090153_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
090153 Facility Status:
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit:
Routine
Data of Visit:
03/3112017 Entry Time: 03:00 pm
Farm Name:
Farm 5729 & Farm 3093
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Physical Address:
Active Permit: AWS090153 [] Denied Access
Inactive Or Closed Date:
County: Bladen Region: Fayetteville
Exit Time: 4:00 pm Incident 9
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Warsaw NC 28398
Facility Status: 0Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34' 29' 46" Longitude: 78" 46' 22"
SR # 1172 and Hwy 131 near Bladenboro
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other issues
Certified Operator: James C Smith Operator Certification Number: 17907
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Sits Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Michael Ammons Phone
On -site representative Michael Ammons Phone:
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS090153 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090153
Inspection Date: 03/31/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to wean 8,988
Total Design Capacity: 8,988
Total SSLW : 3,891,804
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
29
19.50
37.00
Lagoon
3093A
Lagoon
3093B
Lagoon
7729
Lagoon
931
19.50
40.00
Lagoon
932
27.00
72.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS090153 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090153
Inspection Date: 03/31/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharaes & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
1:10
❑
b. Did 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)
❑
❑ M
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storane & Treatment
Yes No Nn_He
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le.! large
❑
❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yea No NA No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu. Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS090153 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090153
Inspection Date: 03/31/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste -Application
Yea No Na No
Crop Type 1
Corn, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Sorghurn, Sudex (Pasture)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Exum very fine sandy loam,
0 to 3% slope
Soil Type 2
Nehunta very fine sandy
loam
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ E ❑ ❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop andlor land application site need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
fee No Na No
19. Did the facility fail t0 have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS090153 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090153
Inspection Date: 03/31/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
E ❑ ❑
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑ ❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
01313
25. is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
N ❑ ❑
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?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
27, Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na No
28, Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 Cl
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29, At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
E ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
E ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
N ❑
❑
page: 5

Type of Visit compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit A3 1outine Q Complaint Q Follow up 0 Referral ( Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Dale of Visit: Arrival Time: dU De�parrtt]u�rCounty:
Farm Name: �/m- - / ��r"� / Owner Email:
Ocaner Name: lyta4e4 Phone: _
Mailing Address:
e-''\_ Region:
Physical Address: 0'
Facility Contact: r'lS�i?'! 2 Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: s'�'`"�— Integrator:
�r
Certified Operator:' �� Operator Certification Number.,_;;16�
[lack -up Operator:
Locution of Farm:
...,Design . Current
Swtnq,;, Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
/rp flOO
Farrow to Wean
Wo
L
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
ther
❑ Other
Rack -up Certification Number:
Latitude: =o =I = r Longitude: =o =1
❑ Lavers
❑ Non -Lavers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turlwvs
❑ Turkey POUIIS
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (I f yes, notify DWQ)
Cattle
Design Current
Capaeity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Cali'
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry COW
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beel' 13rood COW
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:..© ;
d. Does discharge hypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWO)
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 Stag
other than from a discharge'?
Page I q13
❑ Yes aNlo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes
❑No
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Ycs
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑NA
❑NE
Oyes
❑No
❑ Yes E&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 5&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection D f
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 25-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If ycs, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 0
Identifier: ! / 0o
Spillway":
Designed Freeboard (in): 0
Observed Freeboard (in): 37 to f
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ic/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan'?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA ❑ Nl
(Not applicable to roofed pits. dry stacks and/or wct stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Ycs
C4No
❑ NA ❑ N I
maintenance or intprove ntent?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA ❑ Nh
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu,
Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside
of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ froth those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
JKJ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the lacility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
f;7 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate aercage for land application?
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer .toquestion#) Explain any YS'an5wers andlnr{any recommendations or,any other comments
Use drawings of facility to. better explain situattttns ({use additionhUp"ages as necessary):
i A.
Reviewer/Inspector Name °1' 77T- _ - - — - N- Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Paze 2 of �2rzRin�r r„►rrrrirled

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 09V/
' Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes QZ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping; need improvement'? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes CK 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? ElYes pa No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit'?
❑ Yes
[g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge'?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
Zj No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
(4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[3,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
P 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
10.) No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency'?
❑ Yes
[4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

0
ion of Water Quality 45 �P`r�_ L__�
Facility Number O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit
Compliance Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
0 Routine Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of %Iisit: Arrival Time: . O Departure Time. D 0 1 County: d "
Farm Name: �Grr►�'! /riZ�d' ��/✓'z I� Owner Email:
Owner Name: 3n weL G L C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region: LLB
Facility Contact: Carr (5i" i I 4-- 'Title: Phone No: 9%,2 a7/—70451.J.-�L
Onsite Representative: /�— C� Integrator:
Certified Operator: �d 1_Z_ _ �< ,-t rf, _ Operator Certifi tion Number: 0 . O2 Y15—
Rack -up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =o ❑ = Longitude: =o =, ❑
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La ei
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
(o 00
Farrow to Wean
qDDO
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Pouets
❑ 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 Coin
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non-Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If ves, 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 [gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
LN No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
4,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: --153 1 Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & "Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard'?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway'?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
El Yes [:1 No El NA ®NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ® NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [K NF
(ic/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ® NE
through a waste management or closure plan'?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement'? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 5 NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA J,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 21NE
maintenance or improvement'?
Waste Auplication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA 14 NE
maintenance/improvement?
1 1. Is there evidence of incorrect application'? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA El NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10%, or 10 Ills ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptabic CropWindow ❑ Evviidence of Wind Drift [IApplication Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) efl#,y� LIV4e2L6�BYf,I�a�S
13. Soil type(s) a XA I (Q AL
T
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes
®No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement'? ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ® NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination'?❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA R1 NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ENE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA Z_NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
J Okk (20 t.�Cd n 01— �!'"
U �+ i-0 0 11r� �`r
r
a � y p p7tole Way-C aZS Gv��` r� r'7�e_ql, 1 � rivt
S� rnrvrt- f 1 tt" �C%tOf S C rYir� 1r✓��
lj T, DWG
Reviewer/inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Phone: 9-147 y3y�30"2 _4
Date:
12128104 Continued

t
Facilitv Number: — Date of inspection
Re wired 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 appropiiate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists [I Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA aNE
❑ 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?
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit'?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge'?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern'?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection-with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Additional. Comments and/or Drawings:
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
JZ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
P NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[RNE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
OZ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[RINE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
KNE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA W NE
[]Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ERNE
❑ Yes
[]No
❑ NA
®.NE
❑ Yes
[M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 09 153 Date of Visit: l I11812{1112 Time: 2;tI0
r Not O >'erational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........
Farm Name: Fa1ro1#29A.l?al:mA9A.................. ........................................ County: BJadten-----------------------------------. FRU.........
Owner Namc:yn's_uf_CAminA,1tar~.---____-- Phone No: 4JQ�44J134fl.-----------------------------
Mailing Address: �5�.�aa.2�2........................... . Basic.kiili.N.C.......................................................... Z8.45.8 ..............
Facility Contact:DaveNordia.......................................Fitle:............................................... Phone No: ......................................
Onsite Representative: UAyiLNQrdin6.'hiilJK�tolart4icff Integrator: IlCo1Y0.5q[Car2i1DA,_luf.----------------.
Certified Operator: Gory,.RoFt41CX....................... Varisgam................................. ......... Operator Certification Nunther: 2(557.............................
Location of Farm:
3111 ## 1172 and Hwy 131 near Bladenboro +
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ horse Latitude 34 OF-30--T 00 Longitude 78 • 45 00 u
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
16000
® Farrow to Wean
4000
❑ I�arrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ other
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
Total Design Capacity 20,000
Total SSLW 3,892,000
Number of Lagoons 3 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ spry Field Area
Holding Ponds/ So1id Traps No Liquid Waste Management System
DischarMs & Stream linyac'ts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
Discharge originated at; ®Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'?
h. if discharge is observed, did it roach Water ofthe Stale'? (If yes, notit}l DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, whit is the estimaled flow in L.;alltttin'?
d. IN)es discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (II'yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'?
® Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge'? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Slruclure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Struetnrc 5 SlrttClUre 0
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
65/03/110 1 Continued

Facility Number: o9--1S3
Date of Inspection 11/1R12002
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan'?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Aunlication
10. Are there any bnllers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application'? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage fir land application'?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination'?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18, Does the facility fail to have all components ofihe Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge'?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit'?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comihents {infer t6`question #) Explain.any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use dra'wings''of facility to rf?etter;explatn situations. {use additional pages as necessary): ❑ I icld Copy ❑ hinal Notes
a
-Notification by Brown's of Carolina of discharge from new innovative waste treatment system. Upon arrival, discharge had heen
cleaned from containment basin and adjacent ditches. Discharge appreared to have origonated at the influent pump station adjacent to the
_Ak�
solid seperator. The pump station overflowed to a stormwater ditch and flowed to a containment basin. Overflow occurred sometime
during the weekend and was discovered Monday morning. Total discharge approximated at 250 gallons.
-There was a possibility that some ofthe discharge passed through the containment basin to an adjacent canal. Brown's pumped the
containment basin and adjacent canal back to the lagoon. No samples were taken since cleanup had finished prior to our arrival.
- The overflow from the pump station possibly occured after a high water alarm was sounded during the weekend. The high water alarm
ReviewerAnspector Name ]Paul Sherman John Hasty
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

U5/U /Ui Continued
' I Facility Number: 09_153 hate of Inspection I l 1/18/2002
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon [ail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level oflagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ❑ No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted'? (i.c. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken Ian blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
lAdditionalComments and/or rawings:�,,
triggers shut off valves at the influent lines coming from the barns. Since the system is still in start-up, a pump had been setup to •►
recirculate lagoon water to the system. This pump cannot he shut ofrfrom the high water alarm. The pump continued to run after
the high water alarm and possibly caused the overflow.
- During further inspection, the system also has leaks at the top of the tour aerated tanks. These leaks have caused foaming and drips
coming from the tops of the tanks.
- The permit was discussed with Brown's and Ekokan to confirm that Ekokan was considered responsible tier the discharge.
Ekokan's responsiblity to report the discharge was discussed as was the importance of following up on high water alarms.
J

ti --9-1 N s tt6-
ivision of Water Quality
Facility Number ®- © 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit: (ZLR6mpliiance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: outine Q Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: -L-2�1Arrival Time: Departure Time: D County: Region:
Farm Name: zfam t '29 L- Fa/"n 9�3
Owner Name: / il"'Ok;?/-du1/t G L[.
Mailing Address:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 'yJ�l.,,*¢jiy,�p,-s Title: �,,,.�/�Jv���r�� Phone:
Onsite Representative: �_ Integrator: /!! ie
—r
Certified Operator:✓l %�i �l� - _ Certification Number:Sa y�
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
/d've'o
140,10
X
Farrow to Wean
x1Del .a
-I o a o
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Imnacts
ion-Layer
a er
llry rou
Layers
Non -Lay
Pullets
Other
Puults
Design Current
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes [R-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: 0 Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If ycs, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
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 [E No
❑ Yes S No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Division of Water Quality..,
" Facility Numbe� - /S3 0 Division of Soil,and Water Conservation
- 0 Other Agency
type of Visit: Q.C6m/pliance Inspection Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: t�'Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: d Departure Time:; '3 D County:
Farm Name: form rt F—ax"n Owner Email:
Owner Name: _lWjle Y z-own /_ Lr _ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region:
Facility Contact: 4a , Title: f�..,,�. lllv��� ^�� Phone:
Onsite Representative: ;r«.a.._. Integrator: /f7��✓,�y Jv �s�
Certified Operator:Certification Number: _�z
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
i`•
Feeder to Finish
/bops
X
Farrow to Wean
dgoa &
H a o v
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
Certification Number:
Latitude:
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
Design Current
rou
Pullets
Poults
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop,
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Daia Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
1 • Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
D'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
e, What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
© No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
© No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: 27- / 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: —�2 Ct 3—r 9f 13 _,;;o
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 12 �Z
Observed Freeboard (in): 2 I j 3
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
Callo
❑ 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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
I i. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Q 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): GD: vt
13. Soil Type(s): � )(,,f
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes 0No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement'? ❑ Yes [' No [DNA ❑ 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
I & 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
[Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
12 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ pease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0 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 [5 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

Facili Number: 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
[ENo ❑NA ❑NE
❑No ❑NA ❑NE
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: 3--I`�-
Spiliway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 7
Observed Freeboard (in): �2 1 +>I j V, (,
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
© No
D 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
0 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
CO, No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
©No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
0 No
0 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 ❑ 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): Gpi,--k f W�� � J��• �So ram'/.t...�
13. Soil Type(s): /J A / F Y-If �.-
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 iack adequate acreage for land application'?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Reouired Records & Documents
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes ©No ❑NA ❑NE
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
12 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
Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis, ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather
Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
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
Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - / Date of Iris ection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes O-No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes n 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 E] No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal'?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage fond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/lnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34, Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes O No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes g) No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[] Yes [Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes LEI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Eg-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
omments (referjo 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/]nspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
21412011

Facili Number: - 1 S; Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑Yes ®No ❑ NA ONE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge`? If yes, check ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ©No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes KL]' No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31, Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes m No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes © No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes © No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA [] NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes © No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
Comments (refer to question;#) Explain any YES answers, and/or any additional recommendations or any othergomments.
raw nos. of'facillty to better. explain situations (use Additional: pages as necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name: S` —,3- �< 7_�. �—f _ Phone: >112
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: may, / ^' Date:
Page 3 of 3 21412011

015rivision of Water Quality `,� _&__ -
Facility Number ®- /� O Division of Soil and Water Conservation ! j : ,79—/X
.O Qiher Agency:
r
peof Visit:mpliance Inspection Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
ason for Visit: outine O Complaint O Fallow -up O Referral O Emercency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ', j D I Departure Time: 3 ; p0 County:
Farm Name: d— �3 Owner Email:
Owner Name: tgze !z ff-,Vat-L L G [� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title: ��(c-xq, Phone:
Region:
Onsite Representative:
Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator: _4�7'
Certification Number:,��2L��
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity, Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Layer
on -Layer
Design Current.
Dry Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turke Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
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?
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
0 Yes 5g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

r'
[Fuility Number: - Date of inspection: ;
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ 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: 471�
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
[Z 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
MNo
❑ 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
M 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
IQ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10_ Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
C&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. D Yes ZNo ❑ 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
L ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop TYpe(s): C pt44t `911o� 4i
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?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment'?
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes Z 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 [Z No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and l" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes M 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

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
'1 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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
[Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
rO No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
ELNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers andlor.any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
�ri-G � �i!? %p� !r�'s�'G t�%CGt✓r�l �Y/Dr �f,`�— �5�7;
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Phone: 3 0L
Date: — _ �� -,;;7e -2-
2/4/2011
Page 3 of 3

Type of Visit (9<ompllance Inspection U Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation U Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: D Departure Time: 30 1 County: Region; .
Farm Name: �it/i?'t. � it lai2rw— Owner Email:
Owner Name: _- ,ur~n4 _F/`Vcypk— ILA Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �- O(J49 A y Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: �-� 1— Integrator:
Certified Operator: )6�11/ _A` e7_1; Operator Certification Number: , tS
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ❑ o = = Longitude: ❑ ° = t =
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
[� Feeder to Finish G DcTO
Farrow to Wean O
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
Other.
❑ Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Dischames & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
®.No
[]Yes
ICNvo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
5 No
[]NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
12/2"4 Continued

Facility Number: —113 Date of inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes RNo ❑ 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: 42,3.4— '',313
Spiliway?: L___�
Designed Freeboard (in): 11�f E 7
Observed Freeboard (in): 35- S— 3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes UNo ❑ 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 ❑ 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 [R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes WOL 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 Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application'? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ER.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window [:]Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ 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
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
F.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
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
®,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/inspector Name �7 — vid
APhone: 914a-493' 3
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:-��}t�;i f'l
rage L of J k.onrenueu

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available`? ❑ Yes SNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components ol'the CAWMP readily available'? if yes, check ❑ Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists [:]Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 9.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 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment'?
❑ Yes
[allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit'?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility tail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit'?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge'?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
Eallo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CA WMP`?
❑ Yes
59 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
5LNo
❑ 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
IRNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/[nspector tail 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
17No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

0
14
l 166a of Water Quality -(' 1, 7 ' !O
Fncility'Number �-�� �.Divisian of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
z
t
Type of Visit C>-Co—mpliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Vkit: -j 0 - l7 Arrival Time' Departure Time: dOP County: 940'""
..,.�c�
l arm Nantr: �u
t d-a�% 3 T Owner Email:
O►vner Name-. M i.,a% / KID 2-02- �- �- �- Phone:
Mailing address:
Physical Address:
ar.ilit)Conlnet: ; Tille:
Onsitt Representative:
Certified Operator: 1-1-f V- C->S
Back-up Operator:
I_,ocatimi of Farm:
Swine
Phone No:
Integrator -
Region: t'0
Operator Certificalion Number: 442 ��
Bark -up Certification Number:
Latitude: =O =4 �" Longitude: =o =, ❑ a
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
F
La er Non -Layer
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
p
[Farrow to Wean
on
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream ltrimicts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: El
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 f .No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE.
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes If.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

r Facility Number: —�` Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
M Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a, if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA [l NE
Stmellfre I Stniclur�e2 structure ? Stnii:tur� 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
Idetnifier: �2/py-
1 9-3 �+ ya z
Spillway?:
Designed Ureehoard (in): — � 1 � --- � �1 � C�_l__
Observed Freeboard tin):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes PSNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Oe/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes [I 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 RNo [} NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
�_ZNo
❑ 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
RNo
❑ NA [I NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need Yes
' No
IAN
NA NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN Cl PAN > 10% or 10 1bs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window [:]Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop types)
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
2 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16, Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination i ❑ Yes
LM 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
[X No
❑ NA ❑ NE
IComments (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):
way Rr ,� ►a ;3 t /- - ry, S
L
wer/Inspector Name Phone:wer/Inspector Signature: Date: —/ D 7;?0/0
12128104 Continued

f
Facility Number: — /,j Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. []Yes ®No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Sail 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?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern'?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Eallo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ER,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Ej No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E[No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number Q Divtsion.of Soil and Water Conservation
_ ...... _.._. Q Other Agency a 7­0
Type of Visit O<ompliance Inspection Q Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0- outine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: R� Arrival Time: t vC7 Departure Time: N' O County:
Qc�� arm �.��
Farm Name: cae-n'L �/'/ _... � Owner Email:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 44
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: _
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to hinish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
w Regionllo� I-)
a Ilia'i zPhone No���` J
Operator Certification Number.-";z
Back-up Certification Number: /,720Z
Latitude: =�� =I = Longitude: =o o,
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non-Lavet
Dry Poultry
❑ Lavers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part ofthe operation'?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Stnicture ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifel
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ E3eef Stockei
❑ E3eef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: FYI
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (11' yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters ofthe State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge'?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
ZI No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

0
Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & '1'reatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate'?
❑ Yes
9No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If' yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure,{2 Structure 3 Structure 4
StruCture
5
Structure 6
Identifier:,,
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
Q No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ic/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ 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
ZNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
K. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
�] No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ 1-leavy Metals (Cu,
Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10%or l0 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to incorporate Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) 67y r a Z L(%i1-e J'S'
yy
13. Soil type(s) , 142 Z
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[NNo
❑ 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
2 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: 21D-1f3 3_2oo
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
' ,' 12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 10
' Required Records_& Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check ❑ Yes B] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WDP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes KNo ❑ 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
E�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[RCNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification'?
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ 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
r2_2No
❑ 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
CK No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency'?
❑ Yes
[No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or
12128104

Type of Visit Q>Cb"mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit (9'1outine O Complaint 0 Follow up O Referral 0 Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of visit: —LT7 7%rrh-al "Time: Departure Time: : O a Counh':
Farm Name: rarzU it �%vm t3 Owner Email:
Owner Name: _TgrpW n C) C 6�ara /% -, ,- _T74G Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: hide:
Onsite Representative:
Certilied Operator:sr/�
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Region:
Phone No. -
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: /J`. -";? q5
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =1�� 0 = Longitude: =o =
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La yet
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
opt>Qop
Farrow to Wean
000
qOao
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ pullets
❑ Turkeys.
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharp-es & 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 Cali'
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beel'Stocker
❑
Becf Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)'?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge'?
❑ Yes ®No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
[�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
C No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection �—a7
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate'? ❑ Yes CK No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 0�10 O
Observed Freeboard (in): cLE ! % , C)
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed []Yes ZNo ❑ 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 SNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes P9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to rooted pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes (K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need []Yes CKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement'?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application`? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 5a No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals ('Cu, Ln, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15• Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[9 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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
14 No
❑ NA
❑ NF
Comments (refer.to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use.drawings`of facility to'better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
T
Reviewer/inspector Name �,.�� �—,-� i Phone: /Q—l( 13 J 7
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: 2--_ 7 _aycs
Page 2 of'3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — 15A Date of Inspection -!vd 7 07
Required Records & Documents
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available'? If yes, check ❑ Yes [.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the approprrate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 2�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthiy and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge'? ❑ Yes N No El NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance ofthe permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animais within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern'?
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
ElNE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office ofemergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel 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
CNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

f
; wiston of Water Qu,altty•
:[,F,actiEty Number W OEDtvtAd of Sail ustd Water Conservation
"t nQOth C A
Type of Visit
ompiiance Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
outine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: �� County: ��r'''t- Region: �v
Farm Name: g Fgr,2,, t3 Owner Email:
Owner Name: Ic b iti !� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: (�hPi.S c5/Ti� Title:
Onsite Representative: LL,,
Certified Operator: Mel— .� zil + z GS
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: 4_2,:S_2!7
Back-up Certification Number:
=0 =' =u =p=f =u
Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current Design Current
itie'< Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
A.•%.
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
0
Farrow to Wean
yovo
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other.
❑ La er
j❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
Design Current
'.Capacity Polulahan3?`'.
❑
Da ry Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
13cef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (Ifyes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (galions)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters or the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes JZ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Oyes
(9No
❑NA
ONE
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[9No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[�?No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 1:z o Date of Inspection —20T
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: A 0 C
Spillway?: AW �J
Designed Freeboard (in): p20
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of'the structures observed'?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan'?
❑ Yes ®No ❑ NA ❑ N E
[:]Ye,; ®.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement'?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit'?
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect application'? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
[:]Yes
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of
Area
12. Crop //of
/Sd
type(s) ry, ! k2� r,� 7l7r�irs
13. Soil typc(s) 1 5 X A /
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
(2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination'?
❑ Yes
[K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
IT Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
'Comments(refer=to question-#) Explain `any YF,S answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments , t
Usc drawin s of facili to better;"explain{situahons..(use additional pages asAecessary):
g - ty
J
7
__.� ��
Reviewer/[ns ector Name f �v�
p
I Phone:
Reviewer/[nspector Signature:
Date:
t-age 1 nj 1 12128104 Continued

Tq
Facility Dumber: — I Date of Inspection
Required Records &_Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available'? ❑ Yes 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components ofthe CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 91 No ❑ NA ❑ NF
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [2LNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Sail Analysis ❑ Waste 'rransfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and l" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Cade
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit'?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge'?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30, At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern'?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office or 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?
Additional Comments and/or. Drawings:
❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
21 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
LN No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [" No El NA El NE
❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
5qNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
[]Yes
[&No
[]NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

vivisio'n of Water.Quality_ r
FaeiLty`Number 0 �" f� / �� O Di�t81Dn of Soil and Water Conservateon '
- - -- - O Other Agency "t
Type of Visit
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 ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: IL1L LLLJ Arrival Time: f3 Departure Time: D ! Op County: it
Farm Name: 1—/2P/t2 ft:2?jt 4- Fzz►'e!�l 1 3 Owner Email:
Owner Name: Al 4 fey Zf 0LU Phone:
Mailing Address: 2 ,s9 r3 c25 �_— H J 1 Al9f
Physical Address: a
Region: _JERJ.
Facility Contact: Lt!"n -r �> Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: � ur/1 Integrator: 4-
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number: _�, 4lC
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = O = { = Longitude: ❑ ° ='
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La yer
❑ Non -Lave[
Cl Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
(o op
DO
Farrow to Wean
-0
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Lavers
❑ 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 Coin
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
I
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)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (ifyes, 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 rQ No El NA El NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
L4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection -�
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: _ 22Ct 93 / "93 j2—
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3 7
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(iel large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes ER No
Structure 5
[-I NA ❑NE
❑NA [I NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes (&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes [� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes i 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9" Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers. setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of
Wind Drift ❑ A/pplication Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) _����� 'A- / /
l l
13. Soil type(s) !f% X A / & A
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
r7No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination`❑ Yes
[0 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
50 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question.#):- t'xplain any. YES answers and/or any; recommendations .or.any other comments.
-,Use drawings of facility to better explain,Atuations. (use additional pages as necessary): W
Reviewer/Inspector Name �� (�J� i -' Phone:
Reviewer/[nspecter Signature: - Date: /a r2
I21,161 4 c onnnuea

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes EgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If ves, check ❑ Yes &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 10 No ❑ 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 [KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes EZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[KNo
[]NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the pen -nit'?
❑ Yes
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge`?
❑ Yes
[3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification'?
❑ Yes
[4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
21 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
0 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
fQ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
11-yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31,
Did the facility fall to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
[K No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Pen -nit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative'?
❑ Yes
[d No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments- and/ 6r" Drawings:. = '
12128104

p. -
0.
r -
_x`�_.-a ."t-e?
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit • Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other © Denied Access
Facility Number ! S Date of Visit: 10 - - Time: �
Q Not rational Q Below Threshold
0 Permitted U Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: __ Fy�a� __,<.. F C_ _ ._ County: A:?Zke�d
Owner Name: SZt��tn... s._.. ����� 4.?s: _ _.. Phone No: „ /0yy-
Mailing Address: _Cs0,tz
Facility Contact: rf --- $1". m e :g , _ --Title: .. Phone No:
Onsiie Representative: �/a1 t Bu f� � 04 G_ar !'ra, H:. s Integrator: vagh 4.c
Operator Certification Number.
Certified Operator: _ ..Flit1� Gs _ _ Pe __.
Location of Farm:
wine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude
Design Current Design - Current 'Dew . ' Current
.,3wwc
K
Feeder
Finish ooa
weanFeeder
Finish
Boars
W :PoaluyCapadty Population Cattle ation
Layer
Non -Layer Non -Dairy
Other
Total Design';C pac ty
TOW SSL-W
i
NtiEm� of Lagoons
Discharees & Stream Imaacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? �-,�
❑ Yes �yo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes [IIo
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes BNo
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 ffNo
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 0'No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes [rNo
Waste Collection & Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ElSpillway [IYes 0<0
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 5
Identifier: q! -1 .bc'e.'2n u -� -
Freeboard (inches): LIT" 13f 37 "
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection /O
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need ma.intenancetimprovement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancerimprovement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? if yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Excessive Pondina ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ElCopper and/or Zinc
190 ae o iJq 1144 rNl
12. Crop type �DYyIP_AA W f- COrn
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes 30'
❑ Yes ONo
I
❑ Yes �o
❑ Yes [7 No
❑ Yes O No
❑ Yes Of4o
❑ Yes O'�o
❑ Yes E140
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes &KO
❑ Yes EaXo'
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlbr below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes L ..R6
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, es I�vo
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 i/" " Kyes Ls4o
Air Quality representative immediately. ff
❑ Final Notes
Reviewer/inspector Name /tj --
Reviewer/inspector Signature: 117Z.3,4A Date: 1p' a 7 ' 01
1L/1IM-1 Gonanuea

]Facility Number: f2 —jCj Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes -Moo'
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ , c6ec�lists, desk,13aW, etc.) ❑ Yes M-No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 040'
❑ Wwte*pphGaU" ❑weep- ❑ 3M Anal sia
Ib-91 ) 1,a !.g l,7 8--23 >>.3, /,!® .2,3 6 »-�Z�, q. 3.3
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effec{at the time of design? ❑ Yes B-No
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ©No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes 0�5o
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes MIKo
29. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? [:]Yes ,�o
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the.Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes t�'lvo
NTPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35) 8-Y-e's ❑ No
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes �o
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes MWO
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? ❑ Yes EWo
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes [;'No
35. Does record keeping for NPDFS required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Jallo
❑SwekingF ' n ❑ ❑
121121M

Division of Water Quality _
ro Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification@ Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit-3/1$12004 Time:11:30
Facility' Number 09 153
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ........................
Farm Name: Faxa11 9..&.FattUt.# 3.......................... Count)': 131ade,11..................................----......... FRO ..........
Owner Name: ----......... B.rout:n'S.Af.CaroJ.ilaaJac,,........-- Phone No: 9.110-J.�5-1hQO......................
MailingAddress: !'Q.l ax..7.S�...................................... __................................................. kitotNe.hli.0NC.......---............................................... 2.84; ..............
Facility Contact: .................................... ---............... ......... 'Title: ............................. -- Phone No:
Olnsite Representative: -_-. Integrator:]3rl11Y''.S.Q�.CAfRIiA1$tJlxl..................................
Certified Operator: ...... Operator Certification Number:..........,
Location of Farm:
iR # 1172 and Hwy 131 near Bladenboro
® 5wine []Poultry []Cattle []Horse Latitude 34 • 30 00 N L.ongitude 78 • 45 00
Design Current
Swine Canaria, Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
0 Feeder to Finish
16000
® Farrow to Wean
4000
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
L:�
Number of Lagoons 1----.—.3
Discharges & Stream Imuaets
Design Current Design Current
Poultn Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 20,000
Total SSLW 3,892,Oo0
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation*-,' Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. II'discharae is observed, was the convevance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water ofthe State'? (If yes, notify, DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in galhnin`?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of -past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (ieeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure. I Structure 2 Structure ; Structure 4 Structure i Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard('inches): .......... - .......................... ................ ------.................................... ..............................
12/1210i Continued

Facility Number: 09—I53 Date of Inspection 3/18/2004
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ❑ No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
IL _ Is there evidence of over application? If Ives, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Excessive Ponding [:]PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ No
❑ No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)7
❑ Yes
❑ No
14, a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Odor Issues
17, Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
❑ No
19. Is there any evidence of Hind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
❑ No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional
❑ Yes
❑ No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ® Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
DWQ staff observed an irrigation event taking place with a spray gun this date. Observations made from the highway revealed nothing LF
jimproper
Reviewer/Inspector Name Larry Baxley Mark Brantely
ReviewerAnspector Signature: Date:

i/
I♦ Division of Water.Qual ty _
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other- Agencr>
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification Other ❑ Denied Access
N, A Date ar1'isit: 31tt3120t)4 Time: 11:30
Facility Number 09 153
0 Nol Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified [] Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold : ...................••••••
Farm Name: k.dirm.#29.&X.Ar.m.#93............................. County: B)Adea ............................................... FRO .............
OwnerName: ...................................................... -- Phone No: 9.10-29648.09...-...............------.....----...................
Maifing Address: �Q.DtDaC.7.9............................................................................................ EioSt .kaliU.�[........................................ 1845.8.............
FacilityContact: ................................ ................ ...... . URIC: .................................................... --.--..._.. Phone No: ...---.----
Onsite Representative: Integrator. g Axoytiu'.s.ut Ca�ralinat,. me ..................................
Certified Operator: •••.••........................ Operator Certification Number: ..................................
............................................................................
Location of Farm:
IR # 1172 and Hwy 131 near Bladenboro
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 34 • 30 60 Longitude 78 • 45 °F 00
Design Current
Swine C'anarity 1 anniAtion
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
16000
® Farrow to Wean
4000
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 1 3
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I _ I ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I ILI Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 20,000
Total SSLW 3,892,000
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 0 No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a, ll'dischar,e is observed, was the conveyance than -made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, nutitj• DWQ) El Yes ❑ No
c. lfdischarge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (Il'yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than liom a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatmcnt
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 09-153
Date of Inspection 1 3/18/2004
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity ofany of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffets that need maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of over application'? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type
------------
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14_ a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination;? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment'?
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge Wor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
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
Air Quality representative immediately.
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ® Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
staff observed an irrigation event taking place with a spray gun this date. Observations made from the highway revealed nothing
pmproper
Reviewer/Inspector Name Larry Baxley
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Mark
Date:

V
�.DrvrSion of Watetr.Qual►t� „
0 Division of Soil and Water Co_ nservatiou
Other Agency '<
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 9 153 D21e of Visit: {19-1(r2003 Time: 2:30
0 Not operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or :!hove Threshold: ...._ .. _.
Farm Name: FAirm # 29.Xar.m.#9.3.......................................................... County- Ula-du ------------------------------------ FRO]---------
Owner Name: --------------------------}3rQ�1t�5-of_CGttxt}iuc.--------- Phone No: 9�Q 24b �1�09------------------------------
Mailing Address: PA.�Rb.2 9............................... .......-....................... Row.M.N.0 .......................................................... 18.45.8 ..............
Facility Contact: ..................................... Title: . Phone No: ......................................
Onsite Representative:-----------------------------------------------_-__-- Integrator:l[45Ytl�StRf�2uldiDa, iAs.--------_-------•
Certified Operator: Any,.Rt1 CXt....................... jrA ........................................... Operator Certification Number: 26557.. ...........................
Location of Farm:
3R # 1172 and Hwy 131 near Bladenboro
®Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 34 • 30 DU <. Longitude 78 • 45i F_56__�"
Design Current
Swine Capacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
16000
® Farrow to Wean
4000
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Ca achy Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 20,000
Total SSLW 3,892,000
Number of Lagoons !� -' ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ID spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid'1'raps E:� ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part ofthe operation'?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (Il'yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min"
d. Dues discharge hypass a lagoon system? (If yes. notity I.)WQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge'?
Waste Collection & '1'reatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
[I Yes 0No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): ----- - ................... .._.... ........................... ..........................
0.5/0?/01 Cantinued

Facility Number: 9-153 Date of I nspection 09-16 2UO3
5.
Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'? (ic/ trees, severe erosion,
Yes
❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6.
Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑Yes
El No
(if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
8.
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Waste Application
t 0.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
11,
Is there evidence of -over application? ® Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
® Yes
❑ No
12.
Crop type
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Rtmquired Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (le/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21.
Did the facility laic to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
ie/ discharge,freeboard problems, over application)
( P PP )
❑ Yes
❑ No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Odes facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. _
Use drawings of facility to better explain. situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ®Field Copy El Final Notes
Farm visited as the result of observations made during an aerial flight of a waste application event. The linear boom application
equipment was applying material to barren areas in the field that had standing water already present.Ground investigation revealed these
areas to have water mixed with waste from the irrigation event.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Larry Baxley Paul Sherman
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

Type of Visit 00 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ix Routine O Complaint p Follow up CI Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number f Date of )"kit: ry �� Time: ' OU
•. F lot O .rational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted [0 Certified 13 Conditional1v Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: F� :f "" S3 County:
OK"ner -Name: _ _ t� 91090 /U.0 Phone No:
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: Jo a ,f�r�� ln�� Title:
Onsite Representative: �.tiw�� �7ur/7GH
Certified Operator. el C; op, 10/RP[t e�tGl
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �' Longitude a
Design Current
Swine Cnnncity Ponulatinn
❑
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
1% .Ov0
®
Fatgo«- to Feeder
❑
Farrow to Finish
❑
Gilts
❑
Boars
�G S.s7
Design Current Design Current
Pouli ry Capacity Population Cattle Ca acSty Population
❑ haver ❑ Dairy❑ Non -Laver ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity d Dav
Total SSLW g� D0"-
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ S rav Field Area
Bolding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Li uid 'Waste 14lanaaement Svstem
Discharges S Stream lmoacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Dischame originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Sprav Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notin• DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated floc' in galimin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if ves. notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any pan of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
/-Ap '1-46 3�G
Freeboard (inches): %10 027 _ /g * _
05103101
❑ Yes 1% No
El Yes ❑No
❑ Yes
❑ No
A
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
Qj No
❑ Yes 0 No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: 6 — /S? Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes R3 No
❑ Yes Q9 No
❑ Yes [,XI No
❑ Yes W No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ©No
1 I . Is there evidence of over application? ❑//Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ElHydraulic Overload ❑ Yes [)I No
12. Crop type 1464a C--o/2S / G✓�cAf L��N. So ti.6eaAJA
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes P No
14, a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes DO No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ED No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
53 No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists. design. maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
No
20,
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
W No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
® No
(ie/ discharge, Freeboard problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
V No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question;#): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other Comments.
Use drawings of facllityto better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): M Field Cony ❑ Final Notes
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Review•erAnspector Signature: a Date:
05103101 d f f Continued

Facility lumber: e7 -1-0 Date of Inspection 16
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at or bclo,,,,•
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there anv evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation. asphalt,
roads, building structure. and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. NVere ariv major maintenance problems with the ventilation fanls) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts. missing or
or broken fan blade(s). inoperable shutters. etc.)
3 t. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Ycs a No
❑ 1'es 17 No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes E$ No
❑ )-es No
❑ Yes No
05103101

Division of Water.QuaG.t}'
Q Division of Soil and Water Conservgtioo
OtherAgency.
Type of Visit ®Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification ® Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: tkt-oz-zt►a3 Time:
Facility Number 09 1S3
j Q Not O erational 0 Bclow'1'hreshold
® Permitted ® Certified E3 Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: EArmt#.29A.Far.m.#9-3.......................................................... County: DUAm ------------------------------------ FBQ---------
Owner Name: -------------------------- Dratwn's_af CarQUna.Ine.___------ Phone No: r?1Q 24bJ$Q9------------------------------
lllailingAddress:Jr.().&X.759............................................................................................. RosrJUJINC .............................. .......... - ........ ........ Z8.45.8 ..............
Facility Contact: Daxid NOxcliri-------------- ---- .Title: ........................ Phone No: ......................................
OnsiteRepresentative: l'hllipR�hAuti3CsljiCf£-----------------------_---- Integrator:lCQ520=5Qf��trltliaA.�lt._---------------•
Certified Operator: . Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
iR # 1172 and Hwy 131 near Bladenboro
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 34 • 30 00 Longitude 00 u
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Po ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
® Feeder to Finish
16000
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
® Farrow to Wean
4000
El Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
20,000
El Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
3,892,000
Number of Lagoons 3 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Dischar,es & Stream linnacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at; ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the Stale'? (I[ yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed.. what is the estimated flow in <val/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? { II yes- Doti Ij llA'Q}
2- Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3- Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure ; StrtlCture 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes ❑ No
❑Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (.inches): - ........... .. .. .. .. ..
ns1031 F Cnnrinued

Lacility Number: 09-153
Date of Inspection 04-02-2003
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan'?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7_ Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste �1 ,plication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
1 1. Is there evidence of over application'? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14_ a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available'?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to noti ly regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit'?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector tail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP'?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
r] No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments, .
Use drawings of facility, to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
-site to observe the OPEN team progress on measuring odors, emmisions, and pathogens.
Met with Mr_ Kantardjieffto discuss the progress of the project and the required monitoring reports. Mr. Kantardjieff informed us that
the system has been operating at steady state for appoximately one month. Monitoring reports had been drafted and were reviewd for
compliance with the permit. Reports will be submitted within the next Icw weeks.
There is a possibility that the operating budget will not allow the system to remain in operation much longer. Mr. Kantardjieffis
inquiring about other funding sources.
Reviewer/inspector Name Paul Sherman 7'r lien
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: "

I
Division of Water Quality;
0 Division.of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 4-10-2002 Time:
Facility Number 9 153
... .�.. _ t 0 -Not Operational 0 Below -Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Fax,.wAZ9.A,FArm,#93.......................... ........ County: U.I.aftlx............................................... FRO.- ....... ...
Owner Name: ............... i fQ.1Y[x's..al.far.Alixta,-1lra�................... Phone \`o: 91Q-z �.:a.89Q.......................... -
MailingAddress: 'Q.I.9.x..7..9............................................................................................ 13v �.Dial. .......................................................... 2.8.45.8 ..............
Facility Contact. DAx?.e.XQr!djm................................................... .l'itle:................................................................ Phone No:..................................
Onsite Representative: R.Q..Britt.......................................................... Integrator:13 XI'S-A.f..Car.Qalrla,.in�,.........--.•-..
Certified Operator:[„Oly.Aopert....................... F.ajrjhC;jjL .......................................... Operator Certification Number:x{55.7.............
Location of Farm:
iR # 1172 and Hsvy 131 near Bladenboro A
w
0 Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 34 30 Ofl Longitude F DO
Design Current
Swine Capacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
16000
® Farrow to Wean
4000
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I Dairy
❑ N'oa-Layer I I❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 20,000
Total SSLNN' 3,892,000
Number of Lagoons 3� 10 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JE1 Spray Field .1rca
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps JEJ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Strearrl impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DV Q) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/nun?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation`? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge'' ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Stnteture 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure b
Identifier: .............93A.......................... 93B............. ........ ....... ?9................ ................................... .................................. ...................................
l--recboard (inches): 30 38 27
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 9-153
Date of Inspection 4-10-2002
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings'?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes N No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Pemut readily available'?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, desi m, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design'?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit'?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24, Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
[:]Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
-Good crops, new waterways have fescue establishing.
-Caution should be used when disconnecting the linear hydrants. Some of the hydrants have low areas that collect the drained wastewater
when the hose is moved. Make sure that this ponded waste cannot enter the adjacent drainage canal.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Paul Sherman
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: da rr�
O5103101 Continued

Facility Number: 9-153 Date of Inspection 4-10-2002
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at./or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation'?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours`? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted'? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanenthemporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional omments and/orDrawings:
w
05103101

Type of Visit g Gompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint $Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit: C �( Time:
Q
(� �
tD Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted Of Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: ....Rat
....... ....r!h..Cr3................................................. County: ........ Leta✓1.............. ...............
....
OwnerName: ....................................................................................................... Phone No: ........................................... .... ....................... ............
r
A� M-
Facility Contact: Ll:. � r.. .. Title: . .! �� ..!...! !1 r.............. Phone No: ......... ......................
_.. ........... ....................... ............................ ............. . , 1
Mailing Address:..... ..��? Y.... 7....................................................................... .....iN R ..j....N C ...................... .°? .jSa
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:. ..................................................
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: ...................
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �� �� �« Longitude • �44
Design Current
nN111=
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
El Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dail
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Design CniriYat '`.:-
Number of Lagoons 3 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ goon Area ❑Spray Field Area
HoldiiAg Ponds /Solid Traps I ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System i x
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes O(No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. II' discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes RFNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Xlpillway ❑ Yes � No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure b/
Identifier. .........3A............... ............ ...... CRj..............................................................................................................
ir
Freeboard (inches): �o?y 1 �/ r-.
5100 Continued on bock

Y
Facility Number: 00 - 53 Date of Inspection Io D
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
❑ No cs
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
❑ No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
[]No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
I l . Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
❑ No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Renuired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes ❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes ❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes ❑ No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes ❑ No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes ❑ No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes ❑ No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes ❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ❑ No
- 1..a�ignjs:or. dtf el ndi $ -i4re jTtQtg#. ii0i ft �bis:visit; • Yoi! will-ret. lye Oti f'ui-tht�r
6rresi) 3dence:abptif.thisVisit..•:•:•:•: ..•: .-----:•:•:•: .•. .•:'.': .•.•.•. -- - -- .
.omments (refer to gnesboa #} ;Explain any YES answers and/or any i<ecommendations or.any other co
Jse dra of &achy to better. explain situations {use additional as ncessary
041" Si T, 40 r `wo' ptn re"- w".-L 6t'�Cne- T✓ 't-'Ttcue (!"Op 4
fftrv- rrfribt�u�p-
g
Jl'fa�
4 5 cj-- w ory pt,� ,
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: 5Y/ l0
5/00

Division of Water Quality -
.- Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other
❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Q
fate of's`isit: (0 G/ Time: l :40 1 Printed on: 10/26/2000
Q Not O erational Q Below Threshold
�[ Permitted 10 Certified © Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ..............
Farm Name: ......... Fw.m ..... a.......(.,3..................... County: Al�s�'eC... .._.......__.._ .._........
.................................................. ........ __........_..../ j�d
Owner Name: �Ow-1!. px.... t:/!�4.5............... Phone No: ....... Q................................
...... ..........
r. ,
Facility Contact:............d....?4?''f.......................................'1'itle:........v.�Fru..Tf`............... Phone No:...................................................
MailingAddress: .......�`�rQ�.�Y........!4k7�............................................ ............ ......... ...... f5a�✓�..���.......................................6.9.3g>
Onsite Representative: ........... . ............................ ........ I Integrator: .............................................. ........................................
Certified Operator: ............ ...................................... ................... ............................... ....... .. Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
T
Swine ❑ Poultry []Cattle
[]Horse Latitude
'
�1.
Longitude • 4 44
Design
Current
Design Current
Design Current
awIOC
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
t.
oack7
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle CaiDacitv Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I JE3Non-Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity a$ 0,06
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons 1 1[3 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharp_es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If' discharge is observed, was the conveyance ratan -made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If dischanye is observed. did it reach Water of the State'? (lf �'�s, notify DWQf ❑Yes ❑ No
c. II'dischar,,e is observed. what is the cslimaied flow in gal/Hain?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4_ Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure I SuRucturc 2 Structure,• 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ........... .3.-.......... .......... ....rt.-5.g.....-.... � .............. ........---..---..................................................... ....... ................. .......
.....
Freeboard (inches):
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: (} 7 — 3 Date of Inspection f p Printed on: 10/26/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ❑ No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ❑ No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
1S_
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps. etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20,
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22,
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard prohlems, over application)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
:: i'.10 violaliigris:or• &ficiencies •were noted• during this visit' • You will •teeeiye iio: further
corres• ondence. about this visit .. • ... ' . • ............... ' .... ... ...... .
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments:
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
r
0 �b , c1c� Jd ; 4i.1 *i
� ec4l J �- Ue4,dc , r
IV
Reviewer/Inspector Name r rp�-C ShPT/V>Gtl1
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: to 5100

-7777777777
ff
'D>:v�sEon of Water ualjty
fir., Q
Q Dkvrston of Soil and Water Conse`rvatio>a
O.Odier: Ageticy.
-
Type of Visit ff Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for VisiLzoospg"ne O Complaint O(Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
y - ,� wte (Pr visit: QI Fine: 30 Printed on: 10/26/2000
t (J`�
Q Not O crational Q Below Threshold
Permitted 13 Certified [j Conditionally Certified
© Registered Date Last Operated or/Above Threshold . .........................
Farm Name: :I� L `r...�S �1. Sew County..........>�<Q.��'�............. .........................
r� `v �... s...............!r.......................................................----I--
Owner Name:rOL}l✓1 f5...4t ....`�.r .���`0. Phone No: . ..............Z.E�...�.................................
........ ...............................................
Facility Contact: ..... kc.Ur..(A... .vi.. 4............... .I"itte:................................................................ Phone No:................
'Mailing Address: �. (f 7 '� �r ... �� .. ........... . rZ F 3.
............!.....�5............................................................. ......LN.°i ..5� ..
OnSite Representative:
Certified Operator:. .................................................. ....................................
Location of Farm:
--........ Integrator:
.......... Operator CertificationNumber: ..........................................
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0.0' 0" Longitude �• � "
^ Design Current
Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Nun-I_.ayer
❑ Other
Design Current
Cattle Ca acity Population
❑ Dairy
❑ Non-D.-Ury
❑ ?~arrow to Finish Total Design Capacity 24 dZ70
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area I0 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharp,es & Stream Impacts
1. Is anv discharge observed from any part of the operation? f eYes ❑ No -
Dischar7e orig loafed at: -Lagoon ❑ Spray l icld [Other .see SC-P'11.41 e- 4rru �442 '�?W-�
a. If"di�chargc is observed, ��as the cony°cvancc man madr'' ❑ Yes �No
h. If dischame is observed, did it reach 1Vater of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) Yes ❑ No
c. Ifdischar�ze is ubscrved. what is the cstimalcd flow in g:►I/Min'' 7
d. Does discharge bypass a lagngri systent:' (Ifyes, notify I)WQ) ❑ Yes kNo
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Watcrs of the State other than from a discharge? ElYes ElNo
Waste Collection R Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway Ayes ❑ No
Stl'll[:tur:: i Stl'UAU c 2 Str CIM,, 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier - � .... �3D ........".....
`�.........................................................................-- ................... -- .
Freehoard (Inches): 13 / 5' % 7
5100 ontinued on back

Type of Visit *Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
for Visit O Routine O Complaint ® Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Q9 153 K Date of Visit: Time:
3-29-2001 1S:110
.--_ .____J UKoMjMrational Q Below Threshold
U Permitted M Certified E3 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold - -------------------
Farm Name: County: MoLdem------------------------ FRS?.-_.-_
Owner Name:....---- ...... .................................... Rromn.'.a.oMardWa..Inr......... ........... Phone No: Qlfl: 24bi-.1.w....................................._....----------...--
Mailing Address: pQ ktX4$2.-----------------------
Wattaam�lr-----------------•-------------------------- .__._._..
FacilityContact: ------------ •--------------------_._..Title:.-----------------------•-----•- Phone No: ------------------------..
Onsite Representative: ..................................................._....._.............-----......... Integrator: CAralln"c................---------.........
Certified Operator. Rftbtlat.............. _........... ArAD...................................... Operator Certification Number. 7.55.7Q._..._.._.____...
Location of Farm:
SR # 1172 and Hwy 131 near Bladenboro
® Swine ❑ Poultty ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude A • F 36 -14 Longitude -� 8 4S a4 DE:1K
Design . Current
Dealgn Current
Design :Current
..:Swine.
Capacity.
Ponr+
CaacPaaiion Cattle.
a :
C acitv::Po tilatioui:::
❑ Wean to Feeder
10 Layer
❑Dairy
M Feeder to Finish
16000
❑ Non -Layer
❑Non -Dairy
M farrow to Wean
4000
:
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Ocher
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity :
20,
s
TdtaIm SSLVy::::
3,892,400
:.
rElGiKa
rs
Nnmber:if Lagbbns 3 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Ares
Holding Ponds { Solid Traps I0 No Liquid Waste Mana ement System
Discharttes & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man -trade?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge by a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Wcre there any advc�e impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
® Yes []No
❑ Yes
M No
® Yes
❑ No
10 gal per minute
❑ Yes
M No
❑ Yes
M No
❑ Yes
❑ No

UJ/UI/UI
Facility Number. 09 —153
Date of Inspection 3-29-2001
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Cl Spillway 0 Yes ❑ No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ........................... ....._.................... .......................... ......................_... _.......... .... ......._....._....... ...
Freeboard (inches): ,_,..__.._.1._............._....._...._....•_.
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
& Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(U any of questions 4-6 was answered yea, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancefunprovement?
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of over application? ® Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN N Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes 0 No
Q Yes ❑ No
0 Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
13- Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? 0 Yes ❑ No
14_ a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
0 Yes
❑ No
16_
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
17.
Are rock outcrops present?
0 Yes
❑ No
18.
Is there a water supply well within 250 feet of the sprayfield boundary? ❑ Unknown
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ On -site ❑ Off -site
Rou€red
Records & Documents
19.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
0 No
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
0 No
22.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
Q No
23.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
Yes
❑ No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
25_
Did Reviewer/iuspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
26.
Does facility require a follow-up %isit by same agency?
© Yes
❑ No
27.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Odor Issues
28.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below
❑ Yes
C] No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
29.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of property within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
❑ No

01/01/01
Facility Number. 09—I53 1 Date of Inspection 3-29-2©41
Continued
Printed on: 4/18/2001
30. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public Property)
31. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
32. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
33. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
34. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
0 Yes 0 No
0 Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
0 Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
13 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Name 4*0 potyipaul:Aawls
Reviewerlinspector Na= -
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

Division of Water Quality
0 i��,i A erso l and Water Conservation
-
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review P Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint AFollow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
L_ Facility Number
Date of Visit.: 3:z;_mil Time: i Printed on: 10/26/2000
�
Q Not C) erational Q Below Threshold
Permitted © Certified © Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above 7'lireshold: . ......................
Farm Name: l �h.s .......... ..... County:.. �...........................................
Owner Name: ..(�? 3L.S L�... �ss:C2.�[k .... Phone No: f ................................................
Facility Contact: ev �..... �.� ........... l it1e:...G� ...1� ]�i................... Phone No: ................................... ............
/� % :
Mailing Address: !... G r - .4 L/v4 1 SDI C�' /CJ G... - ---- - -- - z�39�...
...............................................
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:_.-,
Location of Farm:
Integrator:...... ..... ...............................
Operator Certification `umber:
a
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Norse Latitude 0 �= = Longitude • ` sc
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Ca acity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
I
JE1 Layer
❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Laver
❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
/
Farrow to Feeder
JE1 Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
20 G-,7V
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ t,at!t>un Area ID Spray Field area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste :Management System
Dischare-es S Stream Impacts
1. Js any discharge observed from any part of the operation'? ❑Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, w;is the conveyance man-made. ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is ohserved, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify IDWQ) ❑Yes ❑ No
c. I1"discharLe is observed. what is the cstiinated flow in gallnnin.,
d. Doc.s discharge hypas: a lagoon system! (Ifyes, notify I}\VQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any pan of the operation'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge:' ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus
storm storage) less than adequate'? ❑ Spillway
Yes ❑ No
Structure [
5u qu : r� ?
S ructt e ; Structure -t
]]
Sln:clure > lructrrre 6
Identifier:
111�i
J............
-2.�.
f /
3
........�.............
%
......
Q� ....
l
.......... . ........
Freeboard (inches): / r
5 �IfPrljij
a
5160
`
��
Continued on back

Type of Visit 1Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation11
I
Reason for Visit KRoutine O Complaint Q Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other ❑Denied Access
Facility Number =ZDDate of Visit: Z'—T— a/ I Time: ' 3 a
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted © Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated o Above Threshold . .........................
Farm Name: o:....�... #/ County:....�1f:.—...................................
............ ......... ............... ...... ....... ...
14424
J, o f /
Owner Name: .....�l .L .t.!1.,5......If" ....C. .r .Q..1..i..L!1...� ,.• .............. Phone No: ..... .... ... 1?........L.. ......................
r
Facility Contact: ......... v .t LV . s ........ Title: ["ti /&-/................ Phone No:...................................................
Q......................�..,.i.................// q
Mailing Address: -... (...-. (..- .. 1'U.R..!^ ,�....��....................2.�r......�7...Z1 K
... .............. ..... ....... --.. ....................
Onsite Representative.. ....." ". ...f Integrator:.....................................................................................
.Q
Certified Operator:..... ...j� �r r—,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm: /
[]Swine []Poultry []Cattle []Horse Latitude ram• & 16 Longitude • 6 49
Design Current
o..■uc [ a ac
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean A/
Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity ]
❑ Layer I I JE] Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I 10 Non -Dairy
❑ Other j I I
Total Design Capacity L 7 G
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JE3 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System = -
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'? ❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes f No
`l $ h. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes �010
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes TNO
o
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑Yes
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway Yes )&No
Structure I St-rc re Structure Structure 4 Structure 5 Struc ure b
1,OK ldentificr:......................................................................
�i................................li.............. !r
.................................... ..
Freeboard (inches): 20 21 Z 3
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: y79 — 5-3 Date of Inspection Z- d ' Printed on.• 1/9/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, []Yes P(No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes PVo
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ;!�No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes VNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ON-9
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes LR'No
11. Is there evidence of over apr licration? ❑ E cessivee Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes No
12. Crop type i�J �n 4- ZZ's-s" ' _
13- Do the receiving crops
14. a) Does the facility lac
with those 04signated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WLJP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20, Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
10 yioiat�iQr>ls;or defeiervio�tng thist' Yoti wil r;eceiye o i'u>rt fir'
corres� � deuce about thks visit:. _
mnseats;(refer.to�gnestion #), Explain any YES Answers aptd/or•any recommetadation
,y,.�arwtiFgs of facility to'�6etter ex plain-situatioiits(taese;addittonal pages. as �eeessary)
�'�l�i .. ...:... -
r/. ii r Pub, r3 s '0�4 -
2.7
# 7� Nayal� to Arm �t3 �`5
eecr ' - Cocae, �Gt�G[r�. 7o /""/" e':"Ph""CC Azve/.
❑ Yes fj(No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes /BfNo
❑ Yes �Vo
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes 6ko
❑ Yes XINo
❑ Yes 9ANo
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes qNo
❑ Yes P1lo
"J ", 4Fr 2-3,
Reviewer/Inspector Name J r
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: -. _ _,�� Date: 0 J S/pp

I.
Facility Number: Date of Inspection Printed on: 1/9/2001
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
-,�No
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
es
❑ No
Additiona]-Cornxnentsan or Drawings:-
�� G �3q° Z 9 29 3
7 f y� 37 1/021)
3y' A 3►-
7�'° Vl, ' 3 e. 37J/L6'•
5100

Division of Water Quality
Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine Q Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number �� Date of Visit: tp--o=Time: 23a �Printed (in. 7/21/2000
Q Nut —operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted [j Certified © Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ...•.....................
Farm Name: � Z4 r!° L.... .1... ..... Count►" .... �L..............................................................I........
r
Owner Name- ............ Phone No: /��..X(a...1a:................................
rn......................................................................................
Facility Contact: ..L'a� �L�1._ ..... �•rS. .................ritle• L JJJ L...................... Phone No: ...................................................
Mailing Address: -. 7 � .1 , hCL.C'SSG+.kT.....
l......................... ..... ................
I�tJ
Onsite Representative Integrator: .................
Certified Operator: ......�Q�n9 Rd.1!�-.................................... Operator Certification Number:..................
.................................................
Location of Farm: y
T
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 ° •. Longitude a ` 64
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder JE1 Laycr I ❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish IA A2F I[] Non-Laycr I 1[_-] Non -Dairy
Far-row
arrow to Wean /
to Feeder JE1 Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity 2G 4
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lag -on Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges S Stream Impac4ti
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? []Yes KNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes O'No
h, II cliscitarge is ohservecl. slid it reach ��'rncr of ilu State? (If yeS, nt)tity Doi Q1 ❑Yes #o
c. if discharge is observed. whit is the cstiimited flow in gal/inin''
d. Does discharge hypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge"
Waste Collection & 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure ? Structu c 3 Structure 4Structurc 3
Iticntifir:...�ry.......lr.......--•.............. .` L ................... ...............-......... r..
Frechnard (inches): ;-7 3(, .20I
5100
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes gNo
Structure 6
Continued on back

`Facility Number:Q —�JT— Date of Inspection Printed on. 7/21/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion, El Yes
KNo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes KNo
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
gkNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
j No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
W No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
P0
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑Excessive Ponding ,PAN Hydraulic Overload
Yes
❑ No
12. Crop type r P
13. Do the receiving crops differ with th designated in the Certified Ani Waste nageme lan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
VNo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
9,No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
Wo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
5�No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'?
❑ Yes
MNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment'?
❑ Yes
ONO
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available'?
❑ Yes
O'No
18, Does the facility I -ail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available'?
(le/ WUP. checklists. design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
fi�No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
kNo
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
®No
ONO
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge'?
❑ Yes
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
VNo
(iel discharge, frechoard problems, over application) ►
23. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'?
❑ Yes
O'No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency'.'
❑ Yes
[VfNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
VZ1_Q_
0; N,b-,061ha6tis:o n de#iciehOes -mere h6fed• diWitig this visit. • Y04 :will-eeceiye d6 fufthk!
;<orres� 6rideitce' about: this :visit. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: '
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
C/ & `
gerilt ud Q
ouergyes tjk,.j crtr
0 / - 22 45 -4fZ-51- --d�
--_4�-rnQl<,L
212t65,�/.5-IVD.=#la 2.�� 4-17/oo ,-d
r.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewerllnspector Signature:
Date: ± eTD 5loo

• Facility Number: 9 —t57 Date of Inspection ® 1'rintcd on: 7/21/2000
Odor Issues L'
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge 3Jor below [Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? " "
27, Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours'? ❑ Yes o
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes K'No
roads, building structure, and/or public property) �� \\
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc_) ❑ Yes 040
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes j%SNo
32_ Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? s ❑ No
5100

P Division of Water Quality
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
(Type of Visit-, a Inspection O Operation Review a Lagoon Evaluation t
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date 41f Vi%it: g � � -€ Inik': ��7 Printed 4111: 7121/2000
0 Not Operational 0 Belo« Threshold
Permitted © Certified © Conditionalb- Certified [3Registered I)atc Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: ... C:ount,': ..........1Q � r.3........................ .......................
. ..�.:.......... .......... .........J-3................................------................
Owner Name: ...........CQ.!'���..........r4?1.���.. . PhoneNo: 29C� .�... ram ........................................
�I
Phone No:.............................................
FUCilityContact: ............(?.1. rtft....... o, �5.................l-ille:..
y...�2.....................
�NlailingAddress: ......��..lJ.. 1.. 7.................................................................... ..... f...l.�.�-C...... ..-- Z-F.3.�7...�.�...
Onsite Representative: ....... ........... ............ ..................-----..
Certified Operator-....-,. ......................L:..�
Location of Farm:
................ Integrator: ........
Operator Certification Number:,.
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0• 4 longitude a �11
Design Current
Swine Canacity Pnnulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
^ /
Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer [E]l
Dairy
❑ Non -Layer Nun -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 26 67�rp
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ tiubsurface Urains Present ❑ 1,:kg����n _free ❑Spray Field :I
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Ylanagement System
Discharge; & Strearn Impacts
. Is any discharge observed frorn any part of the operation? El Yes No
Di.,MiarL�e uri_=imited at: ElLagoon ❑ Spray Fic€d ElOther
a. ll-discharge i; observed- was the convcvancc man-tnade? ElYes �No
h. If dischar L�e r; observed. (lid it reach W.11cr of the State,.' (If yes, notify l.) Q) El Yes &No
C. If rli�4Char1•c is oh,erk-Cd..Vh3t is the csuirmtcki flow in galhnin'
d. €)oes discharge hyhnss a lagoon svaem" (It -yes. nolifv DWQ) ❑ Yes No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation.' ❑ Yes ' \ No
3. Were there any -adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the Slate other than from a discharge:' El Yes No
Waste Culluction & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adeyuaic? Spillway ( Yes ❑ No
Struk:turr I Su-uc:turc 2 Siructure _ � Struc:turc 4 Structure 5 structure 6
Idrntificr: .....: .Z. .-...... ---• Sw --... �� J_... !'
Frechoard finches): -13
5100 Continued on back

_ -
Division of SoiE and Water;Conseivatton ` Operataon Review - z F�
D>EVIS16fi of.S©il and Watetr;Conser$atron Com Lance Ins ts econ
,
- - - Davts><on of.Water Quality Compliance Inspection' w
Other AgeOCy QperahoLl°Review''
JoRoutine Q Complaint Ofollow-up ofDWQ inspection Q Follow-u of DSWC review ©Other
Facility Number Mite of Inspection
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted Certified [3 Conditionally Certified © Registered © Not O erational fate Last Operated:
�a G � V 15 Count ...................
Farm Name: ...........................................M.. S.V� ..........................
y.
Owner Name:...........5..... ........... k.�''C't h^G Phone Nn:.....-.r16.-�................_.._...
Facility Contact: ....................................................... ... Title . Phone No: ...................................................
329 Mailing Address: P D, rr�� ..........................
................................ 8�.._........(...................................................... 5.............WaSWJ.............................. /a $
Onsite Representative: ......... !, ..... .F ............12�Q�l• t.... v!S Integrator: ............ 6WY�S CGt!z? vv �
Certified Operator: ................k4er ..L vvv P
C Tti,, Operator erator Certification Number:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,
Location of Farm:
J,
r............................. ......-------- ....................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................
t
Latitude
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pnnnlatinn
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design: Current
Poultry Capacity Po ulation Cattle Capacity' Po ulation
❑ Layer ILI Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface brains Present ❑ Lagoon Area IE1 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps JEI No Liquid Waste Management System
DischarVes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? Ayes ❑ No
Discharge ariwinated at: ❑Lagoon Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) 7 ❑ Yes IIII❑ No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min? R/#
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon systetn? (If ycs, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes W'No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure I tructure 2 tructure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: -P-93 A- L36 a C�
Frcebiiard(inched: j.S?...f............fL1.� .............................-......... .................................... ..................... ........... .... ... ........_........................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, [] yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

�LFacility Number: D1 — Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not property addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9- Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? xcessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type IX
\
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Re(mired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
Oe/ WUP, checklists. design. maps. etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? Oe/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit'?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
0: o yi9laficjris:ot. deCeiencies -were jngted- diWing 4his'visit' - Y:oi} will-t &le iye fiti further - : - : -
corresoorideitce: about: this :visit .
� as
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Wyes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
VYes ❑ No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any othercommentsi�
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. {use additional pages as -necessary):
_:.
C)t'►- � - d� -� . /V�J F llto"� a �� V►'► r,5�ti-�z.a.� d�'t
L.,rw-A ,4t, P ITI FC
l! 1 c�-�a- tn� GCc � # `�
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: /.1/A� Date: 3r a—pt�

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

0 Divisionof Soil and Water Gonservatron,-,Operatton Review
O'Division of.Soil and Water Conservation -Compliance Inspection
Division of Water. Quality ,Compliance Inspection
"O Other'Agency ,Operatton'Revtew:
Q Routine Q Com laint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number 09 153 Date of Inspection 2-22-2000
Time of Inspection 1 3:55 124 hr. (hh:mm)
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified [] Registered JE3 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ]Ear.tug.#29A.EarmA9.3 ..............................................................................
Owner Name: ................................................... ..................
Facility Contact: .......................................................... ............... Title:........
Mailing Address: F ,8aX,.487..............
County: Dladea ............................................... FRO .............
Phone No: 910-296.-180.0...........................................................
Phone No:
2Q8...
Onsite Representative: RadidY.Haxes.............................................................................. Integrator: rIRHJq.'.&.t1d a�R1EE�a..1CAe.................................
Certified Operator: Ro&jraek..W.......................... Hayes ................................................ Operator Certification Number:=09.
Location of Farm:
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.....u�eax..11a�derxba�ra..................................................................................................................................................................................
Latitude F 34 'F 30 1 Longitude F 78 • 45 00 �°
Design Current
awme Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish 16000
Farrow to Wean 4000
LJ Farrow to Feeder
LJ Farrow to Finis
r is
Li Boars
Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Other
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
Total Design Capacity 20,000
Total SSLW 3,892,000
Number of Lagoons 3 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes [--]No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ® Yes ❑ No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ............. 93.A............. ............. 23B............................ ,29................
Freeboard (inches): ................ 1.2................ .......... 1.2................ ............... 12.......
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back
Printed on 318/2000

TlFacility Number: 09-153 1 Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type
a-Zz-zaoa
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
No violations or deficiencies were noted during -this visit. You will receive no further
correspondence about this visit.
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes []No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Site visit was made to check lagoon levels.- Lagoon 93B contains a spillway. Level was 12 inches below the spillway (total
freeboard of 24"). Farm was pumping at time of site visit. The linear and two stationary guns were being used for waste
application at farm 93. Three stationary guns were being used for irrigation at farm 29. Wastewater was observed ponded in the
portion of the field at farm 93 in which the two stationary guns were being used. Mr. Hayes was instructed to be careful and
prevent wastewater from leaving the fields. Need to comply with the CAWMP and the General Permit.
Reviewer/Inspector Name ,Ieffery Brown
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
on

[] Division of Soil and Water Conservation 0 Other Agency t
r 1 IF
Mtn
_ Division of Water Quality
7o,3s.:4 Routine O Complaint O FulloK=-un sif [)AVo insniLTtion O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number
Date of Inspection /3
•3
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Registered 0Certified 0 Applied for Permit Permitted 10 Not operational Date Last Operated: •
Farm Narne:......... .i1. .. .2. ! d . 1 .. County• i J. !.I..- ........................................
............... I ..............................
t (1
Owner Name:....... L !4 . .......C r 1.LA!1.ct, ............ Phone No. � ..............................
Facility Contact: •. ... .e.5 Title:..7 �.... �1"{ 1....................... Phone No
_......
lViailing Address:..... 6.... ....•.... ',ir— 4a.�. f...............9......3.......f.�..
-- ..
2
Onsite Re resentative:.B.O.0 . .,,,
p +—� Alt S .... , ..........--l�r..4.1.;n. —.. Integrator: .............
Certified Operator....................a5............................ Operator Certification Number ..........................................
Location of Farm:
r"•••"-.................................................. ......................................................... .......................................... I ................. ............
�
Latitude 0 t 44 Longitude 0' 6 "
Design Current
Swme Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
`.:
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
>.
N
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I❑ \Ton -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacityz
Total SSLW`
;Desk-',
Number, of Lagoons I Holding :Ponds 10 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Sprav Field
No Liquid Waste Management System
General
I. Are there any buffers that need maintenancetimprovement? ❑ Yes 4No
2- Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes KNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If dischargc is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify, DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes Z�No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes 6�No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than Iagoons/ho[ding ponds) require ❑ Yes 111�No
maintenance/improvement? `
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes N No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes VINO
7125/97 Continued on back

Facility Number: —
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagooms.11olding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'?
Struct3u e 1 Structure 2 Sir�ture 3 Structure 4
Identifier: ��.....
g 2� lr......r........
Freeboard (tt?:..............
................I..........
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes fi(No
❑ Yes ANo
Structure 5 Structure 6
............................... ......... ............... I....................
❑ Yes JgNo
❑ Yes 9No
❑ Yes N No
13, Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14, Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or ru /o-ffjenterin w ers of the State, notify W
15. Crop type Cflr.n....1!lJGi..�...............
..................
16. Do the receiving crops di fer with those esignated in the Anim Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21, Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
No.violations or deficiencies.were.noted-during this visit. You.will receive no further
- correspQtadeince about this: visit:: • : � : - � - ' - : : : - . - . : • • : : . - .
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes fi�No
❑ Yes XNO
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes [(No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes l(No
❑ Yes J�No
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes V[No
�CommentS(refes ttf uestion # E laux an YES answers and/or ad recoimmendataons qr an other eomnieents �<
y" y Y
Use tlrawings 4f facibEty tobetter"exglant.sttuatians. ([ise additional►ges as necessary) ... �N Y
D�-T 't YTj l,�6r O►L eS r`5 l +1C� � r'o,-r PA I AS,
F ks good
II f
B A d 1 11 1 � 11 ple
r. e 5 kmS 4�►t-e C{ S j
MuGkNn f Trow�. ���•71 fNs e�'?L��.S� �L�e
1 e P P 9
7/zs/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name '__, ",.:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
r � �

PLAN OF ACTION(Poa) FOR HIGH FREEBOARD AT ANIMAL FACILITIES
Facility Number: AWS090153
County: Bladen
Facility Name: Farm #29 & Farm #93 (5729 & 3093)
Certified Operator Name: Earl Sidney Hines Operator Number. 25245
1. Current liquid level(s) in inches as measured from the current liquid level in the lagoon to the
lowest point on the top of the dam for lagoons without spillways; and from the current liquid level
in the lagoon to the bottom of the spillway for lagoons with spillways.
Lagoon Name/ID
Spillway(Y or N):
Level(inches):
Lagoon 1 Lagoon 2 Lagoon 3 Lagoon 4 Lagoon 5
57291 3093a 3093b
N N N
17 a
2. Check all applicable items
Liquid level is within the designed structural freeboard elevations of one or more structures.
Five and 30 day Plans of Action are attached. Hydraulic and agronomic balances are
within acceptable ranges.
X Liquid level is within the 25 year 24 hour storm elevations for one or more structures. A
30 day Plan of Action is attached Agronomic balance is within acceptable range.
Waste is to be pumped and hauled to off site locations. Bolume and PAN content of waste
to be pumped and hauled is reflected in section III tables. Included within this plan is a list
of the proposed sites with related facility numbers, number of acres and receiving crop
information. Contact and secure approval from the DWQ prior to transfer of waste to a site
not covered in the facility's CAWMP.
Operation will be partially or fully depopulated.
'Attach a complete schedule with corresponding animal units and dates fro depopulation
'if animals are to be moved to another permitted facility, provide facility number, lagoon
freeboard levels and herd population for the receiving facility
3. Earliest possible date to begin land application of waste:
As Weather Permits
I hereby certify that I have reviewed the information listed above and included within the
attached Plan of Action, and to the best of my knowledge and ability, the information Is
accurate and correct -
Murphy -Brown, LLC Phone: [phone]
Facility Owner/Manager (print)
\ X-'o' IN , -- o -�, Date: 9/17/2018
Facility Owner/Manager (signature)
b,j 3 e,- K 4`1J

II. TOTAL POUNDS OF PAN STORED WITHIN STRUCTURAL FREEBOARD AND/OR 25 YRJ24
HR. STORM STORAGE ELEVATIONS IN ALL WASTE
STRUCTURES FOR FACILITY
1.
Structure ID_ 57291
line m =
1429.3 lb PAN
2.
Structure ID_ 3093a
line m =
3358.7 lb PAN
3.
Structure ID: 3093b
line m =
lb PAN
4,
Structure ID:
line m =
lb PAN
5.
Structure ID:
line m =
lb PAN
6.
Structure ID:
line m =
lb PAN
n. lines 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 = 4788.0 lb PAN
III. TOTAL PAN BALANCE REMAINING FOR AVAILABLE CROPS DURING 30 DAY DRAW DOWN
PERIOD. DO NOT LIST FIELDS TO WHICH PAN CANNOT BE APPLIED DURING THIS 30 DAY PERIOD.
o. tract #
p. field #
q. crop
r. acres
S. remaining IRR
2 PAN balance
(lb/acre)
t. TOTAL PAN
BALANCE FOR
FIELD (Ibs.)
column r x s
u, application window'
T10894
5
Wheat
T28
111.60
812.4
Sept -April
T10894
6
Wheat
7.28
111.60
812.4
Sept -April
T10894
7
Wheat
7.61
111.60
849.3
Sept -April
T10894
8
Wheat
7.61
111.60
849.3
Sept -April
T10894
9a
Wheat
3.97
111.60
443.1
Sept -April
T10894
9b
Wheat
6.98
111.60
779.0
Sept -April
T10894
15b
Wheat
9.65
111.60
1076.9
Sept -April
'State current crop ending application date or next crop application beginning date for available
receiving crops during 30 day draw dawn period.
v. Total PAN available for all fields (sum of column t) = 5622.4 lb. PAN
IV. FACILITY'S PDA OVERALL PAN BALANCE
w. Total PAN to be land applied (line n from section II) = 4788.0 lb. PAN
PoA (30 Day) 2/21/00

x. Crop's remaining PAN balance (line v from section 111) = 5622.4 lb. PAN
y. Overall PAN balance (w - x) _ -834 lb. PAN
Line y must show as a deficit. If line y does not show as a deficit, list course of action here including pump and
haul, depopulation, herd reduction, etc. For pump & haul and herd reduction options, recalculate new PAN
based on new information. If new fields are to be included as an option for lowering lagoon level, add these
fields to the PAN balance table and recalculate the overall PAN balance, if animal waste is to be hauled to
another permitted facility, provide information regarding the herd population and lagoon freeboard levels at the
receiving facility.
IIrrigation onto existing spray fields will continue as weather and field conditions permit_ Additional land is
available for pumping if needed_
PoA (30 Day) 2/21100

PLAN OF ACTION (POA) FOR HIGH FREEBOARD AT ANIMAL FACILITIES
30 DAY DRAW DOWN PERIOD
I. TOTAL PAN TO BE LAND APPLIED PER WASTE STRUCTURE
1. Structure Name/identifier (ID)- 57291
2. Current liquid volume in 25 yr./24 hr. storm storage & structural freeboard
a. current liquid level according to marker 17.0 inches
b. designed 25 yr./24 hr storm & structural freeboard 19.8 inches
c. line b - line a (inches in red zone) = 2.8 inches
d. top of dike surface area according to design
(area at below structural freeboard elevation) 322000 ft'
e. line c/12 x line d x 7.48 gallons/W 561997 gallons
3. Projected volume of waste liquid produced during draw down period
f. temporary storage period according to structural design 180 days
g. volume of waste produced according to structural design 422966 ft3
h. current herd # 4000 certified herd # 4000
actual waste produced = current herd # x line g =
certified herd #
i. volume of wash water according to structural design
j. excess rainfall over evaporation according to design
k. (lines h + i + j) x 7.48 x 30 days/line f�-
4. Total PAN to be land applied during draw down period
1. current waste analysis dated 8/27/2018
m. ((lines e + k)/1000) x line I =
REPEAT SECTION I FOR EACH WASTE STRUCTURE ON SITE.
(Click on the next Structure tab shown below)
PoA (30 Day) 2/21 /00
422966 ft'
® ft3
187833 Ift3
761463 gallons
1.08 lbs/1000 gal.
1429.3 lbs. PAN

PLAN OF ACTION {PoA) FOR HIGH FREEBOARD AT ANIMAL FACILITIES
30 DAY DRAW DOWN PERIOD
I. TOTAL PAN TO BE LAND APPLIED PER WASTE STRUCTURE
1. Structure Namelidentifier (ID): 13093a
2. Current liquid volume in 25 yr./24 hr. storm storage & structural freeboard
a. current liquid level according to marker 8.0 inches
b. designed 25 yr_/24 hr. storm & structural freeboard 19.$ inches
c. line b - line a (inches in red zone) = 11.8 inches
d. top of dike surface area according to design
(area at below structural freeboard elevation) 224000 ftz
e. line d12 x line d x 7.48 gallons/ft' 1647595 gallons
3. Projected volume of waste liquid produced during draw down period
f. temporary storage period according to structural design 180 days
g. volume of waste produced according to structural design F 2637-4 31 ft 3
h. current herd # 1 80001 certified herd # 8000
actual waste produced = current herd # x line g
certified herd #
i, volume of wash water according to structural design
j. excess rainfall over evaporation according to design
k (lines h + i +j) x 7.48 x 30 days/line f=
4. Total PAN to be land applied during draw down period
I. current waste analysis dated 8/27/2018
m. ((lines e + k)/1000) x line I =
REPEAT SECTION I FOR EACH WASTE STRUCTURE ON SITE.
(Click on the next Structure tab shown below)
PoA (30 Day) 2/21/00
263743 ft'
�W
130667 ft3
491695 gallons
1. 571 Ibs/1000 gal.
3358.7 lbs. PAN

PLAN OF ACTION (PoA) FOR HIGH FREEBOARD AT ANIMAL FACILITIES
30 DAY DRAW DOWN PERIOD
I. TOTAL PAN TO BE LAND APPLIED PER WASTE STRUCTURE
1. Structure Name/Identifier (ID): 1 3093b
2. Current liquid volume in 25 yr./24 hr. storm storage & structural freeboard
a. current liquid level according to marker inches
b. designed 25 yr./24 hr. storm & structural freeboard 31.4 inches
c. line b - line a (inches in red zone) = 31 A inches
d. top of dike surface area according to design
(area at below structural freeboard elevation) 253000 ftz
e. line c/12 x line d x 7.48 gallons/ft' 4958193 gallons
3. Projected volume of waste liquid produced during draw down period
f. temporary storage period according to structural design 180 days
g. volume of waste produced according to structural design 269519 W
h. current herd # 8000 certified herd #1 8000
actual waste produced = current herd # x line g =
certified herd #
i. volume of wash water according to structural design
j. excess rainfall over evaporation according to design
k. (lines h + i +j) x 7.48 x 30 daysiline f=
4. Total PAN to be land applied during draw down period
I. current waste analysis dated
m. ((lines e + k)/1000) x line I =
REPEAT SECTION I FOR EACH WASTE STRUCTURE ON SITE.
(Click on the next Structure tab shown below)
PoA (30 Day) 2/21/00
269519 ft'
1732fi2 tt3
147583 ft'
735987 gallons
I- IIbs/1000 gal.
0 lbs. PAN