= (s) Name:
Lessee Name:
Farm. Location (Be as specific as no sible: road names, direction,
:nilenost, etc.) E o f GL� 'S#��C�4�3 .3�MP-1 -F III.
60' 5 M i �C� S �,n �7 a�-r S 1-7r-,-:3- r",4 nr a n Z. � C
Lat_tude /Long itude 1i known: [ i1'?�SA i �', L41 -15-0
Desicn capaci _y of animal wast management system (Number and type
c. conr;- nea an (s)) L2U
Average anima; copulation cn t -he farma
m (Number and type of anil (s)
.raised) • MAs F---amje
ni Year Production Began: -/911 ASCS Tract No.: 0531
Type of Waste Management System Used: IZT
Acres Available for Land Applicati of ate: o
Owner (s) Signature (s)
DATE:

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment. ATA
Health and Natural Resources •
Fayetteville Regional Office a
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor� C
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C
Andrew McCall, Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 21, 1994
Mr. Glenn Clifton
P.D. Box 438
Clinton, NC 28328
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
Sampson County
Dear Mr. -Clifton:
On November 17, 1994, an inspection of your animal operation was
performed by the Fayetteville Regional Office (FRO). Please find enclosed a
copy of our Compliance Inspection Report for your information. It is the
opinion of this office that this facility is in compliance with 15A NCAC 21i;
Part .0217, and that Animal Waste Management is being properly performed.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact
me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Grad Dobson
Environmental Engineer
Enclosure
cc: Facility Compliance Group
Wachovia Building. Suite 714. Eayettevllle, North Carolina 28301-5043 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Acfion Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

I
WORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMEW OF ENV , HEALTH & NATURAL RESOURCES
DMSION OF EM MAGEMENT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
vw.,.:........ h.,M .,::..:.:.. •
y 'I{ a`' ;isi�aS
C'� }.... - YiT+{�/iiK1�7. f�var+o!
�,,t/,r}{
r�Vi1 �AJL IrI
i�lR�aft
Prestage Farms
11/17%94
P-11
MOM:
. Box 438nton,
F
NC 28328
(910)
592-5771
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
SECTION I
Animal Overation
Horses, cattle, swine, poultry, or sheep
SECTION II
1. Does the number and type of animal meet or exceed
the (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal Operation REGISTRATION?
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12 -month period?
4. Does this facility have a ANIMAL
WASTE KWGMMRT PLAN?
5. Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
6. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc?
MOM:

S1�ION III
Field -Site Manac ement
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
Map Blue Line Stream?
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream?
3. Does this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
4. Does the land application site have a
cover crop in accordance with the
CERTIFICATION PLANT
5. Is animal waste discharged into waters of
the state by man-made ditch, flushing system,
or other similar man-made devices?
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices
(HMP) of the approved C RTIVICATION?
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approximately fi_ ft. )
8. is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
SF=OW IV
Comments
Fun
Y
Not
required
mom�
This facility is registered and a certified waste management plan is not
required until the end of 1997. The facility appeared well managed and
maintained.