090173_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental 4ual

10 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number
Farm Status: 0 Registered ❑ Applied for Permit
❑ Certified ❑ Permitted
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: _...... 1.�.�h^..... r�.Ff. Q/ ............................. County: _...../._..dl..,9 '/._............... _.......__.....__.
Land Owner Name: .Aele.,Ioe....��... ,`�e/¢�tx!r.1�....� �l� . ........... Phone No:..... G...��d/... ..................
Facility Conctact:............. f iYY!l�f..lSYlf?rls ..G.......... Title:................................................... Phone No:........G................................................
Mailing Address: .............._ ... ........7. s1'.......... ...� � Z//L.... J>.'<�A....._. . .................
....................... ............ .
Onsite Representative: ..... ....7..........�1... ��`/lII9. !.. ................................__...._. Integra[or:..._�. Y-11117... r..^
Certified Operator:..... b! .. 3 Q...................................................... Operator Certification Number: ..... �(.. ...........
Location of Form:
Latitude 0*=,=«
of Operation and
Other
Longitude =• =, =µ
Subsurface
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
Field Area r
❑ Yes 00 No
❑ Yes JR' No
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes ;R No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes $@ No
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes P1 No
Continued on back

Ficility Number:... .` .—...1..%..
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
(9 No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
No
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
No
S d 1'
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes '
No
Freeboard (ft): Stru cture 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
qq //
...... .......... ............................ ........................... ............................ ............................
...........................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
® No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures Iack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
No
' ste Apglicatiorr
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
® No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type........................................................................................................................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
M No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
Yes
❑ No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
® Yes
❑ No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
For Cerfi Ind J;, Only
❑ Yes
No
c�ilities
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
t� der
00
a
,,.
Reviewer/Inspector Name,11i.::
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: _ _ �s.� ��� Date: i �� 97
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

t
Routine O Comnlaint O Follow-un of
Facility Number
Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection 16131 ill
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: E9 Registered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review L�
❑ Certified ❑ Permitted jor Ins ection includes travel and rocessin
❑ Not
Operational) Date Last Operated: ... ......... M._...._...:...._........_._._.M..................
�....»1.._.�.............._.....�......Y...
Farm Name: ..... .... C.r.,�!_ County:
Land Owner Name..., f� .....,_.�.„.._ Phone No: __,�!° •�,�� Z l//
...... ��.JJe?���.� ........... ... .Y...._....._ ........M.......».
Facility Conctact:.... ..,...... .r�� ..l.�1��5� ....._... Title:._....._.... .._.__ Phone No: .
Mailing Address: ...........».�.._'...�..._..7 /Z.; c..... � ���,/l/� � �' 2c ........�... �..�.....
Onsite Representative; .... ^.' ,f��./ !, _....... �..__ ._ .._.. Integrator: ... .
Certified Operator: ,,Y. �+� ... _,,,, Operator Certlficadon Number: _ Zep..f..
Location of Farm:
Latitude �• 0` �� Longitude ��• CJ` ���
Genergl
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: Magoon ❑ Spray Meld ❑Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)- -
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) rewire
4/34/97 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
[:]Yes
No
❑ Yes
)V No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
Continued
on bank

,. Facility Number: ... Q.. .., =—/7.Z
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft); Structrq= I Structure 2 Structure 3
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
Structure 4
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
1
(9 No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
Structure 5 Structure 6
3YIiste Agplicatign
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type _......._.._ ..... ....... ...._....._.. __...................... _..___..._._................._.._...._........................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes I No
❑ Yes CO No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
10 Yes ❑ No
® Yes ,❑ No.
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes' ® No" "
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments {refer to uesho#.ranyoher ) Ydns
tusiUse wngftybeer expla<niuseadtionalp3ges conuneats r
as.itecessary) :.. yam,,:'
t� ��,,,, 6r� � sera• j
,9,.,E ,a�1,,,/ �/,C .� �� .�' •,�;pa�, � '
alf
Reviewer/Inspector Name
a
Reviewer/Inspector Signatum: e�... � Date:
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A, Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 3, 1997
Murphy Family Farms
Cumberland Nursery
Rt 5 Box 327-A
Fayetteville NC 28301
IDEHNR
APR 0 7 1997
SUBJECT: Notice of Violation
Designation of Operator in Charge
Cumberland Nursery
Facility Number 09--177
Bladen County
Dear Mr. Murphy Family Farms:
You were notified by letter dated November 12, 1996, that you were required to designate a
certified animal waste management system operator as Operator in Charge for the subject facility by
January 1, 1997. Enclosed with that letter was an Operator in Charge Designation Form for your
facility. Our records indicate that this completed Form has not yet been returned to our office.
For your convenience we are sending you another Operator in Charge Designation Form for your
facility. Please return this completed Form to this office as soon as possible but in no case later
than April 25, 1997. This office maintains'a list of certified operators in your area if you need
assistance in locating a certified operator.
Please note that failure to designate an Operator in Charge of your animal waste management
system, is a violation of MC.G.S. 90A-47.2 and you will be assessed a civil penalty unless an
appropriately certified operator is designated. Please be advised that nothing in this letter should be
taken as absolving you of the responsibility and liability for any past or future violations for your
failure to designate an appropriate Operator in Charge by January 1, 1997.
If you have questions concerning this matter, please contact our Technical Assistance and
Certification Group at [phone].
Sincerely,
114.
for Steve W. Tedder, Chief
Water Quality Section
bb/awdesletl
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office
Facility File
Enclosure
P.O. Box 29535. �� FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 N��C An Equal Opportunity/Affirmahve Action Employer
Telephone [phone], WTV 50% recycles/ IQ% post -consumer paper

❑DSWC Anmal�Feedlot Operation Review`
%✓� ,� �+
z
`..E.. Y „' • w�,; 1, - :y
Fn, „oyu�. '� a F �- se ��
{a� k
�DWQr Animal Feedio� �peratlon Sltc Inspections
a
U` >--
.fibU..:
® Routine O Com faint C Follow-uR of DWQ ins ection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number
Date of Inspection
D 78
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours �--�--�
Farm Status: ❑ Registered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:.1,25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
R Certified - ❑ Permitted or Inspection includes travel andprocessing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated:.............................:........................................................._.............................................................
..... (....................... County:.......... `........................................... Farm Name:.........,�"�.....
Land Owner Name:...... .... !.�`r"� ..., r1 i+ ........... Phone No:.... ..��� � ..... °�.............r.Z/ ...................
FacilityConctact: ........... d4zt'... . ........ ............ Title:.......Y................/..................... IIPhone No:..........................................................
12
Mailing Address:....... ...�J....... ......�:� �/... a r .... /..l!.....�......� 0,,,�Q,�................................. ........................
Onsite Representative: .............AI'm4. ....�fU! ? '`.......... ................... ......... Integrator: .... loll ag ....
Certified Operator:....��!� +�' ,,... Y,h�rr ./................................................................ Operator Certification Num/ber:... � f...�[.,............,
Location of Farm:
Latitude 0 4 64 Longitude 0 6 64
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes J'No
❑ Yes Ci No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes SrNo
❑ Yes Mlo
❑ Yes jSrNo
❑ Yes ANo
Continued on hack

li ari9ty Number:.........
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Struc u[es (Lagoons and/or holding Ponds}
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes RNo
[I Yes j$ No
❑ Yes JR] No
Structure 5 Structure 6
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ....6.uOAI'll!/....y?,t��!................................................................... ..............................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes JO No
❑ Yes 10 No
❑ Yes fffNo
❑ Yes .06 No
❑ Yes (R No
❑ Yes 14 No
❑ Yes (&'No
(8 Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ®. No
15 Yes 0 No
❑ Yes O-No
❑ Yes jM No
JN Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 10 No
Comments;(iefer to'question'#) Explain any YES answers `andLor;any recommendations.ar any other comments :m ,
Use drawings of facility to better'explatn situations .(u additional pages as necessary)
/00, T .�9,X0�.� . 4
,�,,,,,�' ar ar 6,z_la,C ��/�l`�7 �FM�tid aCs �6..tia..� .r�,�.,•._ �s,ot�.�
Reviewer/Inspector Name , ,.. ' . ��
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:99=��Date:
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4130/97

FTIine
te of Inspection G 9
Facility Number 09 /79�
of Inspection Otaa 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: ❑ Registered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:L25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review z�E�:Ij
® Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection (includes travel and processing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated: ...... _.......................... _...... _................................................... _................................. _.................
Farm Name: ........ `?c..ze17?g... • ✓�. Fit � ? _. ................. County: ............. S t'%�E J......................_....._............
Land Owner Name:.....lA�P.. �t^y..!�&,D
.,�%. r� / �ifFa'�.'.!.:f...................... Phone No:............1..�....�.............._.............................
FacilityConctact:............. .:.............��'r.��'..`.`�............... Title:....................,../........................ Phone No: .... _....................................................
Mailing Address: _......... e-p_ . r.....zor...... rl..� .._�o �..l� C a � S�� ............. ....... _.................
Onsite Representative: ........i6.2 ,rx�fT r' ,................................. _...... Integrator:..... u f.... ^^c f`/.. rYlQfKal
Certified Operator: ............6�...L...k"..............._....._......_.............. Operator Certification Number: »....lr%.rr�1 .
Location of Farm:
Latitude 0*=` =" Longitude 0* 0, =„
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
ersicin - -Current . y Caeisnigcit �PoC"ualatniotna <�Cattle " Wi �P'o rou�I eot
oSwingn
oultrPo rultin Ps
❑ Wean to Feeder �❑ Layer
❑ Da
® Feeder to Finish eo ❑ Non La er ❑Non -Day
Fartow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder F Total Design` Capacity'-
> Farrow to Finish
I r Total SSLWa "
Other r
it
Number of Lagoansl/ Holding Ponds❑Subsurface Drains Present
has ''' t '` ) ��,"- '' 'i ❑ Lagoon Area k ❑Spray Field Area „e<
Venerat
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
PYNo
❑ Yes
®No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
Continued on back

Facility Number:.......... —... f ......
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? [:]Yes 0 No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes (@ No
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
® No
ti
o d'
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
M No
Freeboard (ft): Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
jf...,�..... ............................ ............................ ........................... ............................
............................
10.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
Cl Yes
IN No
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
® Yes
❑ No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
® No
Anste
Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
No
(If in excess of W9MP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type ...... .?Aear!Ie,P��r..!1....................................................................................................................................
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
B No
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
ICJ Yes
❑ No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
ER No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
For Certited-'acilitles Only
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
j No
23.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
i
No Yes
❑ No
24.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
Coriirnenks (refer to question # ?Explam'ariyXES answers'andlor>any recommendabons�or.any other comments ' - ..
Use drawings of facility to betterezplain situations; (use add�tionalpagesyas necessary) ay.
iz .
•,ems >� ��.�!/.��,� �� k,�� ��,�.�.��.��
zf.
Reviewer/Inspector Name"
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: � Lc.�^� ^�� Date:
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

1�+15 'I 3 VAS
i'vigion of Water Resources
li'aciiity Number - 0 Division of Soll and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit: omm�pl€ante Inspection Operation Review Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 01 outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: 1D County:
Farm Name: 8 �,� [ C f-efff f-a-r q4S U4(51 Owner Email:
Owner Name: l Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: ''
Facility Contact: _4,t,y41 3QJ`GV iGt� Title:
Onsite Representative: t
Certified Operator: Lz"Ot'jd Z ,
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Region:
Integrator: M /J S
Certification Number: Lw 0 ti
Certification Number:
Longitude:
iiii�imirro—ai Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Poutt , Capacity Pop.
Design
Cattle Capacity
Current
Pop.
Wean to Finish La er
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder t"O Non -Laver
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean Design Current
Farrow to Feeder Dr- P.nuitry Ca_pacit l;a
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turke s
Turkey Poults
Other
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Boars
�.ther
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
[:]Yes []�NU ❑ NA ❑ NE
[-]Yes ❑ No �A ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No [ -1 !rA ❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWR) [:]Yes [:]No 0'1`A ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? [:]Yes � ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes [fl'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection: .�
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. A storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: r _ 7=3 f" �ff _rw
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 63 elS -7r
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ❑ To ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes ❑'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[E]' o
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
L'7 o
❑ 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
io
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
e'1Go
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Q o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): C 13 — I` SCr 0
13. Soil Type(s): �C'�_ ce'l4 Gja.
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes Q?�o ❑ 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?
Required Records & Documents
❑ Yes ❑'Flo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Q<`lo ❑ NA ❑ NE
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
['l�lo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
❑<
❑ 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
M—N
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking [:]Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
2-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[3'90
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yeses ❑ NA ❑ NE
gels the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check [] Yes ❑ o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? [] Yes -e< ❑ NA 0 NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [!1`o ❑ NA ❑ NE
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 the 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 Q o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes CD-Mo- ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [E"1To ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑'llo— ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes
Q'lo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[3'l�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[] "o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments'(refer to questions#) Ezpiain any YES answers:and/or.46YYa"dditlritiallrecommendations or any other coromentssf90
• == �•: F; TS .s#{..;°4:Mt �w', v� ti<;. n"r j",'Ei3IV. : ':. T' 3
[]se �draw,in s�of+fa.'cili Ito better. aex lain situati.onsJ((u.se,nddltional, H es.�as necessa � ; y
Ga,� t�ri 0 ✓e JC)— 18-- IZ
fl P313-7
z a� -7 q, 0 3 7 7,,,
_3 �_ 3 3,-7 3�5 7-0
1 p/
c�,CC cmq 3 ov - 95
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu
Page 3 of 3
t [{ �J� Phone:��` E �333
re: (off/ 11 J L,Q k Date: 't 3 �S e_
21412015

0 Routine O Complaint Q Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number �p 99� Date of Inspection
Time of Inspectiot
24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours Farm Status: ❑ Registered [IApplied for Permit (ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review FFA-'�l ® Certified ❑ Permitted I or Inspection (includes travel and processing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated: .............................................................................2...................................................._.................
FarmName:........ [.d�l....P..... iit�, ............................. County:.......... 11pel .............................................
.....................................
i
Land Owner Name:... .................. 4.r. �r``l................., Phone No:................ ��0).... ..............................................
Facility Conctact:........... 14 :11'��1.......... o! %'`s .............. Title:................................................ Phone No: .............................. _..........................
Mailing Address:
OnsiteRepresentative: ........ ly"�� Fj�o/J f '..... Integrator%.�Fua�. (..�iw .,�e5o_. '
Certified Operator:........�6'`} ...,,...L^J rl'...................................... _............ Operator Certification Number:..... .............
Location of Farm:
Latitude =*=,="
of Operation and
Other
Longitude O• =' ={t
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
Field Area
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ;@ No
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
[a No
❑ Yes
2TNo
Continued on back

Facility Number:. 0..... ....
� 1 .
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
® No
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
® No
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
® No
Freeboard (fl): Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
.........��. .......... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................
............................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
® No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
® No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
1M No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
10 No
'aste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes ® No
(If in excess of W/M_P,, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ........ ........................................................................................ ..............................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
J
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
® Yes
❑ No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
91 Yes
❑ No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
For Certified,Fagilitigs Only
❑ Yes
® No
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
pal No
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
®Y
❑ No
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
Comments (refer to questtaa # Explain any YES answers` and/or"any recommendations or any other cariimeiits:.
Use drawrngs;,of faci ity to better explain sittiahons ;(use additional pages as necessary) "
lg• ,p.�.rx��,�r�� a�,G''.�-Muir'`' .
Reviewer/Inspector Name EMS
...
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

O DSWC Animal Feedlot Operation Review
®DWQ.Anlmal Feedlot Operation Slte Inspection
10 Routine O Complaint O —Follow-up of DWQ Inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
j Facility Number Date of Inspection � 3
O / I[Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: Registered ❑Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for I hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection (includes travel and processing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated: .....................................................................................................................................................
Farm Name:.........F rtt+.... tAk......el .... ..`3........................... County: ..............1R..................... .
Land Owner Name:............., .f'fa`^'�%....r9...... Phone No:.l �..._t�—.
Facility Conctact:........... 00!5:�/j�/.. ..0 .............. Title:._..........,.................................. Phone No:
QQ....._... _..... -- ............. ........... ..._.......
Mailing Address:.......I :.. r/./_ ......7 .. P....sr�..lT!/ ._ 'e04................._................. .... . ...... _................
Onsite Representative: ....... /1.1Integrator:
�,-o� ...............................�s..........._�l�.. t�.........
Certified Operator: ... 1L/„6Eft< ..T.. d ✓................................................................... Operator Certification Number:..g.�.� ..................
Location of Farm:
Latitude =0=1=« Longitude =*=1=11
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gaVmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
S. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes Q No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes
EjNo
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
PJ-No
Continued
on back

O.
.j kps lity Number:.. .... —ILO
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
0 No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
No
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
No
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
® No
Freeboard (ft): Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
. 6........ ............................ ............................ ............................ ...........................
............................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
[:]Yes
WNo
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
0 Yes
❑ No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
VjYes
❑ No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
rm No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
[21No
(If in excess of WLMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ....r� !'"{rG......................................................................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
[9 No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
O-No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
® Yes
❑ No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ErNo
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Qj Yes
❑ No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
For Certified Fgcililics Only
❑ Yes
CS No
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
NJ No
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
)Q Yes
❑ No
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
Commen "'(refer.to question,'#) � Explain any YES answers and/or:any recommendations or any,Eother eomments.-'
Use draw�ngs,of facility to better explain srtua#ions .(use addttional pages as necessary)
i V
�.� .ram �..� o� �,�.�.��•✓_
x3. 7
a
Reviewer/Inspector Names 3 € r'11rt " { .
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:Date:
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Mr. Andy Adams
Murphy Family Farms
P.O. Box 759
Rose Hill, NC 28458
Dear Mr. Adams:
e��
[DaHNF;Z
DMSION OF WATER QUALITY
June 5, 1997
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY
Fox Fire Swine Farms
Registration No.09-178, 09-179, 09-180
Bladen County
On June 3, 1997, staff from the Fayetteville Regional Office of the Division of Water Quality
inspected the Fox Fire swine facilities. It was observed that the certified animal waste
management plan (CAWMP) issued on July 1, 1996 by a technical specialist employed by Murphy
Family Farms required the purchase and placement of irrigation equipment at the on facility or
before January 1,1997. At the time of the compliance inspection there was no irrigation
equipment on site an no distribution system installed.
Nothing in this letter should be taken as absolving this facility of the responsibility and liability
of any violations that have or may result from these deficiencies.
Enclosed is a copy of the inspection forms for the Fox Fire Complex that were not given to
you on site at the time of the inspections.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call Bob Heath at [phone].
Sincerely,
Robert F. Heath
Environmental Specialist
Operations Branch
Central Files
Audrey Oxendine - FRO DSW
Sam Warren - Bladen Co. NRCS
Dr. Garth Boyd - Murphy Family Farms
Wachovla Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville ofwl FAX [phone]
North Carolina 28301-5043 New C An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 910-486-1541 60% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

0 Routine C Complaint C Follow-up of DWQ ins ection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection 97
Time of Inspection ®24 6r. (bh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status• ❑ Registered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection includes travel andprocessing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated: ». �.»..r..»..».»»......».._......W»_..,._.._.�.._/._».......»»....»».._:..».......»._...».._..»
Farm Name:.�_.f.Px...,�s,P,r .. Av�-z County: .w.»....Ul '.'�.....»...,..._..._ ......�.».._...
Land Owner Name:...{.!r� ,�,� ..._..._ Phone No:.,..��LQ.�.
Facility Conctact: _._..... ..... Q.. t 'r ....».... TitlePhone No: _._... �» ._.........._...._ .._.» .
Malling Address:..... .. ...r .._...�� �5 �� /r/� �3� ..._...._...».....»........_ .... ._...... .».......
Onsite Representative: p.»..�.�..�lr'..._.//��r.��'.`�...:......»..._..».......»....»._.... Integrator: .f�.... .��.�'Y.... » ..—'�
Certified Operator:__P_^`....lri�:N�i'............_..,._ .__.... Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm: /
Latitude �•��� Q« Longitude �• ��' ��
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
fi F, benign s� C7urrent 1 t � Design= i Current, ", Design h CurrentA
Swine �� Ci; aci �P,o titatian 44 PSOtry'W&fa�se Po "ula ion <Cattlu C$ a i Po ulatlon;"�
❑ Wean to Ieeder J,I[jLa ' ❑ DairyFeeder to FinishNon-Layer Non -Dairy I
Farrow to WeanInA.M.
Farrow to Feeder Total' Design*CApacity� `j'
Farrow to is .�.
❑ Other
Number�of Lagoons iIolding Ponds ❑Subsurface Drains Present
ri ... 10Lagoon Area ❑ P Y 9
_ , S ra Field Area
1�
'i5e
I. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: Magoon ❑ Spray field ❑.Others _.. w .;: •=. -. .
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑Yes No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes Pj 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 51 No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes IR No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes Q No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes j$No
maintenance/improvement? 4/30/97 � Continued on back

Facility Number: Q-1 .—...LB,d ,
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): " Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
r
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
® No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
® No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
09 No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
5d No
Mste A11011cati2g
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
® No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoffenteringwaters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .......i,r ,c..,-lfx........... _............. ........ ..... ............... ...-............................-.....»............._
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
M'No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
® Yes
❑ No. .
19. is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
Yes
0 No'
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No,
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
For Certified Facilities Only
❑ Yes
® No
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of.the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
[:)Yes
No
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
(2
® No
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
Comments. (refer to'question #).` Explain any YES answers'andlor aay,recommendations.'or any other c8 nments.
Use drawings of.facility to:better'expla%in-situations. (use aaciihanal pages as necessaryj'
/ 9 E C✓�6✓/�!/a . .rit,�s 7'.E /,..%/1� �" .�•✓o/jv`wQ 1'ei�s.✓
s3
s� -=•�vr ovoe-
drir'..t.E /��/9J.�..r��/�' �i.�iar�ws'�' ..sr••. i�
00
Reviewer/Inspector Name FOOP
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
-� ,�
Date:
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

It
M Division of Water Resources
El Division of Soil and Water Conservation
11 Other Agency
Facility Number:
090173 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS090173
Denied Access
Inpsectlon Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Bladen Region:
Fayetteville
Data of Visit:
02/16/2017 Entry Time: 11:00 am
Exit Time: 12:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Fox Fire Complex
owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
Sr 2046 353 Avery Rd
E Fayetteville NC 28301
Facility Status:
Compliant Not Compliant
Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 34° 50' 47" Longitude:
78° 38' 47"
From Ammon take SR 1002 (Old Fayetteville Hwy Rd) North into Cumberland Co. turn left onto Sr 2046 go 0.4 miles to farm
entrance on left.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Slor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Ronald Lee Matthews Operator Certification Number: 990008
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Reprosentative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

f
Permit: AWS090173 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090173
Inspection Date: 02/16/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine -Feeder to Finish
11,000
Swine - Wean to Feeder
4,400
Waste Structums
Type Identifier
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Disignated
Closed Date Start Data Freeboard
15,400
1.617,000
Observed
Freeboard
Lagoon
7450-2-1
19.50
43.00
Lagoon
7450-2-2
19.50
41.00
Lagoon
7450-3-1
19.50
50.00
Lagoon
7450-3-2
19.50
53,00
Lagoon
7450-3-3
19.50
37.00
Lagoon
7450-3-4
19.50
46.00
Lagoon
7450-3-5
19.50
Lagoon
DEPOT
19.50
Lagoon
FEEDER 1
19.50
Lagoon
FEEDER 2
19.50
Lagoon
FEEDER 3
19.50
Lagoon
FEEDER 4
19.50
Lagoon
FOX FIRE F1
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE F2
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE F3
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE F4
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE-D
19.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE-N1
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE-N2
20.00
Lagoon
NURSERY 2
19.50
page: 2

Permit: AWS090173 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090173
Inspection Date: 02/16/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
pischarnes & 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?
❑
❑ 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
[IN
❑
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)
❑
❑ 0
❑
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
❑
M ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection. Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5, Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
No
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Wasteis ion
N2 No me
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
maintenanoe 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%/10 Ibs.?
�]
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: AWS090173 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090173
Inspection Date: 02/16/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Butters fine sand, 0 to 2%
slopes
Soil Type 2
Centenary sand
Soil Type 3
Lakeland sand, 1 to 7%
slopes
Soil Type 4
Wapram fine sand, o to 6%
slopes
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ ❑ ❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ M ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yee No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ M ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Wl1P?
❑
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?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS090173 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090173
inspection Date: 02/16/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
RecoEdq and Dogyments
Yes
No Na No
Rainfall?
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
01311
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑M
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes,MINa
Ne
28, Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
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,
❑
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 Cl
❑
(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
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑M
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
❑
❑
page: 5

M Division of Water Resources
❑
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 090173 Facility Status: Active
permit: AWS090173
❑ Denied Access
Inpsoction Type: Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County:
Bladen Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 03/13/2015 Entry Time: 11:00 am Exit Time: 12:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name: Fox Fire Complex
Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: Sr 2046 353 Avery Rd
E Fayetteville NC 28301
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
E
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude:
34° 50' 47" Longitude:
78° 38' 47"
From Ammon take SR 1002 (Old Fayetteville Hwy Rd) North Into Cumberland Co. turn left
onto Sr 2046 go 0.4 miles to farm
entrance on left,
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Ronald Lee Matthews
Operator Certification Number:
990008
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd
Phone
On -site representative Mike Cudd
Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Truck wash lagoon = 55"
J
page: 1

Permit: AWS090173 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090173
Inspection Date: 03/13/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish
11,000
Swine -Wean to Feeder
4,400
Total Design Capacity: 15.400
Total SSLW: 1,617,000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Data Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
7450.2-1
19.50
41.00
Lagoon
7450-2-2
19.50
36.00
Lagoon
7450-3.1
19,50
48.00
Lagoon
7450-3-2
19,50
35.00
Lagoon
7450-3-3
19.50
43.00
Lagoon
7450-3.4
19.50
42.00
Lagoon
7450-3.5
19,50
Lagoon
DEPOT
19,50
Lagoon
FEEDER 1
19.50
Lagaan
FEEDER 2
19.50
Lagoon
FEEDER 3
19.50
Lagoon
FEEDER 4
19.50
Lagoon
FOX FIRE F1
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE F2
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE F3
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE F4
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE-D
19.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE-N1
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE-N2
20.00
Lagoon
NURSERY 2
19.50
page: 2

Permit: AWS090173 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090173
Inspection Date: 03/13/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges $ Stream Impacts
Yea
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑0
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ N
❑
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)
❑
❑ N
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
N ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑N
❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
XR1 No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (i.e./ large
❑
❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
No
❑
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
Yes No No No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
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

r
Permit: AWS090173 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brawn LLC Facility Number:
090173
Inspection Date: 03/13/15 Inspeclion Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yes No No No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Oversoed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Butters fine sand, 4 to 2%
slopes
Soil Type 2
Centenary sand
Soil Type 3
Lakeland sand, 1 to 7%
slopes
Soil Type 4
Wagram fine sand, 0 to 6%
slopes
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑N ❑ ❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ E ❑ []
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ ❑ ❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ E ❑ []
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No No No
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
[] []
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑0
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS090173 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090173
Inspection Date: 03/13/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yea No Na Ne
Rainfall?
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑0
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 11,17
Other Issues
Yqs Ela Na Na
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
❑
❑
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,
❑
so
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(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
r]
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑0
❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
El Other Agency
Facility Number:
090173 Facility Status;
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit:
Routine
Date of.Visit:
03/20/2014 Entry Time: 08:00 am
Farm Name:
Fox Fire Complex ,
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Active Permit: AWS090173 ❑ Denied Access
Inactive Or Closed Date:
County: Bleden Region:
Exit Time: 9:00am Incident#
0 e�aII:
Phone:
Warsaw NC 28398
Fayetteville
910-296-1800
Physical Address: Sr 2046 353 Avery Rd E Fayetteville NC 28301
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: latitude: 34' 50' 47" Longitude: 78* 38- 47"
From Ammon take SR 1002 (Old Fayetteville Hwy Rd) North into Cumberland Co. turn left onto Sr 2046 go 0.4 miles to farm
entrance on left.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Certified Operator: Michael L Cudd
Secondary OIC(s):
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Other Issues
Operator Certification Number: 25233
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summery:
Lagoon levels:
74502-1 = 31"
74502-2 = 46"
74503-1 = 34"
74503-2 = 48"
74503-3 = 42"
74503-4 = 44"
Records reviewed 3/10/14.
Site visit 3120/14.
page: 1

Permit: AWS090173 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090173
Inspection Date: 03/20/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish
[] Swine - Wean to Feeder
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Data Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
7450.2-1
19.50
Lagoon
7450-2-2
19.50
Lagoon
7450-3-1
19.50
Lagoon
7450.3-2
19.50
Lagoon
7450-3-3
19.50
Lagoon
7450-3-4
19.50
Lagoon
7450.3-5
19.50
Lagoon'
DEPOT
19.50
Lagoon
FEEDER 1
19.50
Lagoon
FEEDER 2
19.50
Lagoon
FEEDER 3
19.50
Lagoon
FEEDER 4
19.50
Lagoon
FOX FIRE F1
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE F2
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE F3
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE F4
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE-D
19.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE-Ni
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE-N2
20.00
Lagoon
NURSERY 2
19.50
page: 2

Permit: AWS090173 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090173
Inspection Date: 03/20/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Vislt: Routine
Dischar-ges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure -
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
r]
❑ s
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
CIE
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection. Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
13011
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
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
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yea JNo No No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 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: AWS090173
Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090173
Inspection Date: 03/20/14
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
YesNo,Ma Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Gross
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Butters fine sand, 0 to 2%
slopes
Soil Type 2
Centenary sand
Soil Type 3
Lakeland sand, 1 to 7%
slopes
Soil Type 4
Wag ram fine sand, 0 to 6%
slopes
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
0 ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15, Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
16, Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
■ ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■ ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yja No No No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
❑ []
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
[a
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
0
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS090173 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
090173
Inspection Date: 03/20/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yee No Na No
Rainfall?
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop'a POA far 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?
❑
MIJ
❑
Other Issues
Yea
No Na Na
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
❑
❑
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,
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
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
❑
M ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑
e ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number:
090173 Facility Status:
Inpaeclion Type:
Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit:
Routine
Date of Visit:
10/21/2013 Entry Time: 08:30 am
Farm Name:
Fox Fire Complex
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Active Permit: AWS090173 ❑ Denied Access
Inactive Or Closed Date:
County: Bladen Region: Fayetteville
Exit Time: 9:30 am Incident #
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Melling Address: PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: Sr 2046 353 Avery Rd
E Fayetteville NC 28301
Facility Status: Compliant El Not Compliant Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude:
34° 50' 47" Longitude: 78° 38' 47"
From Ammon take SR 1002 (Old Fayetteville Hwy Rd) North into Cumberland Co. turn left onto Sr 2046 go 0.4 miles to farm
entrance on left.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Clifton Daniel Tyndall
Operator Certification Number: 989946
Secondary OIC(s):
On -site Represenlativa(s): Name, Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Ammons
Phone
On -site representative Mike Ammons
Phone
Primary inspector: Robert Marble
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary inspeclor(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS090173 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090173
Inspection Date: 10/21/13 1npsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
[] Swine - Feeder to Finish
Ej Swine - Wean to Feeder
Totat Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Data Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
7450-2-1
19.50
Lagoon
7450-2-2
19.50
Lagoon
7450-3-1
19.50
Lagoon
7450-3-2
19.50
Lagoon
7450-3-3
19.50
Lagoon
7450-3.4
19.50
Lagoon
7450.3-5
19.50
Lagoon
DEPOT
19.50
Lagoon
FEEDER 1
19.50
Lagoon
FEEDER 2
19Z0
Lagoon
FEEDER 3
19.50
Lagoon
FEEDER 4
19.50
Lagoon
FOX FIRE F1
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE F2
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE F3
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE F4
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE-D
19.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE-N1
20.00
Lagoon
FOX FIRE-N2
20.00
Lagoon
NURSERY 2
19.50
page: 2

Permit: AWS090173 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090173
Inspection Date: 10/21/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharr#es & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection. Storage & Treatment
Yes
Na No me
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 (Led large
❑
� ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6, Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste_ Application
Yee No No No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 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: AWS090173 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090173
Inspection Date: 10/21/13 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Xgp No No No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Butters fine sand, 0 to 2%
slopes
Soil Type 2
Centenary sand
Soil Type 3
Lakeland send, 1 to 7%
slopes
Soil Type 4
Wagrom fine sand, 0 to 6%
slopes
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
0 ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■ ❑
[]
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
N ❑ ❑
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?
n
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
E ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
page: 4

r .r
Permit: AWS090173 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090173
Inspection Date: 10/21/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No No No
Rainfall?
[]
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?
{]M
El
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
M ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge surrey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yell No No He
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
r ❑
❑
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,
❑
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i,e,, discharge, freeboard problems, aver -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34, Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
M ❑
❑
page: 5

n 1 IS'f IZ
Division of Water Quality
Facility Number ®- 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: i Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: `7� // — Arrival Time: D Departure Time: County: B
Farm Name: `7qS-b 3 r tro Pre- C! Owner Email:
Owner Namc: MCV (ram -"6 MUki , LL( Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: m 0 ns Title:
Onsite Representative: I
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator: i` 0 an
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Latitude:
Region: F—AD
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number: / 7 7�
Certification Number: 10Sy6I
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -La er
Pullets
Other
Poults
Design Current
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
❑ Yes K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes '-] No
[-]Yes k?No
NA ❑ NE
1P NA ❑ NE
q NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

..M..,,w.` ,+S'r-. al-.. ,.;�n;J"'^ ., 1.'l r� .r4,.♦ ...,. +*t'.' Nr+'yti
�• ��i=���l�i;��:�'�'�' ' e. �DivisionsofaWateri0uallt� r '�
iN aclllty lvumlier �'
�� -aL�
"/.aJ v plvislon of Soil and Wafer tsonservstion
� r
'f � Q Other Agency
Type'of Visit: •. ) Complianceylnspection '.s Operation Review-.0'Struc re Eval anon ;O Technical Assistance `
RO
�y. Reason for Visit: �� Routine ComplaintFollow-up Referral',Errie �g nc� 0 Other"
0 Denied Access
7, Date of Visit: 112-1 Arrival Time: ,Q '1 Departure Time: County: B� Region:
Y
- Farmame:�r::=11'�Sd .7 ""C1 �I�t'e 1 "' Owner Email: `t
^ ti
'Owner, LC-(
ti . Name: rA Gl/► i"UtiVy ''Phone: IA.
;;. Maifing Address:
:
`P i;M'cal Address: .. - a,. t 1 <
let
Facility, Contact: M r!t'"011 Title: "'
Phone:
t
-'
, ah.. 1 ��
� 4Y ,.rr Representative:
I�nsite Representative: Integrator:.
°
w � r _ :r1r,•y_ �r
/J�f mil" 1 fi°
���((�''"��"" jj
Operator: v'� �Qtn �5� � Number:
g q 1 I 9
ertified 'Certification
• All Operator:' Certification Number:
Location•of Farm: ` ._ Latitude: Longitude:
'�'' T''"•����,��iE.4`rkr� { '^��„' lr�sl n�rl�i.� �> �''� ����( ,���,�p : �, + [ r• a iF" , �h...� " F•;z',.. � �,
Desi n x Current �'� 1�.t3 x
• ���l.r�c ,; g "�� r �� � Desi n�Current� ° Design Current
, ; t Srvinc t CapacityF Popp WetePoultry;" {Capacity Pop h , Cattle Capacity Pop.
+%�vb� P 190 YJI � 1.1.E k414riv
3 Wean to Finish La er Dairy Cow "
14 Weari"to'Feeder ( Non -La er Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish ' ' Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean Design 'Current D Cow
h4 Farrow to Feeder Llr, Poultr CaNacit�m.' Po Non-Dai;
' Y Farro0to Finish ILayers Beef Stocker
Gilts Won -Layers Beef Feeder
b Boars 1Pullets jBeef Brood Cow
g` p Turkes
HOther ' i�,{�. ,� Turkey Poults
Other Other
tix
Dischare s and Stream Impacts
•' I Is any'discharge observed from any'part•of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA `❑ NE
' Discharge originated at: Q Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
t
Was the,om
Yes
N
NA- ❑ NE'
Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑Yes
❑ No
® NA -❑••NE
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 m NE
2f ds'there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes ' f p No
❑ NA' ' Q NE B '
=kiWcreithere any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters '
[] Yes
�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
of'the State other than from a discharge? ;
W rt,
".Page 1 of 3 .
21412011. Continued
' {,-.C:.f yO r1'-�i. .,.•,'. ;�,.. .1N ..f �:. .. n..s .!ti''^•n.+.. ..�.., ....rt. 3_ -.., .., ... ...f:. �S. �•..... ,.3wlr. .,4•...':3''�:1L'.t . a. ,. tw I.l :. i-c
t S... `Ir_. _._, r.. {.. .. .

Fac€li N tuber: - Date of ins ection: /
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
P 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
7
Identifier: r 2_.__-Z-
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard
(in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
M No ❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
T
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
® No [3 NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
TT
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
Yes]
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes [/6 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes T No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes T 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): Q$ � � '� f� s�)rl, ��A..In U,,'9��99FJ
13. Soil Type(s): BL71 C-e-1 LA71 LJaS
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?
IS. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
❑ Yes ® 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 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 8 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis [] Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
[:]Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and l" 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

`
s
w FAcilif'l tuber: - k Date,of Inspection: Yll 7
i
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy. rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE,,
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? °`: �{ , `t 1 , `�
❑Yes
[]No NA
❑ NE
F Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 °jS'itructure,4
Structure 5
Structure 6
7
Identifier: P " P — 2
%
n1 - 2 '
�. Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
t Observed Freeboard (in): (ob
.7
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any f the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
LF
❑ 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
E] No ❑ NA
❑ NE `
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[n No ❑ NA
' ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9
r" 9. Does any part of the wastc�management system other than the waste structures require
maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
® No ❑ NA
❑ NE
.Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE '
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? if yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE -
�r' ❑ Excessive Pondiing ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc,)
,.
r15 t5ii
• ❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bale Soil
❑ Outside of%cceptab'le Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
GA�
12. Crop Type(s): .1M- -k
13. Soil Type(s): �La%Q.D
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
m No ❑ NA
' ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
[—]Yes
® No ❑ NA
❑ NE`�—
' I& 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
[N No ❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operatingwasteapplication equipment?
❑ Yes
® No " ❑ NA
❑ NEr
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the'Certificate of Coverage'& Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE f
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
-
the appropriate box,
r
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21,- Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
2!1 No ❑ NA
❑ NE ;
'0 Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard %[] Waste Analysis ,. ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code.
w� '❑ 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
[P)No [] NA
T�
❑ NE
: 23If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No' - ❑ NA
�❑ NE',
Page 2 of 3 �: '"'"'' - - -
.�.
2/412011,Continued '
1'
{'+i•�...

Facili Number: 9 - I 7=1 Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the perm t? [:]Yes q No [:]NA ❑ NE
25, Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [�j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [:]Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus toss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
24. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes
1� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[�T No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes \P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
L13 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?] Yes [t No [] NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes EP No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes 5 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or: any other^comments:
Use drawinns of facility to better explain situations (use additional paaes as. necessary .
9" 'k " Ci'/ 1 -2 h
6-NV ISr� q1 lt2,
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date: 9ZI 7
L__
2/4/2011

M
Facilit `"Number: r - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail -to calibrate wa a application equipment as required by the permit?
Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE`
25: Is the; Facility out of compliance with permit conditions relined to sludge? if yes, check
❑Yes
®Now ❑ NA
❑ NE'
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels 1
❑ 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
Ep 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NEB
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
b� ❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
121 No
-[:],NA-8-NE
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
0�
tie r
❑NE
34. Does the facilityrequire a follow-upvisit b the same agency?
Yes
❑,No
NA
E
..
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional, recommendations or any�other comments
Use'drawings of facility to better explain situations,(use=additional pages'as,nec'essaeyj '`_- , � ,�; :,;� 3
ram% 1 � � (.�'• �- � 'VA.
'S
y
I
Reviewer/inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
r . 4
a
1
Phone: 3 �3
Date:
21412011

Division of Water Quality
E
eility Number E::T • 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: : Op County: BWV,,fi Region:
FIW-
Farm Name: l `I 5b-3 Pre- CoIj_Owner Email:
Owner Name: l Y 4 wQ6 --f�*w h , 11L Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 1►' 1 r r+-�O Vl Title:
N
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: 5?,fem -a
Back-up Operator: 926U411
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Other
Other
Latitude:
Phone: Integrator: !' I i j/o h: 1�('Jn'CLC
Certification Number: -1 f qc?? i
Certification Number: 1941
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
HNIon-Layer
a er
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkev Pouets
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
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[]Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes [:]No
[:]Yes ❑ No
[]Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
�NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

,Ifacjli6Number: IDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: F-1 F-2— F-3
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): `G
Observed Freeboard (in): 633
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
Structure 5
/L/-2
No ❑ NA
❑ No )w NA
Structure 6
❑ NE
❑ NE
q84 33lk 3C
❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
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
17] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
[] NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [:]Yes rM No ❑ NA
❑ 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):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes No
[:]Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design [] Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [:]Yes Mn No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis [] Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
1
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Faciiity Number: C4 - P7 IT7 Date of inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
T
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
24. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the 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 P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes �No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[ ] No
❑ NA
0 NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other commentsk-` w ,
Use drawings of facility. 'to better explain situations (use additional pages as. necessary).`.;;
SIA VIS4 CondgtW-5--/12j)1 r
9 �
Reviewer/Inspector Name: ( N Phone: 99 '3
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 3 of 3 214.12011

r
* Division of Water Quality
Facility Number=LMDivision of Soil and Water Conservation
.. t Other Agency
Type of Visit *Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 10 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Farm Name:
Owner Name
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: .Ic, n1I Pon Title:
Onsite Representative: u
Certified Operator: �k40�&)-e
Back-up Operator: ny B
Location of Farm:
PEI County:
Dwner Email:
Phone:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Region:
Operator Certification Number: aO�§/�
Back-up Certification Number: IQr
Latitude: = 0 =' 0 Longitude: = ° =' =
Design Current
Design C+urrent
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish I
JEI Layer
❑ Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder 1
10 Non -Layer I
I
El -Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
Non -La Layers
❑ Pullets
El Turkeys
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
El Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
dumber of Structures:
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes r No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[--]No
�NA
El NE
❑ Yes
El No
�NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
1PNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
El NA
❑ NE
El Yes
go
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes c ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No PQNA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 �7Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
identifier: �.� 34 l SD3''� '�3 C 3 '7 I YSVIR dZ
Spillway?: (--
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): v�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes Wo El NA [:I 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 PQ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes IP 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 0 Yes �No [I NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes tpNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes rNo ❑ 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 op Window ❑1Evideennce of Wind Drifts ❑ A;io'n Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) Fes'' � C �/1../!�f- 6;a, r, dam- .....---..
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ 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
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
IpNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
q 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 I Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: S
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes J�j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[?10
El NA
[I NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
El Yes
l� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
/P@
❑ 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
[�g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
Ep No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑Yes
�No
El NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
�DNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

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:Arrival Time: 0 �DW— Departure Time: f O ,'�c County:
re-7y�Sba 7L/56
Farm Name: j1—liZ�__ __ _ _____ i Owner Email:
Owner Name: I' 1 E.-06 - „ „- Phone: _
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region:
Facility Contact: f V I I �'�h`'�'" QK5 Title: Phone No:
U
OnSite Representative: Integrator: G1h�
Certified Operator: "' Operator Certification Number:
Flack -up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: = [= ` 0 " Longitude: = ° = ` = "
rent
Design Current Design Current DesiWVP.
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capaation
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
❑ DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
❑ DairyHeifer
❑ Farrow to Wean Dry Poultry
❑ D Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts ❑ Non -Layers
❑Beef Feeder
El Boars ❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turke s
Other, ❑Turke Poults
❑ Other ❑Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes FONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
PNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
�NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
OPNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
9No
[INA
❑ NE
[IYes
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number:Lf—
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 TNA El NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 S ructure 6
/
Identifier: D 1Z3—L �� —� 77153`3 '7Y.QP-_-z
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 36 w �- t 3 3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes oNo ❑ 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 *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [• No []NA ❑ NE
9 (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 ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'? CC��
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes E)94o ❑ NA ❑ NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes "Plo El NA ❑ NE
El Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload [I Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.) ��'""
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > l0% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable ro Cin ow ❑ Evidence of Wind `Drriftt ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) &, Q , � � Qv7��ld,
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving `c ops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
`� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
oNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #E): Explain any YES answers and/or any rccomrtsendatin�is orrany oth rec►ms`fitents '%Fj'°��uy�'
r�Use drawings of facilityto better explain situations. {use additional pages as necessarY)-: y
lo101 'so3311
Reviewerllnspector Name
Phone:
Reviewerllnspector Signature:
Date:
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: — % Date of Inspection i
Reg uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
❑ Yes o ElNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes tNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0No ❑ 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?
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?
❑ Yes
t9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
1p NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
6No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
PRNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
1; + No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
52 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[UNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28/04

❑ Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
O
® Feeder to Finish
OIZ2
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Gk6ivision of Water Quality
FFacility Number Drv�sion of Soil and"Water Conservation ra
D�
Q Other
s
Type of Visit 4D Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit er outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: OF—FiFr Arrival Time: Departure Time: 0 County: 042r01 Region:
Farm Name: 1"Oy- F i I' COA'yr je/r- X Owner Email:
Owner Name: ✓T raLI►'L L t' Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: RaJ y �GCi?'t0� d/'11 e'r"_ Title:
Onsite Representative: ��-
Certified Operator: J%
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: [� o [= 4 [� Longitude: = o = 4
Design Current Design 'Current
Swine Ca�aeity Population Wet Poultry Ciipncity ,P.npulation
❑ Layer
!' ❑ Non -La er
Dry Poultry
Other
❑ Other - -- - i
❑ 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?
Ise
Cattle"Cap
] Dairy Cow
] Dairy Calf
] Dairy Heifer
] Dry Cow
] Non -Dairy
U Beef Stocker
ElBeef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
' E F
Number o#'Structures
[ k
b. Did the discharge reach waters ofthe State? (Ifyes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
t�.C'urrc
❑ Yes R1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes`]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes PNo ❑ NA ElNE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier:
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 4 Structure 5
I es
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): J`~ 1
❑ NA ❑ NE
Ctrnnti�ra h
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
Z 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
PZ 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
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
J4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ FAN > 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 types)-r ad ac _ I �iyi�ccx �Trb
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
JO 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
5,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
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):
i �_. C�6ar- /C:, - Id 0' Vu#e'7"4'7 6-�z.
Reviewer/Inspector Name /a+�_ Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:ti�
rcizoivy aun"nueu

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? []Yes K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check ❑ Yes JELNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 9No ❑ 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
XNo
❑ 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
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
E-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
L.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
ZINo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
IT No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[gNo
❑ 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
RNo
❑ 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
,,ccam�
S[No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
%No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

Type of Visit
Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
,C�ommppliance
utine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 4 Arrival Time: , � � rr Departure Time: County: Region: L70�
Farm Name: �i;�Jr J' a to n-r t L-P k Owner Email:
Owner Name: 01acg& Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: /��`1 �u%na/17p� Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: f __ ...,_._._, Integrator:
Certified Operator: Y / 7 flip P Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = e = I =td Longitude: = o = I =
Design
Current
Design Current
Design C►urrent
Swine C►opacity
Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
Non -La er.
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Daity Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
pry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ La crs
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turke s
Other
❑Turke Poults
❑ Other
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
®.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility—
Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes 5�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Stru-ccture 6
Identifier: I t�� _ 31 -:pdZ
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 0 Oc2 12 c.2 Q eg D_ aq 0 12
Observed Freeboard (in): p�� c2 2 29 C2 r
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
'XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(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
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
CgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
4. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
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)�!/79 t� of C9 /v'� ,•�+ /DYY/S r—C-�
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes §d No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
(&Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
®No ❑NA ❑NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any.YES answers and/or any recommendations,or any other comments t s t<
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary)::-.
C OV 0 L W ee,)4 1 r S,p �7c�� a-`�- A)Vt3� IUo, ' I ' I
IReviewer/Inspector Name 1 Phone: 42ZGT 33 J:Fo0
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: _ Date: / --/.;7- -'-'�101) %
r a54; k Uj ., ZlZafulf I.unitnwea

,
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check .g Yes ENO ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP []Checklists Desi n g ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ig Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
j$ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
®,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
JRNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
1�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
R�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
qNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
E4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
S4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29,
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
J�K(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
%No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
JqNo
❑ 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
EKNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
qNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Ypu /he'd 'PeS �Vi ADr All IVWa.z ,`,1 rp v,'- 1'-eor� 3 oo
pni y 7w' o arr f -1 >$/, T3vo/c .
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
]North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.F. Director
Division of Water Quality
December 1, 2006
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Murphy Family Farms
Fox Fire Complex
PO Box 759
Rose Hill, NC 28458
Subject: Application for Renewal of Coverage for Expiring NPDES General Permit
Dear Permittee:
Your facility is currently approved for operation under one of the Animal Waste Operation NPDES General Permits, which expire on
July 1, 2007. Due to changes in federal rules, facilities that do not discharge nor propose to discharge may choose whether or not to
retain coverage under an NPDES General Permit. Copies of the draft animal waste operation NPDES general permits and the State
Non -Discharge General Permits are available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/Etpslafou/downloads.htm or by writing or calling:
NCDENR — DWQ Animal Feeding Operations Unit
1636 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1636
Telephone number: [phone]
In order to assure your continued coverage under one of these two types of general permits, you must submit an application for permit
coverage to the Division. Enclosed you will find a- `Request for Certificate of Coverage Facility Currently Covered b, aspiring
NPDES General Permit.' The application form must be completed and returned by January 2 2007. Please noteyou must include
two (2) copies of your most recent Waste Utilization_ Plan with the application form.
Failure to request renewal of your coverage under a general permit within the time period specified may result in a civil penalty.
Operation of your facility without coverage under a valid general permit would constitute a violation of NCGS 143-215.1 and could
result in assessments of civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day.
If you have any questions about the draft general permits, the enclosed application, or any related matter please feel free to contact the
Animal Feeding Operations Unit staff at 919-733-3221.
Sincerely, `
4T�
Ted L. Bush, Jr., Chief
Aquifer Protection Section
Enclosures
cc (w/o enclosures): Bladen County Soil and Water Conservation District
Fayetteville Regional Office, Aquifer Protection Section
AFO Unit Central Files - 090173
Murphy Family Farms
Aquifer Protection Section 1636 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
Internet: ww3y,ncwgtM;luali1y.org Location, 2728 Capital Boulevard Raleigh, NC 27604
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50°% Recycledl10°% Post Consumer Paper
Telephone:
Fax l:
Fax 2:
Customer Service:
Nor` h Carolina
(919),1�? Nnq&y
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ®Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
'01-
Date of Visit: 5-0- —61iP Arrival Time: Departure Time: Z :1 County: Z>fgaly Region: OC2Q
Farm Name: �> x Fi'ye, .CR Al P7C Owner Email:
Owner Name: %%r cC t. D �., g i"o W Iy Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: d t
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o =' =" Longitude: = ° =' =
Design Current
Design C►urrent
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer I
1 JE1 Non -Layer I
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder ,VQ0 1
❑ Feeder to Finish 111.0on
I
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean Ipry
Poultry
El -Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
ElNon-Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑Giits
❑Non -La ers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Turkey Pouets
❑ Other
❑Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
El Yes
No
❑NA
[I NE
❑ Yes
29 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 09-/7
Date of InspectionG d7—O o
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 0 No
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? Yes [gNo
N vs 14u �'' ri. fear Fi'�Ps�v ��r` kw
Stru 'e "I Structure Z Structure 3 Stni1`ture 4 Stru Vre 5
Identifier: 7450_ii[[Z-/ �� O-2-z 74450-3-I WTV-3-x 7V90-3-3 7J
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA
0 Nsl�
it cttur
�
6 S;�,-
7�sa3 S
Spillway?: Tr,.ure west
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [25 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan? 1
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? Ir
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
1 l . Is there evidence of incorrect 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 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) 13CVW c.,— %vx a ��td`l aLat'' J Gvva e--
13. Soil type(s) %�i�.�j , �e_ L et.t,A
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
[0 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any, other commentsw, v
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):" 'l
Reviewer/Inspector Name I X r G r, Is I Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:Date: —_ A7!_ZOO �t
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

r '
Facility Number: 6? Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 10 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0 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
ISM No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23,
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24,
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29,
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
0 Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
% No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional'.Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 I2/28/04

Type of Visit (915ompllance 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: Arrival Time: 3 ' 3 t7 Departure Time: s,�3 [7 County: Region: Z -L
Farm Name: ee & E rt Owner Email:
Owner Name: _AWla o,',% Z /0er ' iw�f� � .��x� Phone:
Mailing Address: ,�. f� 2 8 X 2--Ef
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: ja— e r`"Y
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No: a%G by. YE
Integrator: LET rim
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = e =' =" Longitude: = o =' =
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
FLa er
Non -La et
❑ Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder OW
Feeder to Finish I J1000
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other j
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 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? (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 94 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
,RNo
❑ 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? ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes 5LNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 St :uZure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: rl�Y�ah'rJ'r'otG.,�3 `, .. v✓ �rka
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): /�- , r - /�, % �. ,S _� j f Z SS
Observed Freeboard {in}: yL,
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes RLNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(iel large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ;RNo ❑ 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
[9 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
g No
❑ NA ❑ NE
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 Drifi ❑ Application Outside of
Area
12. Crop type(s)Ae-A '1 GrQ2e /S.bi �raiK Gra��
13. Soil type(s) ���C /G Q� �1�N ff �GQ. z
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?
MYes
fKo
❑ 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
59 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
5Q No
❑ NA ❑ NE
/. Afit#,iFrV- ; rn F A LIoan. i .S IloPA77.
/1} M'e As Cc���rJ �/ `� �oZJ t�,�f �D_'!
Bx�i'�ao% a 7`` 8>DTh /f/vrs,.r�s �r��al Ta r CAL '000 7 1W, _' . ,
Reviewer/inspector Name Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: &9 e7 — Date of Inspection �— 05_
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes J4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA. ❑ NE
the approprrate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and l" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
' 5q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fait to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
LANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
2h.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
[.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
®.,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
rMNo
❑ 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
MNo
❑ 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
r-",4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Coinmcn[s and/or, Urawinga , nr' ` „� s V. 414-t
12128104
12128104

(Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation j
for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: / � Time: / p
Not Operational O Below Threshold
[3 Permitted 0 Certified © Conditionally Certified 13Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: -•-- __ ..
Farm Name: .......... i%�.»....... E.Y..G.........
.»................................. County: .......... 1ii-60............
.._»... ». »..
Owner Name: „...»..!` !.? ...�,a 11� _» _.�4k.ti 3 _ _....... Phone No:
Mailing Address: �.....�».....„�._._.................»_.»....»..»»».. _..._..___ »».»..»»»......»...
FacilityContact: .................. ................. ................. » ... „..»..Title:.._ ...... _.............. ...._........ .,......... _... _..... Phone No: ...... ....».............. _......... ...........
Onsite Representative:........ �`�_ l .» . _ .� a r r . _... _ _ ._ _ ..... Integrator:. t aC 7`. ......... Q rb v iJ
Certified Operator:._.... �'?r�. ,►.� �».. _._� .�.,,�.� � � ........... Operator Certification Number: _ . 719_.,,.
Location of Farm:
W Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0• 4 46 Longitude ' 1 41
Discharges & SyM Facts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes -' No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? N 14
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 b 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 Wo
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 5
Identifier: .... ..... 0' 8.._... ___ _,F L.. _fA2 ...» .....F3. ._.»_.» .. _ ,, � _ __.»_. Pnk __._
Frecboard (inches):+l._ S"O ry �/% `� r'►�p l�
12112103 � Continued
r

Facility umber: — ]3 Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes �j 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 maintenancelimprovement? Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes I No
elevation markings?
Waste A .Lbeation
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes EP No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [I No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ® Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type arm c a S ri. a 1 r i,a S
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 59 No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes IX No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes M No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes P No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes] No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes �jy No
Air Quality representative immediately.
® Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
O n 4 c v e r -a_ + p L._11.s m r),o V, c_-LA % o m ,3 Q b C.40 c IE~
Owt of +4 V. a fP'l'Ic-�%d„ t.91 ass o�^ ��rw� q ccco��A'�r.� �*-
F%aw.plc pu,'v`s '7-ICE, Il-C3, t3r4-IS, 114-19, ill -tar A
1 h 1 d I NN *1 Al +- % 3 0�a r a.� P c k:� W t 1tieI�OW
Apr I'k -1-'nc- o�1a 1C. 4A4rJOVIC. A ob,0 +0W6dr�VC"%L3
1r-� ►�y�ra.,,��tr �va�-ts� ;v.� �w11s 1a- a•, AR. !3- scV Pwll�
� J // h Ov h //
7.(,vAj4rALc.G 4-,o wa,-1L oN arHy 1PcPG 5ro45 bN !a900A • /
jlaV� svmt Rr�s W�i:�� CDw%vC. � � is...pr01/G�.
Reviewer/Inspector Name V
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
12112103 IV Continued

Facility Number: 9- 7 Date of Inspection / O/ 0
Required Records & Document.0
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes KI No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes I No
❑ Yes U) No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
01 Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [29 No
❑ Yes M No
12112103