830035_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

r
Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 830035
Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS830035
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine
County:
Scotland Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 0212012017 Entry llnw; 10:00 am Exit Time: 11:00
am Incident 9
Farm Name: Farm 5070
Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1600
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 14746 Airbase Rd
Maxton NC 28364
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑
Not Compliant Integrator.
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
34' 45' 48" Longitude:
79° 20' 60"
Farm is located approx. 1 mile N. Jct. NC 71 & SR 1407. Approx. 3000' west of SR 1407.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Waste Col, Stor, $ Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other Issues
Certified Operator: James Brian McGugan Operator Certification Number: 986752
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Name
24 hour contact name
Mike Cudd
On -site representative
Mike Cudd
Title
Phone
Phone
Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS830035 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830035
Inspection Date: 02/20/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 8,800
Total Design Capacity: 8,800
Total SSLW: 1,188,000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
1
19.00
43.00
Lagoon
7070
19,00
page: 2

Permit: AWS830035 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 830035
Inspection Date: 02/20/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yea
No Na Me
I. 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)
❑
❑ 0
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection. Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑0
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
M ❑
❑
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
❑
MEJ
❑
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?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
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: AWS830035 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brawn LLC Facility Number: 830035
Inspection Date: 02/20/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Norfolk
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
Cl
M ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
01113
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 Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
0 Cl ❑
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?
❑
M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
-E]
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS830035 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 830035
Inspection Date: 02/20/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
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
❑
M ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
E ❑
❑
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 survey
❑
Failure to develop a PDA 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
❑
❑
Otherlssues
Yes No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
❑0
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile 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 ❑ ❑
CAWMP?
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? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
page: 5

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number.
830035 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS830035
[] Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Scotland Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
03/09/2015 Entry Time: 01:00 pm
Exit Time: 2:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Farm 5070
Owner Email:
owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 14746 Airbase Rd Maxton NC 28364
Facility Status: 0Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34' 45' 48" Longitude: 79° 20' 60"
Farm is located approx. 1 mile N. Jct. NC 71 & SR 1407. Approx. 3000' west of SR 1407,
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Waste Col, Slor, & Treat Waste Application
Other Issues
Certified Operator: James Brian McGugan Operator Certification Number: 986752
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:
page: 1

Permit: AWS830035 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830035
Inspection Date: 03/09/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 8,800
Total Design Capacity: 8,800
Total SSLW: 1.188,000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
1
19.00
30.00
Lagoon
7070
19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS830035 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830035
Inspection Date: 03/09/15 . Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & 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?
❑
❑ 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
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 ❑
Cl
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0110
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./large
❑
M ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
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
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total 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: AWS830035 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility [Number:
830035
Inspection Date: 03/09/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hey, Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Smau Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Norfolk
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ N ❑
❑
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
❑ 0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ E ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ N ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
[]
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS830035 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830035
Inspection Date: 03/09/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
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
❑
E ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
N ❑
❑
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 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?
❑
E ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
1301111
Other Issues
Yes
No Na 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?
❑
■ ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
E ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection 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
830035 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS830035
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason forvisit:
Routine
County: Scotland Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 0311812014 Entry Time: 12:30 pm Exit Time: 1:00 pm
Farm Name: Farm 5070
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Incident #
Owner Email•
Phone:
Warsaw NC 28398
910-296-1800
Physical Address: 14746 Airbase Rd Maxton NC 28364
Facility status: Compliant Not Compliant Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34° 45' 48" Longitude: 79° 20' 60"
Farm is located approx. 1 mile N. JcL NC 71 & SR 1407. Approx. 300V west of SR 1407.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator. Michael L Cudd Operator Certification Number: 25233
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:
Inspector Signature:
secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Records reviewed 2126114.
Site visit 3118114.
Robert Marble
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWS830035 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830035
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard
Freeboard
Lagoon
1
19.00
Lagoon :��=7070
19.00
page: 2

r.
Permit: AWS830035 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830035
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na Ne
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)
❑
❑
❑
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
Yos No Na Ne
4. is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
8. 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
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes Nn Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ M ❑ ❑
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: AWSB30035 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830035
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Norfolk
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
0 ❑
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
E ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS830035 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830035
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
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?
❑N
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑01111
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?
❑
N ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
❑
Other Issues I
Yes No Na No
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,
❑
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
N ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -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?
❑
N ❑
❑
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
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number. 830035 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS830035 ❑ Denied Access
Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason forvisit: Routine County: Scotland Region: Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 02/25/2013 Entry Time: 09:30 am Exit Time: 10:00 am Incident #
Farm Name: Farm 5070 Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 14746 Airbase Rd Maxton NC 28364
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34' 45' 48" Longitude: 79° 20' 60"
Farm is located approx. 1 mile N. Jet. NC 71 8 SR 1407. Approx. 3000' west of SR 1407.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator:
Secondary OIC(s):
James Brian McGugan
Operator Certification Number: 986752
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:
Records reviewed 216113
Site visit 2126/13
page: 1

Permit: AWS830035 owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830035
Inspection Date: 02/26/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 8,800
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
agoon 1 19M
agoon 7070 19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS830035 Owner- Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830035
Inspection Date: 02/26/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na No
1, Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
01311
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)
❑
❑ 0
❑
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 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?
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
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 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
10, Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/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: AWS830035 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830035
Inspection Date: 02/26/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Nay, Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Norfolk
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
E ❑
❑
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
❑
N ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
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?
❑
00
❑
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?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS830035 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830035
Inspection Date: 02/26/13 1ripsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑
❑
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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 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?
❑
E ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Cl
E ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na No
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? 1f yes,
❑
r ❑
❑
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 tile 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
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWMP?
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

I
i ype of v is,i: Wt-ompuance inspection v uperanon xevtew U btructure r vaiunuon v i ecnntcai ASSIStance r
Reason for Visit: ® Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access I
Date of Visit: a Arrival Time: Q ; Departure Time: County:�
Farm Name: ``--�-�-----���t�' 3 Owner Email:
Owner Name: �'�� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Region: fit-' _
Physical Address: Facility Contact: (yV LC[ [ d Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: I Integrator:
Certified Operator: �� �� a_t '�� 1 Certification Number: ` l
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
111111
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
Da Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
(�
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D , P,oultr
Ca act
P,o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turke s
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
O#lter
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
❑ Yes �'i No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes [:]No
®NA ❑NE
Q3 NA ❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No n NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? [:]Yes [K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters [:]Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: 193 - A Date of Inspection: * Pro
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes JVNo [DNA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No O NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 4 q
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
KP No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
QqNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
it 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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
PP 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
ED No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
EgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes j jj 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):
❑ NE
13. Soil Type(s): A1 '
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes P No [DNA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Renuired Records & Documents
❑ Yes [gNo ❑ 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
[0 No
[DNA
❑ 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
�No
❑ 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
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
f9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

IFacility Number: I Date of Inspection: -a(c--)
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes V] No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes nNo
the appropriate box(cs) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes CK)No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes Dew
rOEhNo
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Mf NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
[] Yes
� No
❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
( No
T
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAW W?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[7No
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
D No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any -additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use.drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary). -
' Leved5 ke-J;EL'Lee 2'6�[313
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: Q 1 o 4 33 3 3 Q)
Date:
21412011

im
type tit visit: W %-ompttance inspection V uperarion xeview V nrrucrure Evamanon lJ i ecnntcal Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: �--�-- p � Arrival Time: w Departure Time: .County:.3W14 fJ� Region: ►"7�+�
Farm Name: So i D,3 Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: + QA Title:
Onsite Representative: H
Certified Operator: 15rI L Pe mf
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: /A"_ Fb W,5
Certification Number: I I bay
Certification Number:
Longitude:
4
CProp tit,
C esignCuirent
ffiDesign Current
Swine Ejpap Wet Poult , apacityI'op
ry
Cattle Capacity Pop.
. _
Wean to Finish
Layer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
.�:.
� %� ^�
_�
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
= Design
`'D , Poutt .. Ca aci
Current
- Pop. _
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
jBeef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other -
Turkey Poults
Other
10ther
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
kq NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
Q;g NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes [] No NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? [:]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
21412011 Continued

Facili Number: 113ate of Inspection: .3Z
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes �a No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No � NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard 39
(in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
P
❑ 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
0
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 1� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 1P 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): 60asW "t, k4IL4�), qi2� ou�a4a
13. Soil Type(s): &-f -! _
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes 1� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑Yes
(bl No
T
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [P No [DNA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes h No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 1P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

I�
Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes IU No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey []Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No
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?
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
[DNA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 1� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes rVA No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 5 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Phone:
Date: 3 % Z
2/4/2011

type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection U Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation U Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 49 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: SO70 3 _ Owner Email:
Owner Name:. U4 wn i i_C_. Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
cSC.M7A1 O D Region:
Facility Contact: ! ` I t I� CA' A Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:At�L_:i� tiiYLLtc
L
Certified Operator: < <— re, Operator Certification Number: 1163`{
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [= o [= & [� Longitude: = o
Swine t
­,.
Design Current
CapacityPoplation
-. Design Current - Design Current
3 W.eouitCapacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
iEx Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
on -Layer
iry Calf
Feeder to Finish
0060jiEl
Daia Heifer
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gills
❑ Boars
P
Other
❑ Other
...Dry Poultry- �-
-
❑ La ers
-Layers
El Pallets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
El Da Cow
El Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
]Number of Structures
DiseharQes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
PjNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
M NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
I 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
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
L�fNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than From a discharge?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection ZZ k
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 03 NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
[�TNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
1 1. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes P 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)
f
0
13. Soil type(s) A7"�
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes [C No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
I & 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
iQcoA ret/,�ecjed ;-(ll (tf
S4f_ visi Co,JacW 3 Z 1t ,
Q�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
PNo
❑NA
ONE
IN No
❑ NA
❑ NE
rQ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name
a Phone: �i0 - `13 3-3
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Z �
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents TT�'
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below_ ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
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
1� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
F1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
P9No
El NA
El NE
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[BNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�) No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[--]Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

e
l ype of visit (9'Compliance Inspection U 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: -ZS-/O Arrival Time: Departure Time: 7:do County: SC10+1"'4Region: Fl20
Farm Name: 'tt S0 703 Owner Email:
Owner Name: _ M - Bkyaj" L j_C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: M uc1 Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: A - 81'o uJA/
Certified Operator: �LI Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = = 6 = « Longitude: ❑ ° = i = f4
Design Current
- Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capaty Popu� 1 vo
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
10 Layer
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to feeder
I0 Non -Layer 1
❑ Daia Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
Q
7 $
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑Nan -La ers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
Pull
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
❑ Turke s
Other
❑ Turkey Poults
(Number of Structures:
❑ Other
❑
Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
ErNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
LI 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
E7 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

s
N
Facility Number: 03 —Q. S Date of Inspection 3-25—/0
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 21No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: -V50703
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes —a—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 [ o ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental 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 El NA [I NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ElYes ffNo ElNA El NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ff No ❑ NA ❑ NI
maintenance/improvement?
l . Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu. Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 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) k.d y Pa Siti, �' .Sca.iCl Ga�i`.✓ L O S .
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes TN El NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? El Yes LJ N ❑ NA El NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? El Yes ❑ 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
rn�P:. • . J. `�;. Y ,.
Comments (refer to question_#): Ez'p[ain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments
Use drawin so�f f.. acilit to betterexplain situations. (use additional a es as'necessary #"
Reviewer/Inspector Name f Ki`crCy f2e.ye.[,$ Phone: 9/0—�33 --3300
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: T Date: ,4s 20/0
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes EKo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and V
Rain Inspections E] Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
O No ❑ NA
❑ NE
23,
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
BNo ❑ 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
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
ETNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes:�NoONA ❑ 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 2<01 ❑ 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 CfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require afollow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104

Type of Visit 40 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: 30 Arrival Time: f -� Departure Time: �Q County: c5�� Region: EPT
Farm Name: SD 70 � f'+t 4.w Owner Email:
Owner Name: —1 ' i "'�n^'I'� � LC— Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: i/ Integrator: /^,0'"�ir�14Gvt"t, �L
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = 0 { = A, Longitude: 0 o =
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine apac�ty Population
Wet Poultry Capacity ]Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
:p ;r,,r.�
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
ltry
Dryul
❑ Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
''
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilt
❑ —Non-Layers ers
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
Other:"
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
tP1No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
1b NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
RI) 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
43 NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
El NA
El NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
l
�No
❑ NA
El NE
other than from a discharge?
l
Page 1 of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection�'r
��--
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes " No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No
_& NA
❑ NE
St t t;cture 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
`
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
If
Observed Freeboard (in): orb
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes Q1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(iel large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes E 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 09 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes f#] 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 N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes �O No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes DjNo ❑ 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
El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) M s4w. .
13. Soil type(s) _ 0r.Q 1 k T
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAW MP? ❑ Yes `;° 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
[OVo ElNA ❑ NE
1![� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[PNo ❑NA ❑NE
0No ❑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):
a
T
Reviewer/Inspector Name — _ — —
Phone: 3�
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: j 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 FRNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ 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
[!RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
CA NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
F
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
P] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
�3 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
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
b 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
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
Q1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

S-TAIS Crvkvc 4/ �ele;�`O S
-- ----i •ision of Water QnaIi
Facility I�Iumber g�j O Division of Soil and V4'ater Conser+•anon
Type of Visit
ompliance Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
outine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: L7 -25 D Arrival Time: Z- .35o, Departure Time: County: C01/11__Region: /e�
Farm Name: � 7070 iA"r6SG Owner Email:
Owner Name: �� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: CZAIC AW4V Title: �a�Al /;s�-� Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: /YluY��Yd��
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: o � Longitude: o a
�u�Designren
I
Currenpuy
Swine
C•a ac
laiion WPoultry
Capacity' Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La �cr
❑Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
���*, ❑Non -Laver
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
❑ DairyHeifer
❑ D Cow
❑ Farrow to Wean DtyqPoultry
❑ Farrow to Feeder
`"
❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Lavers
❑ Non- Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑Beef Brood Cold
�- ,-,�•,
_, ❑ Turkeys
❑ Other
"`
Number of Structures:
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream lm acts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: El structure El Application Field El 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 ofthe State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page l of 3
❑ Yes VTNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
UNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
(�No
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
(3No
❑ NA
❑ NE
I2/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: S — s j Date of Inspection
«`aste Collection & 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
ViNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
[3No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
O 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
ENNo
❑ 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
JRNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8_ Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
P?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
P1No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11.
Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
JR 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'I ❑ Evidence of Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12.
\Wind
Crop tyPc(s) �Ca ut Lt �� (H �Gr� is 1.. ��'L�rl� e'o'y�� :✓ ��. $ .
13.
Soil type(s) /l,/
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement'?
❑ Yes
Pj No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
[M No
❑ NA ❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
ELl No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
U- daholasdr ngftytobeteppin sttoa-ag as neS�7.
:.'ns ee,)ns:or anotm
q
Reviewer/Inspector dame ��- Phone: /0. �&3- 330O
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:-2s ZOQ�j
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: g3 — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes '17fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes EffNo ❑ 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 FNo ❑ 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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
JVNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
El Yes
im No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
r-W. No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
VfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
(VNo
El NA
El NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

atMS 310-1--007
Type of Visit (&Compliance Inspection V Operation Review O Structure Evaluation U Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ® Routine O Complaint O Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Z /3'07 Arrival Time: 7,'d0/4r► Departure Time: G:30 County: 5C0t0aAJa Region: xrg0
Farm Name: i Y bo_ :1�- 70703 Owner Email:
Owner Name' Afu v'th 6 E5+-Ot�. J , Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: RaNC1!A $401" ai,—AJe41` Title: /,:—.z `'"" A`9 r Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: MK wp A 4 B o c✓/✓
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
�o =,
Latitude:
Back-up Certification Number:
�o �, ,❑
Longitude:
fA
Design Current
Design Curren#
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wet POUItry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish OQ
❑ DairyHeifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ D Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑Non -La ers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑Beef Brood Cowl
❑ Turkeys
Qther
❑ TurkeyPoults
❑ Other
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
❑ La er ❑Dai Cow
❑ Non -Layer Dairy Calf
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 [PNo ❑NA El NE
[]Yes
[BNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
[]Yes
[,'A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[A No
❑ Yes
[4 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?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 19
Observed Freeboard (in): 33
❑ Yes 19No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
[� No
ElNA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc_)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
[$ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
1P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
(M No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
II. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
(9 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) J e-yi- � d.s%, 4t*.,, / 6raa e _ . SAwal/ 6e*;,
13. Soil typep s) A
! `r
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
P 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
[1 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
[PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #) Eiiplain any YES answers and/or any recommendateons or any other c mments,�
..Use drawings of facuity.to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessa115,
ry)
Reviewerlinspector Name i� i! � - Phone: 9/D, f�33, 2�310
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Z -/3 — Z D b 1-
Page 2 of-3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 93 — $ Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [% No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ W1JP El Checklists El Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes V No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes P 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
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ yes
R 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
7No
❑ 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? (ic/ 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
JR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or
Page 3 of 3 12128104

0
I
iFacility Number $�_ 3S
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
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: 545-114f"d Region: �1'Q
Farm Name: /V 35 0 70 70 Owner Email:
Owner Name: WUJ-AO%*-. � _ grSwh/ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: /Sr �Gyr � Integrator: W 8j,a N
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: n = ' ❑ Longitude: [::] ° u
x
Design Current
�, D sEgn SCurrent
Design C*urrent
Swhte n
Capacity Population
Wet Pou ry CapRity Population
Cattle . Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La er
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
x
El Dairy Heifer
r
DryxPoultryr"� _.
El Dry Cow
@..'
sib "'r°"
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ -Layers
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Pullets
❑Beef Brood Cowi
El Turkeys
Other .� 1.
❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other
❑Other
Number of Structures:
❑ Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder
El Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Discharges &Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
El Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑Structure El Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
El Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system! ([f yes, notify DWQ)
❑Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑Yes
I? No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12/28/04
Continued

Facility Number: gj - s Date of Inspection la-O
Waste Collection & Treatment
�q
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
Elb Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3611
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
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
P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
TNo
❑ 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
W No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
FZNo
❑ NA FINE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside
of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s) Np
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[TNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement'?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
Of No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #�: Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations *su,ayotherAcommntsUse d64iiigs of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary � r
Z s
A.
T
Reviewer/Inspector Name
T - ' :. SF:. Phone: 910
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: 4� — ZQ0
Page 2 of 3 `r 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [)9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWM.P readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps
p ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [4 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[�l No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25_
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
QP No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
(9 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
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
[21 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
W 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
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
W] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or -Drawings: Y
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review U Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Fallow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit. 11`73 `OS Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: SCOVC' '4i Region: FR�Q
Farm Name: %j' ak Q AI�YQJ L V # 7 01 0 Owner Email:
Owner ,Name: f <aY_ ,Q t� — 13VO i..1N_ __- Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: P-CA"14 F2 UY E Y Title:
OnsiteRepresentative: Rated L4gf4RAC.yAl .V
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
.Other
[] Other
Phone No:
Integrator: /!/iaZg41 16�10 A/ _
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o Longitude: � ° ❑ , = "
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
' ❑ La er
_ I Il JE1 Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity. Populatidti
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If 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 15D No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
159 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[N No
❑ Yes
EgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 3 — 35 Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
identifier:
Spillway?:
N
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):%
❑ Yes U1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes ®No El NA ❑NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
W No
❑ 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
14 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
10 No
El NA El NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement`?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) &e1-x4ttdcr_ (9yAxg=,=`h-ay ) 51-4r9Yrt
i n► (oVtArSe-1--d
13. Soil type(s) No
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination, El Yes
;0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
D9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or -any recommendations or any outer comments. Use drawings of facHity to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name /1 J'e./� e_Ve; S Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: //— Z Z — �S
12128104 Continued

Facility dumber: Date of Inspection %I ZZ -OS
Required Records & Documents
19_ Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [9 No ❑ 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 �RNo ❑ 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
19 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
D9 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
K No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
R9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
(9 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
R 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
[FNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewerhnspector 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
[9 No.
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

f
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ®Routine O Complaint O Fallow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit: Time:rO
ur
Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted O Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: ._,,._.r a V' r h L1 's Fay ,... T d '7t� County: �1s;0
Owner Name: nr r o �,� '-S o�.� s �., Phone No:
Mailing Address: Po R. 7Sli -3 t 14, N o r +L C4." 1. v. q
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator: C r r o La's
Operator Certification Number:
M swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' & " Longitude ' 6
Design Current
Swine Ca 12acity Po ulatioi
❑ Wean to Feeder
m Feeder to Finish $ Do
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
r
Number of Lagoons C
` Holding Ponds/ Solid Traps
Design Current
Poultry
capacity Population Cattle.
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Design Curry
CAnsiri f Phf nfi;
lL Subsurface Drains Present Iiu Lagoon Area ILJ Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Diseharees $ Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): C2 «
05103101
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number. 3 3 Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
El Yes
❑ No
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
8_ Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
❑ No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16_ Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18, Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ic/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ❑ No
23. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes ❑ No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ❑ No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
6_6 } .--. 1 n j 001.1
Reviewer/Inspector Name I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Field Copv ElFinal Notes
Date: 9- O
05103101
Continued

tss...«='�.ti ram:``:..,=. n - :-x: -ti, w^?'•'�4 ,..--- - rs _
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ®Routine o Complaint O Foliow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
i Facilin Number Date of N,isit: Time:
1 •-- That O erational Below Threshold
0 Permitted 0 Certified M Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm mine: __ ♦-o S ro((,S 1-6 nC L^c - County: SC OHG nrrj,_, 2 t
Owner Name: ,.care ( C'Y_ jndtyv�_ 1*- 7-0 -7-0 Phone No: _ rif 113 -- .2;�(. -4, 4 34- — —
Mailing address: 1) - i3 ox Q_h'(. _ ijCi `S%&Lj IJ�. 3
Facilin. Contact: f e,& Amek J CC 1 �'J[aLlcsT Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Mf (e , 1f-A,, to r- CICz� Integrator: c a rf-3 /S-
Certified Operator: G 1`IL ['i t.w. Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
}-Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 9 u" Longitude a C�• K
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Ca acitr Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Ca acitf Population
❑ mean to Feeder 10 Laver I ❑ Da
® Feeder to Finish 10 Non -Laver ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to wean
El Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons f 1_ j L❑ Subsurface Drains Present JJo Lagoon Area }
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Li uid waste Management System
Discharses & Stream Impacts
1. Is anv discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Smay Field ❑ Other
a. If discnare.- is observed. was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes.. notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes.. notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection B: Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): _ .46
05IV3101 1 �?
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
El Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑Yes
No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number. j — .3
Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion.
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notih• DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes fb No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes E j No
❑ Yes IANo
El Yes PNo
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maiittenancehmprovement? ❑ Yes [VNo
11. is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pondding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes No
12" Crop ripe Rc, r rn t. a.- 4— 'Q !j'a C C-r-, O S ,1--
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes � No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facilin, need a .wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This faci]it%- is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16. is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[�I,No
Required Records &- Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage &: General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
Q�No
1$. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design. maps. etc.)
❑ Yes
1� No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (W irrigation. freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
1-No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
(LNo
21. Did the facility- fail to have a actively terrified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
J;R No
22. rail to notifi regional D`�'Q of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
Pallo
Oe%discharge, freeboard problems. over application)
23. Did ReviewevInspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection v<ith on -site representative?
❑ Yes
�No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
P No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWW?
❑ Yes
No
13 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about tkis visit.
.•.��."�f.-.,....i '._'....M..•. .yy, ":aM-+.-
Comments (refer to quesSoti: �: "Ezglatn:anyAiiES a�swei"s andfur afly,retornmencladons or � other
Use drawings of facRit to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):❑Field COUP El Final Notes
."-5....���N.•J.T.-�X��C.R1'�rv`wMe'�J�.� r..�4J.'2,_w.'�L.'l`a,i1r+'Y�V'...._"JCFil1^.:'��y-F�.�=�%-:sLS.iKea�":st`a.-.M �.;r.", `Dar�rV—gym`. �'r .-�^..rr�"A✓^vx-.... i,..... .:_.6,.rY.
foi l SC�"V 3 1`/-X�/of
1t.Tcl
hL � 5k le' ( r.�tt �y� i l a 3 �.�a o K_ S�'� cQ
t6_r,� l r e. Go CC 1 c 6 Q 4,0
-�'�. r�,. ���... � � .. ".5� ew�"p�:r ." •,t^' �r•���-rn"-''x --"' :. ^scT �..:--"-e.,r �.� ..„s
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector 5iggnature: f Date: t S
05103101 t Continued

Facility Number: Q 3 — 3 ' Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ,❑ No
❑ Yes �No
El Yes � No
❑ Yes 4 No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
05103101

r
Type of Visit ® Compliance inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint 0 Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
FeCilin- lumber 3 DAC of Visit: ' 3 p 3 Timc: 4:
loot O erational Below- Threshold
Permitted ® Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified ❑ Reogistered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
r
Farm Name: Q, �� (� S E !`rvv EVNC County: Cn11 CA
Owner Name: C c rro6 Phone No: —at O - a7& --a 4- 3
Mailing Address: 1 • IQ, pj� 1z 5 t: _.� )i,!`5���5 C_
Facility, Contact: k A Title: , J *��Phone No: —re,
Onsite Representative: Integrator: r
i
Certified Operator: i t.n+ _ Operator Certification number: 12 S _S 9
Location of Farm:
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �' 0 Longitude �' �• ��
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Ca achy Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Po uiation
❑ Wean to Feeder I 1 10 Laver ❑ Da-
® Feeder to Finish I gAao I J[:1 Non -Laver I I JE1 Non-Dair
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow- to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ goy Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present= Lagoon Area ❑ S
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management Svstem
Discharges & Stream imga_ct_s
I - Is any discharge observed from any pan of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharEe is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in eal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass. a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): 'ZL
05103101
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [3No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: 3 — 3 �- Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observ_ ll
observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes [A No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? El Yes WNo
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
11 _ Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop hype /arr_,tl j'�err. �.��. %Z..Q_ Ui�ari~ead
t3. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[] No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
[$9 No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge'?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
[ No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
,]
23.
Did Reviewerllnspcctor fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
E No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to=queshon�#i`} Ezplatn�anv YES answers and/or any reeommendahous or any gther corumeats°���`� .�_
Use drawingskof facdsty totbetter esplsta situat,ons. (use3add:ona! pages as necessary) ❑ Fieid Copy ❑Final Notes
Reviewer/Inspector Name = ' _-,•;:,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: o p
05103101 T Continued

Facility lumber: - 3 a Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or bclou
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there anv evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation_ asphalt.
roads. building structure, and/or public property)
29. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were am; major maintenance problems with the ventilation fanis) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts. missing or
or broken fan blade(s). inoperable shutters_ etc.)
l _ Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanendtemporary cover?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [N No
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes PNo
❑ Yes PO No
05103101

Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ®Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Z Time:
10 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted ® Certified E3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Thr-sho
Farm Name: G 70 County: _�GO
Osrer Name: _ 5�... f� �.c,�-1 �`D�.� /Phone
/No -
Mailing Address: f? iJ. 7i 15P �`.nY/ , A/ or
Facility Contact: .r4 Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: G /ems Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ horse Latitude • ` Du Longitude • ° Du
Design Current
awluc
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Fccde.
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity . Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer 1 ❑ Da
❑ Non -La er I I JEI Non -Dal
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Subsurface Drains P
No Liquid Waste
Total SSLW I I
❑ Lagoon Area JE3 Spray Field Area
went Svstem
I
Disiharpes 8 Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ,V No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes WNo
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes gNo
r
c. If discharge is obsmed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ZNo
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes NNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes q No
'Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes W No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 Continued

r�
Facility Number: — 3 Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes IVNo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes P9 No
{If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes /] No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes Al No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes P�No
Waste ADnliCati0n
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ANo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ANo
12_ Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes KNo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes %No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes Q�No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes KNo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes XNo
16. is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes )@ No
Reaulred Records & Documents
IT Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes CR No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP,✓chect!p designmap ,etc.) ✓ t' ❑Yes No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ;,No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes RNo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes allo
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes Mo
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? El Yes vNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes KNo
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments {refer to guestioo € Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations orany other comments
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additiona! pages as/n�ece/scary): ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 7 dZ
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: pate of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes INNo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes QRNo
❑ Yes ;'� No
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes PINo
❑ Yes %No
-Addtional Comments and/or,�Dra
O5103101

Type of Visit 4Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit XRoutine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number s-- Date of Visit: 4 'Time: 0
0 Not Operational Q Below Threshold
OPermitted [] Certified © Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Ab ve Thres old
-
Farm Name: 7 Q ounty:......eo . /.....................................................
............................................................................................................................. C
Owner Name: ! S '4' C' Phone No: ....................................................
r.. c`..1...'....................................
........................
Facility- Contact: .. !^5,` �S ...................Title �. v,....... � � Phone No:.......... ..........................................
Mailing Address:
Onsite Representative:. ................... .......................................................... Integrator:
Certified Operator: _...-. „ ......... ---- - -- ----- - ----.. Operator Certification Number: .........................................
Location of Farm:
r-1
_ 1-W
❑ Swine ❑ "Poultry' ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • �• ��• Longitude • �� �44
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
[],Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish
IEJ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
�r fdv
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total..-SSLW
Number of Lagoons
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding fonds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharees & Stream facts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: []Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a_ If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-niade? ❑ Yes No
b. if discharge is observed, slid it reach Water of the State? (If' yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes a
c. If discharge is observed. what is the cstimaled flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon sy,tcm? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes l 0
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes
01/01/01 �Zj Continued

Facility Number:V-35 Date of Inspection O ri Printed on: 7/21/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes kNo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes WNo
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes �No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes OtNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes P(No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes 0,�To
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive P nding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes 2No
12. Crop type Poi t.�P C,- O f n -2 e of u C eve /"See
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated i the Certi
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. 1s there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
Io y. . Os;oi- dtr .. t. jL were nQfed during �his;v. sit; You wiil reeeiye do tuj-thelr ;
correspo deike. about: this visit:
Cams ents (refer to gncstaon #} - Ezplaiia any" YES answers and/ot a
Uof/# PC4 6X5.._ 4 AV
kkd A Q_i' 'L,�Llnezl
facilityto`be#ter egplain situa�ontis (use_additioaal,:l
recomnQendations or any other cowmen
les as,necessarj')..-
❑ Yes tWNo
❑ Yes J4'No
❑ Yes *No
❑ Yes fi�No
❑ Yes j�No
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes "No
❑ Yes [!�No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes krNo
❑ Yes PNo
❑ Yes 1W No
❑ Yes MNo
❑ Yes V .No
AL
w
Reviewer/Inspector Name �y,. s.rtG►
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: _ Date: 30 - o r Sroa

Facility Number: 10 3 — " S
Date of Inspection S o
Printed on: 1/4/2001
30. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
31. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
32. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e_ broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
33. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
34. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes JK,40
❑ Yes JYNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes Wf No
❑ Yes ❑ No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
01/01/01

r ti
Routine O Com laint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number 3 Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection I � ' LJ 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Apermitted Q Certifiied ❑ Conditionally Certified E3 Registered 10 Not Operati7o-n—all Date Last Operated:
7 z.-•._. ...--_...- .... County: -.�4..........•.................�......
FarmName: ..............................e .. ..................... ......................._.. ..........._. ty' ....................
a r rll..'� s -�-�- >>h Owner Name.................2.. ..... one No.7�.
---.... ....................... .................................... --•---
Facility Contact: ... 4.e�....Y.....I.........................._... Title:......t..�..................... Phone No: __._ . /. .p..!.............
Mailing Address: ....2� r fi e-�.. "�iaf�Zr. 11JC .. 3.
...... f................................... ...........
Onsite Representative: Integrator•^
Certified Operator: ....&41.&1.5......................... .5....ktr CkqV;-5 .................................... Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
-------------
Latitude • �� �« Longitude !� • �' �'�
:$wine - • .;(
stga .� Current Design :Current=
iactty Po �ulabon Poultry Ca arty :IPo "iilation Cattle, =r
W ❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer ❑_ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I:' ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
'Total Design Capacity ^ ��
_ r
j'tal' LW
Ta Nnniber Hof Lagoo i,S ..' ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
oid�ng Ponds % Solyd Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System ' `
Dischart~es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If ycs, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (Il'yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure ? Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: ��ff 77
Freeboard (inches): ....... !„C..'f .............
❑ Yes )1�o
❑ Yes Fo
El Yes N0
❑ Yes ❑'Ho
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes jl�o
❑ Yes
le�
Structure �i/
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? Oe/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back
❑ Layer ❑_ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I:' ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
'Total Design Capacity ^ ��
_ r
j'tal' LW
Ta Nnniber Hof Lagoo i,S ..' ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
oid�ng Ponds % Solyd Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System ' `
Dischart~es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If ycs, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (Il'yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure ? Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: ��ff 77
Freeboard (inches): ....... !„C..'f .............
❑ Yes )1�o
❑ Yes Fo
El Yes N0
❑ Yes ❑'Ho
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes jl�o
❑ Yes
le�
Structure �i/
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? Oe/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: ?3 — ?S— Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancetimprovement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over apf lication? Excessive Ponding PAN
12. Crop type S_ / !tit GfGC�L "_D1. rjlE e Ow/
i
13. Do the receiving crops differ with 4se designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
r.
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there -a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
IT. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20: Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
ViQlatignis oi' dtficj6ndes w'rb hoted 00r'irig ibis:visit; • Y;ou will-tep H*ee fid futtboe -
correspondence Avut this Visit. . ... . .
&ue r /,'C&teGCli reed 2 `� C� wg
f J /
LlR SGuSS�d ��/ �J/ YBPoI %raft ri U rr�IIJS m+c Q New aQ//p r; c a �"ems t, 3j -
#t5'. Sip �� �-e�ne� i`n. T�� �'e�d5 ►2e� a7�a.ri( �a�•
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes ZNo
Yes
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes P No
Oyes wb
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Psi r, 51e�*
Reviewer/Inspector Name 7-'
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: !Td'/ ,, Dale: 6 _ Z7 0

Facility Number: 93 —�J Date of Inspection -17 �Ojj
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes o
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes o
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes
32. Do the flush tanks Iack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Q Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review Mother
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection � 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted 13 Certified © Conditionally Certified [3 Registered JE3 Not Operationall Date )�t Operated.
Farm Name: ...r'r4.L..�S�..................L.4�........................................ County:......-......1................................
Owner Name: G� rell- J [ ` s Phone No:
........ s..................
FacilityContact:.............................................................................. Title: ............ .......---------- ................................... Phone No:
Mailing Address:
Onsite Representative:.. A a -he 4x 5, r e Integrator: _..
............................................................................................................................................
Certified Operator : ................................................... ............................................................. Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude 0 6 « Longitude ' ' 64
Design ; , Current'-
Swine ; Capacity : Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Cuirent Design: ,. Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Ca iaci -Po ulation
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity,:_
Total SSL.W
Numbei of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 10
No Liquid Waste Management System
s•
DischarZes & Stream Immpacts
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, slid it reach Water of -the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) [] Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Dues discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? El Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: !f
Freeboard (inches): ........... ............................
5. Are there any • diate t ats o the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 2-4--OD
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑`Yes 0,No
Structure 6
............. I..................
❑ Yes ❑ No
Continued on back

A:-
U Division of Soil and Water Conservation 0 Other Agency M a
r Division of Water Quality ,
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection
0 Follow-u of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection .
Facility Number _ $3 35
Time of Inspection � 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Registered KCertified 0 Applied for Permit Permitted 10 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
f4—.a-m......il PI 20..
Countv:.--��'Q(......
Farm Name: ................ ..............
........... .......... ... ...
Owner Name: ........ . ..... f, 5.......... 5�.........., tG.' ------ Phone No: G]%0 .-..:35K—TZI ........
If.-
Facility Contact. e. J
y.....`r l�f.:.............. Title:.......
................. Phone No:
........................................ .......................................---.......--
MMailin Address: - UV-4— �5r�
ailing Address:P.a..........................................................................................w..................,...............................
a�sas.ar 3%��
Onsite Representative: ........... � [1X?ih� ....
Integrator: ................../!'!ro "5....
g .. ...L.l.... .. .. s...... -�..:!r.r.
Certified Operatort.................................................. ... ............... .... ......................................
Operator Certification Number:................. ........................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ' ' 46 Longitude • 4 LL
LSwrne "F�V.
Des,
fans
Current:
y. Popp lation Pc
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
EJ Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
I}'Sign urrent Design„- urrent "
Capacity ,Population- Cattle„- % ,,'Ca pacity. HPoputatioii,
Niunber of Lagoons /Holding Potrds.
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Wx � 'r"6 �;f,,-%�wo"ar ;�`..T_ �:Fa. � .i t.� ,•,»moo: >ta�x
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
General Av4,1 '1' /%
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes WNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes )I No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water'? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes qkNo
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? WA
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes iA No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes [' No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? es O No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require 40s KNo
maintenance/improvement? ,, ``
(. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes 19No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes A,No
7/25197

4-
Facility Number: — Date of Inspections
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not property addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes VNo
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement'? .�' i es []No
8. Does any pact of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required top of dike, maximum and minimum
liquid level elevation markings? ❑ Yes lo
Waste Application ''yy
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes 0 No
11, Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Ponding ❑1 Nitrogen ❑ Yes W No
12. Crop type L..t!{7..................................... f........................... . ...... '....... .........................................................
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes �fNo
14. Does the facility lack wettable acreage for land application? (footprint) ❑ Yes VNo
d�• /�v J.f
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'? � � � Otes� OXA4 El Yes KNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment'? 1 ❑ Yes %No
Required Records & Documents
co % RNtt� •o
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? 93Sg Yes ❑ No
f
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Manage en�lan Feadd avadab�e?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) �p Cp�yZ�f.�( ❑ Yes XfNo
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) it 07 PfYes ❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes No
21. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes No
23- Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes No
24- Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No
�. N:o.violations:or. deficiencies .were noted during this -visit; You wijl.rereive no further .:.:
correspondence: about; this :visit.: : ::::::: ::: ;
Comiments (refer to question#): Explain any YES answers and/orany. recommendations or any other; comments.
Use 'drawiin s of facility- to better explain situations. use additional pages as necessary).-—
kzV_1> u,4.,j-/ Iau&v cV a 11 Av. is a
P
-6- "u `
r
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: — aig~ 7z 11/6/99

❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency
vision of Water Quality
W Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWO inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other 1
Date of Inspection ,
Facility Number S'�
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Registered PCertilfied © Applied for Permit 0 Permitted [] Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name:...! cz'L p�... ..................... ........ .
...... ............. �....... .7........................................ ................................... ... County•• ......C .................... ........
z�rrd I s 4 Phone Rio:
Owner Name:........ _.......--.........Q �.,.-.1.... 7.... ...................
Facility Contact: 1.t ' .0 E'..... ; . ........................... Title:... :. ..................... Phone No:... t~t. dtS...?` d........
Mailing Address., ..Q...................................................................... ....LIV c? r S` `� �C 2'J�.�Ld..
............. .....................I.—..
OnsiteRepresentative: ... PS...................................................................Integrator: ......................... ..................__..............._.........................
Certified Operator, ........................... ............................................................. Operator Certification Number;
Location of Farm:
Latitude • 0' LG Longitude • 6 0"
.......... .
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Other
General
1. 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: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ANo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes �No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes [(No
maintenance/improvement?
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
7/25/97

Facility Number: — 3
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
PNo
Structures (LaQoonsMoldine Ponds. Flush Pits. etch
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
®No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft):..........e�...�..............................................................I....
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
rNo
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
El Yes
A\ No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
IkYes
❑ 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?
Waste Application '
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff/eZnters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ....s ,(.M !.! ..
..........................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ withnated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities QUI
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
No.viaiationsor. deficiencies.were-noted-during this.visit.- You:will recei'Ve•iro•furttier-: -
0&0!04fideike about this: visit:
Zqt oal,
4 r-5%/la
pan k
id S
;4 eels
look
orhowi
dD� 51
j
,
❑ Yes )No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yesit
No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes OLNo
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
.. _.
z .�
Date: '14 -21 —971

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
ALT? W, A -
I T4 0
NC ENR
Nonni CAROuNA DE wrrMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RE U9
-„ .� pp_ VEJune 26, 1998fi
Carroll's Foods Inc `-
Carrol's Farm #7070
PO Box 856 Jul 2 � ����
Warsaw NC 28398
FAYETTEVI L
RE(�u'bje&C -LRL eissuance of Certificate of Coverage
No.AWS830035
Carrol's Farm #7070
Swine Waste Collection, Treatment, Storage and
Application System
Scotland County
Dear Carroll's Foods Inc:
The Division of Water Quality modified the Swine Waste Operation General Permit originally issued to
this facility on August 26, 1997. In accordance with the issuance of the revised General Permit, we are
forwarding this Certificate of Coverage (COC) to Carroll's Foods Inc, authorizing the operation of the
subject animal waste collection, treatment, storage and land application system in accordance with
General Permit AWG100000. This approval shall consist of the operation of this system including, but
not limited to, the management of animal waste from the Carrol's Farm #7070, located in Scotland
County, with an animal capacity of no greater than 8800 Feeder to Finish and the application to land as
specified in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP).
The COC shall be effective from the date of issuance until April 30, 2003, and shall hereby void
COC No AWS830035 dated August 26, 1997. The COC shall hereby incorporate by reference any
specific conditions of the previous COC issued to this facility. The purpose of this COC is to allow
coverage under the revised General Permit. Please review the revised General Permit (enclosed) and pay -
particular attention to Condition II.10 regarding tree removal from lagoon embankments, Condition III.I
regarding inspection frequency of the waste treatment, storage and collection system and Condition III.6
regarding notification requirements for system failures, spills and emergencies. Pursuant to this COC,
you are authorized and required to operate the system in conformity with the conditions and limitations
as specified in the General Permit, the facility's CAWMP, and this COC, with no discharge of wastes to
surface waters. An adequate system for collecting and maintaining the required monitoring data and
operational information must be established for this farm. Any increase in waste production greater than
the certified design capacity or increase in number of stocked animals above the number authorized by
this COC will require a modification to the CAWMP and this COC and shall be completed prior to
actual increase in either wastewater flow or number of animals.
Please be advised that any violation of the terms and conditions specified in this COC, the
General Permit or the CAWMP may result in the revocation of this COC, or penalties in accordance
with NCGS 143-215.6A through 143-215.6C including civil penalties, criminal penalties, and injunctive
relief.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

(;ertificate of Coverage AWS830035
Carrol's Farm #7070
Page 2
Upon notification by the Division of this COC's expiration, you shall apply for its renewal. This
request shall be made within 30 days of notification by the Division.
This COC is not automatically transferable. A name/ownership change application must be
submitted to the DWQ prior to a name change or change in ownership.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this COC are unacceptable, you have the
right to apply for an individual non -discharge permit by contacting the engineer listed below for
information on this process. Unless such a request is made within 30 days, this COC shall be final and
binding.
The subject farm is located in the Fayetteville Regional Office. The Regional Office Water
Quality Staff may be reached at [phone]. If you need additional information concerning this
COC or -the General Permit, please contact Katharine Keaton at [phone] ext. 533.
S. cerely,
i
for A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: (Certificate of Coverage only for all cc's)
Scotland County Health Department
Fayetteville Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Scotland County Soil and Water Conservation District
Permit File

D' AnirhklFeedlot --:Opi�t:iitidn�Rievio, W
13 SW'C-
nt 0 Follow -UP of
IFacility Number 3D—=D I
Follow-up of DSNVC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection H72—
Time of Inspection 1 /0,1 3d 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
0 Registered El Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for I hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
Farm Status: 'KCertified [] Permitted I or Inspection (includes travel and processing)
D Not Operational Date Last Operated -
Farm Name: ... County: 5e_679!&�
Land Owner Name: Cq rro .............. Phone No. ---- — ---- Facility Conctact:
.. .... ... . . .... Title: Phone No:
Mailing Address: a. awe -
5r---------...... ..
)
Onsite Representatve:......zIntegrator:
Certified Operator:.....__.... . .... . . ..... . . ..... .. . . ..... Operator Certification Number: . ......
Location of Farm:
Latitude Longitude
P5
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
N 'igiiNKZCurrent t
ZZ,
SwineZrz
WO, C a—d apac -POD latioii"1�4�pa on-
k0kily4TOI)A"I jon"� achy U
❑ Wean to Feeder fEl La er I ❑Dairy
Feeder to Finish r Non j__L2
:�yer ❑ Non-RLia I
I'll . . ..... . ...
Farrow to Wean
.........
A
UV-
.0V
3 '6A "dit ,,, 1!
�4 0 Farrow to Feeder vo Design ci#
IUD " Farrow to Finish "V.Z.14 ZT,
I U.xr
c rj o PLag"k9ni?/-H6Idffig Pox Subsurfa ce Drains Present
7
? 0 LaooField Area
MA
gn ❑Area
V.10.0 %Pray
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: 0 Lagoon El Spray field 0 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?
S. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
El Yes No
0 Yes No
El Yes El No
[I Yes El No
[I Yes [I No
0 Yes ["No
0 Yes
0 Yes XNo
Continued on back

r
Facility Number:.S
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? El Yes 'JkN\o
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes Ako
Structures (1ngoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9.
Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes �Tc
Freeboard (ft): Structure} Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 66
10.
is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes KNo
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes t�No
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes V10
(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 ONo
Waste ,ApplicatiQu
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes �o
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type ........ _............... � ........._._....._......_
Bey-,►,1 tea.__....._....�...... ...... ....... .......................... _._------
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes ;XNo
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes ,�o
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes KNo
19,
Is there a Iack 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?
❑ Yes P(No
For
Certified Facilities Only
22.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
No
❑ Yes X
23.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes )No
/Kio
24.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
Corritr ent`s . refer to question # Explain an`y YES `answers"and/or any recommendations or -any other comments:
,..,
Use drawings of facility to better explain sttuattons. (use additional pages as necessary):
�k.
Carrall's is usiA9 OQpr C�►.-frc j en -T`.c /c�oow. c�T -�.,s lsgrw. • 4
�ou t`M'L � S i s� [t �Q�✓S �� c -�e r a. �`tQ �'� c,cQ -T^qr wit
J 1
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Date: 8 - Z 7 "9 7
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
cc: Division of Water Quality,(Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97