310444_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NUH I H UAHULINA
Department of Environmental Qual

Type of Visit compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit .42Mfoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time:
Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: ILefj/AA UJlr Cd:J'a 6= AOwner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: 0111 vl 60
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone:
Region:cq,�
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = P = i = Longitude: = e = s 0
11
INA
ie
Design Current DeauIlesign Current
sign CurrentWSwl
Cap city Population Wet Pault ry Capacity Population Cattleapacity Population
an to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dai Cow
an to Feeder
Non -La er
❑Dai Caif
der to Finish
t❑
Nan -La ers❑
Pullets
Turke s
❑ Turkey Poults
10 Other
❑Dai Heifer
row to Wean
D Cow
row to Feeder
LE
Non-Dairyaersrow
to Finish
❑ Beef Stacker
ts
Beef Feeder
ars
Beef Brood CowI
HINNIM
Number of Structures:
❑ Other
Discharees & Stream Imgact5
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at; ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12128104
Continued

Faciiit Number: ❑ate of inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage Capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:W
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an Immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
S. 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
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding [] Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application
Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reauired 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 ❑ No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
[:]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA [Y]NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

[Facility Number: - Date of inspection: 6
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? [:]Yes ❑ 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 to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Other Issues
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
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?
24. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately,
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to.question #): Explain any. -YES answ&m andloi- any.::additional recommendation ;or an-other;c6mments,
Use. draw ines m faeilIh+ to Iietter explain situations use additional uaees asirieces'sarv). Y Y., r a 4
6 t6I - 1-1,4 ,1-
'�/__20A/
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
,9, a q'
'p,07
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
,K f c6o&5 Izot- fJurnf 61,01 /
► 13 I
le,6
kr3
A'r3 2
La a b� h At s
pa ryv► \ d— f e caCCLs
�) OtD' r, 44
t U a OL. 5i ed r
e I 1� POLJL� V�' k S o-AC k� `t
yjr►4- f c.P_ a -0 Q L]
Phone:
17&a_732_:�
Date: 4&z�
214,0014

Type of Visit: �-p Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for VisiL Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up ❑ Referral Q Emergency Q Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1 / Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: f)fj4/jA_ Region:
Farm Name: C[]Ie� �� ���� �-�. Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: M lb
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
]Non-Layer_l
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Design Curren#
Dr. I'ouI r. Ca aci Pop
Layers
Dry Cow
Non-Daity
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other Ii
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
A
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ElAppli'cdtion Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
❑ Yes ErNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ff No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes , f No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes pr%o ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge? i
Page 1 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: rz t - L,P Date of Inspection;
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
[;?No ❑ NA ❑ NE
V_F/TNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ��No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) J;
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes &No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require [:]Yes �}', No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? T
Waste Application
10. Arc there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 14 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15, Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
PTNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
j rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
TT
17, Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
r7j'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
0 Yes
O/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19, Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
J"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP [--]Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑other:
2I . Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes P'No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equiVent?
❑ Yes o
[:]Yes gNNo
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes W' No
25. is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes C3"No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes [2 No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ONo
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.
34. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
PrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
[] NE
❑ Yes
Cno
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Yes
YNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/inspector Signature: { L , Date: f
Page 3 of 3 21412014

Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review d Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
12eason for Visit: J"Routine ❑ Complaint p Follow-up 0 Referral D Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: '. OUAM Departure Time: County: 1\ L\ Region:
Farm Name:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Title:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Integrator:
Phone:
Certified Operator: --_ Certification Number: lb'115�
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop,
Wean to Finish
JLayer
I
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
INon-La er
I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Dr Poultr.
Ea acit
P,o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stacker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Emird-Rof
Poults
Other
—Turkey
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 2rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
;ffNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
P'1Qo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility dumber: - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
2fNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �■ �_
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
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
JZ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an Immediate public health or environmental
threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
;Io
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
,5-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
-E:I-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application',
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
Po
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
[:]Yes
VfNo
❑ 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):
13. Soil Type(s):
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
1Vo
❑ 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
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
KrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reouired 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 J6No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis [] Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes [; �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [] Yes fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility, Number: - Date of inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check [:]Yes PTNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30, Did the facility fail to notify the regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
[] Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes V'No
❑ Yes RTN❑
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
FTNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
VrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ff No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes P7No
❑ Yes PTNo
❑ Yes VNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature
Page 3 of 3
-:sws .Q523- �_
Phone
tl`1.}■ Date:���
21412011

Division of Water Quality
1Ficility Number 3 J - - SI Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
a Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: AEoutine Q Complaint Q Follow-up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: j J Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: County
Farm Name] 1 /►( 3,05 a j C„ ��CZiIVL�ITL� S a� Owner Email:
Owner Name: V /At j J C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact.
5 T]C.
Onsite Representative: y- e V o�1 71 G
Certified Operator: — U I10ST)
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
ether
Title:
Latitude:
LL_ . /VC 0�t45
Phone:
Integrator:
ertification Number:
Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
-on-Layer
Poults
Design Current
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
e. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Longitude:
Region:
/to3sy
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Daia Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility, Number: - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ YesgNo
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 1 P{
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):_
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 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 ADulleation
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload [] Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Hare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): `_p -6a [-Ar Sg=L A
13, Soil Type(s): TCZ LLC--
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
[] Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes *o
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP QChecklists [] Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA C] NE
Q Waste Application Q Weekly Freeboard 0 Waste�ysis 0 Soil Analysis ❑ �Aste Transfers Q Weather Code
Q Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield [] 120 Minute Inspections []Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections Q Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility, Number: 31 - Yy L4 1 1 Date of Inspection: 419
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 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?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes No NA [] NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
T+
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)
3I, Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments
rr ..tx:k,. .
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations use additional pages as necessary).
:.v ::.,..,::........
q71�� I<'�S4 pie- SAftp(-es cue )VaT L.SF-)�
G'xceQS IN &µE�&Ncic-S � PupA-5e �or/c7 ut5E Ls-H E'SS THC G I s A
jqr t Spl L, GL 7o�-T w I `Zt/ Lrr- U6 L-S c.LNDE f_ 3 00C]
Nd (,3 t !U i C LZ `7Ur ►.p o v C
I
gIghl 1-S I•S
�1��1�� r . S j• �
Lt &Ar1 Qw Nbt&e 'P(S+ 3
Sz�auv'Ljc- C-"r- L4_D451 E 4,V AL-Y VS
t i---> . A-';LE9c t-T p[l.ru76�> /'v '3oor%
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: gj6-�J(P -?V�
Date: y�^s//
21412011

Division of Water Quality
Fffciliq Number D Division of Sall and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of visit: ACompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: k Routine D Complaint Q Follow-up 0 Referral Q Emergency Q Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:-'� Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: 1�c l]IA/ aes_'F1 L �'PRAA S ITES gDOwner Email:
Owner Name: Phone: 910 D89- 1�Ch
-GUTA/ �571L 9ka1_Q29_/100(0("
Malling Address: S9 7 � S �CS j ) C. Vi O 5 E JA1 LL , /V(Z CQ S C-/! d
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone:
Onsite Representative: \Ceo l N I I Integrator:
Certified Operator: u ( S7 ] Certification Number:
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
Certification Number:
Latitude:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
22Q1 1 lNon-Layer
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pop.
Lavers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Longitude:
1Lo35-Li
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
DaiEy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes �No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes [—]No
[:]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes 1ANo
❑ Yes �No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Con inued

Facilit Number: - Ds ection: 37175
Waste Colleciion & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ` 'vim
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
151-15
�11_ its
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the 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 [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): W lie a — S 5 C1
13, Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
ReaulredRecords & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box,
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA
❑NE
❑NA
❑NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
0 WUP QChecklists Q Design 0 Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application 0 Weekly Freeboard Q Waste Analysis 0 Soil Analysis ❑ GAaste Transfers 0 Weather Code
Q Rainfall ❑ Stocking 0 Crop Yield Q 120 Minute Inspections 0 Monthly and l " Rainfall Inspections Q Sludge Survey,
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes )6 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

)Facility Number: —? i - L4 L4 L4 I IDate of Insoection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ 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?
❑ YesP�
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
�j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
'777�000
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. 01
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) 0
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes 9No [DNA ❑ NE
34, Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes IM No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or: any other comments.::,k,,, .;
Use drawings of facility to better. explain situations (use additional pages as necessary),.
5uAC>6 E_ C-,Y, � M_ PT UN T 1 L- oQo I H
q�lC34 lrian� Z,uE rl."'311 - naNr_- �►1►�11 r--N�xr ��� Dols
2N lHflEx Ins r t C- L� l��y 51 LA ` GAH NCT Pu ftP CW 7 H 1.% Fir-L�
sA� TaIL,:AJ q/10
IN So►G fLepa-r FfLaAA. 1.0'0� - LE5 -)A�W F9-Q0ti Y-6 L+ I 'No -'—n rAIoEk
� 5r4rtp
auC --3000 896 o� 1� LI
❑rL GLri: �T e�,� iv1a� - �Iv rN r��x wA� `� Q
�N5 P NU 7 �� � � a� i� y
L��ITIu ZN oD�x 15 ZEtrow 360� - nO
W -A . l 91.
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
21412011

Type of Visit Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation ❑ Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: _ 9� Departure Time: �7 County: Region:
Farm Name: �rlcVIN X35 ►1 C Owner Email:
(�
Owner Name: _ K OIN &JST 1C. Phone:
Mailing Address: ` 9 _ _ 5 i IC„ YZ '[-05E
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative: C--UIN1_1C-
Certified Operator: �&OIAI
Back-up Operator:
Title:
Phone No:
Into rator:
L01Di'd 1(� _� '7 S{ ,
Operator Certification Number: _
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = I 0 " Longitude: Q o = i Q
Design Current
llesign Current
benign Current
Swine Capacity i'opuli tion
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
Laver
El Dai a Cow
Wean to Feeder I IS900 13000
10 Non -La erl____ I
CLDairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
El Dair y Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Barrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Dry Poultry
Layers
Non -Layers
pullets
❑ Turkeys
Dry Cow
El Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
El Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Co
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turkey Poults
F1.0ther
Number of Structures:
Discharp,es & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
x No
[I NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: [I Structure El Application Field [I Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
K 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? (11'yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
xNo
Cl NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

Facility hiumher: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: CQ
Spillway?: Designed Freeboard (in): . S J %n
Observed Freeboard (in): L4 3_C5
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan`?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
El NA El NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ 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
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes W No ElNA ❑ 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 SoiI
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) (20710)y 'aqw �e-l�T �]L� .� pjzQ.-(w
13. Sail type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA Cl N E
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No Cl NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question.#} ,.Explain any YES answers and/or any;rec6m:tr enda#ions or; any other commen s (.:' ?°
Use drawin ►s of facillt to better ex lain situations. (useaddifional ,a =es as netessar
6 �
Y p P y}: :a
3uAD C E SUQQE.u,� E)LEnn Fi Lr ^j-ri L O 1 Y
Reviewer/Inspector Name' S1 a 5.: '`" nag`' Phone. �"{I�}" �5'(�'I JV�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility -Number- 3� — 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. El WUP 0 Checklists [l Design [] Maps. ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below, ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[] Waste Application 0 Weekly Freeboard [I Waste Analysis 0 Soil Analysis ❑ yste Transfers �rtnual Certification
[D Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield 0 120 Minute Inspections [] Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections /El Weather Code
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? El Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:]Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24,
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
El Yes
No
El NA
[3 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
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
1
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 posc an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Addition o and/or Drawings:
Additional Comments 1;
:�ti.:�;..;...•:.•.a....:`?.;�.
t>
4 AL
Sj,y109 �. ) .,4-
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Alffirw
Aill
NCDENR
North Carollina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor director
January 13, 2010 +
Kevin Bostic
Kevin Bostic Farm 1 & 2
399 J. S. Bostic Road
Rose Hill, NC 28458
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Subject: Sludge Survey Testing Dates
Certificate of Coverage No. AWS310444
Kevin Bostic Farm 1 & 2
Animal Waste Management System
Duplin County
Dear Kevin Bostic:
The Division of Water Quality (Division) received your sludge survey information on December
9, 2009. With the survey results, you requested an extension of the sludge survey requirement
for the lagoons at the Kevin Bostic Farm 1 & 2. Due to the amount of treatment volume
available, the Division agrees that a sludge survey is not needed until 2014.
The next sludge survey for the lagoon at Kevin Bostic Farm 1 & 2 should be performed before
December 31, 2014. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please call me at (919) 715-
6698 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
J.R. Joshi
Animal Feeding operations Unit
cc: Wilmington Regional office, Aquifer Protection Section
Permit File AWS310444
R 1� C— JII`JI�ID
a
1636 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1636
Location: 2728 Capital 9lvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] l Customer Scrvice: 1.877.62M748
In«rnav www.nr:WAIP.mcnl;ty nm
JAN 1 5 2010
One
NorthCarotina
Naturally
An F01W (1M.Drrill'OV) A irmaimt ACtion-mwnyer

Type of Visit ACompliance 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: y ] Arrival Time:I I Departure Time; County: SIN Region:
Farm Name: �CQW e>0571C Owner Email: nn
Owner Name: �CU] N S Z� Phone: 910 - d 29
- a r g
Mailing Address:.. 99 _1X2*N /Vc— a$ q5's-,
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: YEuIN
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [ n = t =Lg Longitude: = o = 1 = {[
5winc
`' D.esign
FCapacity
Current
lb�ulation
Design Current
Wet Poultry CapflcIty Population
❑ Layer
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
airy Cow
Finish
to Feeder
t� !2G=Q
Nan -La er
airyDCalf
er to Finish
❑ Dai Heifer
w to Wean
ryP0 Ary
❑ D Cow'w
to Feeder
❑ Non-Dairyw
Fto
to Finish
❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
Non -La ers
❑Bccf Feeder
sPullets
Beef Brood Ca
x..Turke
s❑
❑ Turke Poults
Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges &Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2, is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes �KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes )] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 'jRf No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility•Nrimber: - Date of inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): ] �,
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes PQ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ic/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes 10 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 pp] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes l01 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? 1
Waste Auml€cation
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 KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or ] 0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift [I Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) CoTTCin1 COD-1V PT S?7�> SG &� (-N)
13. Sol] type(s)
V
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
El Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
VY No
ElNA
ElNE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
E�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
CO. IQ
jqV
60
.: �;. f x P'er;;.. �..; Phone:�-
Reviewer/Inspector Name �:� .-..� �.�:;--.,'.`;x?;�;���.>•y..
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: m1' Date: 4-4
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 3 j — Date of Inspection �1 5
Reuuired Records & ❑ocumertts
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? Ifyes, check ❑ Yes O(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP 0 Checklists 0 Design ❑ [Ig 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 0 Soil Analysis ❑ xaste Transfers ❑Iinual Certification
[] Rainfall ❑ Stocking 0 Crop Yield El120 Minute inspections [] Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge"
❑ Yes
fXNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24,
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
WI No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
N N❑
❑ 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
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
Other Issues
29.
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
i�(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
�No
El NA
ElNE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/]nspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
.M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:.
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit d Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review a Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine D Complaint Q Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: � Arrival Time: �o`)- Departure Time: County: I�,*A Al Region:
Farm Name:
Owner Name: —
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Onsitc Representative: __ G U l N fSo S7 I C—' Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Operator Certification Number:
Rack -up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Q o = f Q If Longitude: Q o =1 =
tl
Design Current
Capacity Population
DesiRPM—urrent
Wet Poultry Capacity pn
Design Gurrent
Cattle Gapaity Population
n to Finish
❑La er
❑ ]Jai CawntoFeeder
`o�QO
❑ Non -La er
❑ Dai Calfder
to Finish
FE1
❑ Dai Heifer
ow to Wean
❑ D Caw
ow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
ow to Finish
❑ Beef Stocker
s
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Beef Brood Cow
JE=020ther
Numher of Structures:
❑ La ers
❑ Non-Lx ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
❑ Yes
0,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: 3 J Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier: t L
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): Q. 1 9 • S
Observed Freeboard (in): yrj LIC)
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
)4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
14 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
KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
ji�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[:]PAN ❑ PAN > 10-X or i0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift [:]Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
93 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
YNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers andlor,any recommendations or. any:ut er comments:'.:
Use drawings of facilityto better explain' situations. (use additional` a es'as neeessar =, .Y
Cnp-T evpu� a - `� Cx7g �� 4-1-FEV j�
Auf1ti���3tE t�tff�N s[ji� �wflriC- (Z Co�GS
ReviewerfInspector Name
S . Phone:97�D'
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 2 of 3
Date:
12128104 Continued

6
Facility Plumber: 3 j —y Date of Inspection
Re aired Records & Documents
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes �XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[�*No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
b No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
tlNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
N 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? [:]Yes 5� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
tKNo
❑ 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
M 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
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
EkNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

0
Tune:
Oermitted�Certifled 13 Conditionall Certified l© Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .................. ....
Farm Name: ...... ...J.? � r.... .� .........! ................. .. County: ...... 5��U.eaf)................................ ........... ............
OwnerName: ... ....... {.� �! �................................. Mone No:.......................................................................................
MailingAddress :..»................ ............................................ »................ ............... ...... ........ ........ .......... ..... ......... ............................... .....................
FacilityContact: ................... ....................... ............................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative:... _... �................................................... Integrator:......... s �.,s.7[r.1.Ui5...............................................
Certified Operator: . ......... ................ . .................... ........ .......... ....... .............................. Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ poultry ❑ Cattle CI Horse Latitude ' 4 46 Longitude • 6 «
Discbarees & Stream Impacts I`
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes 100
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallnun?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes o
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes Polo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes No
Structure 1 Str cture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure eg
Identifier: ......... ...... f.................. .......... ....... ... ............................. ....... .............................. .... ......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 2.7 2
121I2103 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑ Yes ❑'io
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancefimprovement?
[IYe 1No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes 0
elevation markings?
J
Waste Annlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes P40
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc`
12. Crop cm-e J
type fi
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 a
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Ye No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
[3 Yes No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
I --]Yes No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atfor below ❑ Yes
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes
19, Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (Le. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes , No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes XND
Air Quality representative immediately.
r••::w:h:;.:.':•'.s:;;�<i:syr:; . :..��. .-'-sr..f: ms'; z.v..,,.. - ,n�r.-:«...,.s:: y� -
;Cornnzents {re%r;to question #): ExpWn any YES answers andlor,any; recomisiciidaiivas oi?iaiiy utlier. comments.-",
•},: 'vr" .'�w;�.?.'•'"knmN«Ram4urm' ':r.Jif1Y"•:ir•:s�:€;,;rt:�:e:r.,�[z;..�:�;r�,, .. - - . �::•;�
Use rirawi�sr ui. facility to ;better. explain situations: (ust, addit�or�al gagcs as necessary):'';;, Field Co , � Final Notesi �S ;��;
f'. $[ �` : ;"�i.'r4`: if I';tly �:�I.. .i N ' f �$' • f �... � :.,#;:' i•I?°-1 ai.t €€ .: Yy ❑ , ,r ;�
441
•:ifi•.::. .:,: s:i. ��l. ...- 4 ::3Eelt�..�.•.�1:A.'S1`if:rkw����F�+slliL:'�:14�- .:V.�I:tlf.'•..•`ii:-..�� �!f •:. iIL'�1�..:: �.:i r.:5;. }:.: i�i. :.Tea'.. �€•: 7=;iai '?T'':::.s. .�'T$.: �.. .l .er.
Reviewerllnsgectar Name Ewi dis`"€+!' f f h N.' ;F. `ST F r
Reviewerllaspectar Signature: Date: 3 Z Q
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
21.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes o
22.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
Oel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.]
❑ Ye o
23.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling)
24.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes PNo
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes j�No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
I
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes No
27.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes VNo
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes X.No
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes )1 No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
%%
30.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes No
3I.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain ratnbreakers on irrigation equipment?
4__
❑ Yes ❑ No
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes ❑ No
33.
Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes ❑ No
34.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes ❑ No
35.
Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Farm ❑ Crop Yield Farm [:)Rainfall [:]Inspection After V Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
12112103

Facility Number Date of Visit: U Time: 1 Z Zp
IQ Not Qaerati2nal 0 Below Threshold
© Permitted ©Cerhf ed [3Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: ka Xa s I "c- F_avwy J-14GS U-z— County: 'Z)v
Owner Name: V2 ^ -KOs�+"G Phone No:
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
❑nsite Representative: _� �Q "►'��I� F�!
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' �•"�K Longitude a �• 0
:Design ' Current Design Current Design Current
Swine . Ca achy . Pa elation Poult Ca acity 'Po ulation Cattle Ca achy. Population
Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer 0Dai -
(.:
Feedcr to Finish JE1 Non -Layer I Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other 4
❑ Farrow to Finish E Total Design Capacity
Gilts r
Boars i Total'SSLW
" 4::,Nniiiibeir of Lagoons ;': Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 5 r
Hoidln "' Puads 1 Solid Tra s �r No Mould Waste Management System
p ��:
Discharges A 2rearn Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b, if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Trgatment
4, Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: I
Frceboard (inches): -349 Z4 0
05103101
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes . TNo
❑ Yes 2 No
❑ Yes _L2'No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: 1 — Date of Inspection �;r?
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, notifyDWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any pan of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type ',r"✓vtvdot ACb.\A ,,! vVII .I1 411-1.;r,OVQtsCV-14 I I Avra�_..,
❑ Yes.,,ZNo
❑ Yes 2rNo
❑ Yes ZNo
❑ Yes '23No
❑ Yes ZNo
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes MNO
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? �L. Go n �� 1 �Gd ❑ Yes ETNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ) .r ❑ Yes ZfNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes 2 No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes_,,ZNo
Reguired Recorda & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes J2rNo
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 2NO
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 . TNO
21, Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes . ONo
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 "Mo
24, Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes _,L2rNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes _P'IQo
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
F
Catriments'[refer to question #)', Eitplaln any'.YES aaswers'andloi. any.reco><inirie'nes or any other caminentL
Use draivinjs of fitetlity,46 better,explain'altuatioms (usr additional;pages as necessary): �❑Field Cnnv -mQ Final Nntes
Z►,s �Q�►^-. 's Ve� Lie 1] r�a;n�a>..edl_�t�,►�,e �at.,sP end
1� own
Co * r► c �o� A dv ra 1 ] hc,�t i r A. 6ovd s�� ►1d Ge r �~► vd�, _
v,are i s c� n e e A -fin beHef e5�u bli11i 7;;r,,,eM vo[ot oPN 1/1) 3A a►�d
for►� ` �� 11 r1A n ried -4 S�r,'.�' p 3 , Rlroy 4 A e s �n rC'
'here >` f� 4,0
Ve r NfEats e j r* e 'W-} - n eel eedcule4le - 4te � C, mq ; 4-V
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 3 —
hate of Inspeclion
Odor Lssues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or belom,
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
29. 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. 1s the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon"
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fans) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes',ZNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ;2No
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes ."Zxo
❑ Yes ;R-v
❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional Comments.and/or Drawings:
a
.<e'e4ami e, And 0 6qa be ✓ oti,pj 1' C C4 o " ev e n t"s i �tje pyl•I
av
was}�. Ana��s;s L ko-px 4 iS �Ge�,rc p✓al/i did ���� is is
w)'4km 60 d&yj oa' 4�e w 1 ica-P,*.z7 even}1 . S kiy,i, em yo-
c,.►ti�-}e r����y�►� slAoa*d te L s. AS4-1- -Pi ) 4ketMk yvLt
��Y t rn►' �v,r f �o mewftt 4 ovi'v, -��e -�`a�� ;r"I 9 od dl 4r;4e# .
2- : Z v,
05103101

P.D. Box 32
Council, NC 28434
August 21, 2001
ATTN: Stonewall Mathis
Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
Dear Mr. Mathis,
i
AUG 2 3 2001
This letter is in response your letter concerning the waste management plan for the Kevin
Bostic Farm (FN: 31-444). Enclosed is the copy of the revised waste management plan. This
plan was written on the actual acres of each hydrant. The former plan was written on a per field
basis which did not adequately reflect the acreage due to the irrigation risers including more than
one field. In addition, the field #un1 acreage has been adjusted in the plan I apologize for any
inconvenience. If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
r

0 F F I C I A L U S E
t,
r-1
�Postage
$
r
a
= Certified Fee
rv,�
ra
'NGTON
a
rqi
Retum Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
H
O�
Q
M
RWdcted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Requlredj
Tote! Postage d Paetr
. 9
i.i S psi
�
sent TO
[.
O
C3
-----•----------------- ------------- ----.--- -------
Streat, Apt. No.; or vox No.
PC f
------- 2.I..q--- --._... — d 'r le.].. _G...........I--------
C3
Cll y, S ta, ZIP+ 4
/V
3800, May 2000

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Grower(s):
Farm Name:
County:
Farm Type:
Farm Capacity:
Storage Structure:
Storage Period:
Applkedon !Method:
Kevin Bostic
Nursery
Dupltn
Wean -Feed
3200
Anaerobic Lagoon
180 days
Inigafion
The waste from your animal facility must be land applied at a specified rate to prevent pollution
of surface water andlor groundwater: The plant nutrients in the animal waste should be used
to reduce the amount of comma ferfter required for the sops in the fields where the waste
is to be applied.
This waste utilization plan uses nitrogen as the limiting nutrient. Waste should be analyzed
before each application cycle. Annual soil tests are strongly enoouraged so that all plant
nutrients can be balanced for realistic yields of the crop to be grown.
Several factors are important In implementing your waste utilization plan in order to maximize
the fertilizer value of the waste and to ensure that It Is applied in an environmentally safe manner:
1. Always apply waste based on the needs of the crop to be grown and the nutrient
content of the waste. Do not apply more nitrogen than the crop can utilize.
2. W types are important as they have different infiltration rates, leaching potentials,
cation exchange capacities, and available winter holding capacities.
3. Normally waste shall be applied to larid eroding at less than 5 tons per acre per
year. Waste may be applied to land eroding at 5 or more tons per acre annually, but
less than 14 tons per acre per year providing that adequate filter strips are established.
4. Do not apply waste on satu g In soils, when it is raining. or when the surface is frozen.
Elther of time c:anditivrm may result in nrnoff to surface waters which is riot allowed
under TWO regulations.
5. Wind conditions should also be considered to avoid drift and downwind odor
Page: 1

problems.
B. To maximize the value of the nutrients for crop productim and to reduce the potential
for pollution, the waste should be applied to a gmwing crop or applied not more than
30 days prior to plant[N a crop or forages big dormancy. Injecting the waste or
disking will conserve nutrients and reduce odor problems.
This plan is based on the waste application method shown above. If you choose to change
methods in the future, you need to revise this plan. Nutrient levels for different application
methods are not the same.
The estimated acres needed to apply the animal waste is based on typical nutrient content
far this type of facility. In some cases you may want to henna plant analysis made, which could
allow additional waste to be applied. Provisions shall be made for the area receiving waste to
be flexible so as to accommodate changing waste analysis content and crop type. Lime must
be applied to maintain pH in the optimum range for specific camp production.
This waste utilization plan, if carried out, meets the requirements for compliance with 1 SA NCAC
2H .0217 adopted by the Environmental Management Commission.
AMOUNT OF WASTE PRODUCED PER YEAR ( gallons, R3, boas,, etc.):
3200 animals X 223 gaVanimaVyear =
AMOUNT OF PLANT AVAILABLE NITROGEN PRODUCED PER YEAR (Ibs):
3200 animals x 0.46 lbs/animaVyear =
712,480 gallons
1,536.00 Ibs
Applying the above amount of waste is a big job. You should plan time and have appropriate
equipment to apply the waste in a timely manner.
The following acreage will be needed for waste application based on the crop to be grown,
soil type, and surface application.
Page: 2

Tract
Hyd
Sail
Type
Crop
Code
Yield
!Ac
lbs N
Iu rit
Acres
Lbs WAc
residual
Lbs N
Me
lbs N
Time to
4299
1
AuB
F
600.0
0.12
1.8
72.0 ,
121LOO
Jun -Aug
4299
2A
AuS
F
16M.0
0.12
2.0
MO
144.00
Jun -Aug
4299
28
AuB
C
5.5
50.00
1.8
275.0
481.25
Mar -Oct
4299
3A
AuB
C
5.5
50.00
2.3
275.0
632.50
Mar43d
4299
4
AuB
C
5.5
50.00
2.5
275.0
687.50
Mar" -Oct
4327
3B
AuB
F
600.0
0.12
2.0
72.0
144.00
Jim -Aug
4299
2B
AuB
K
50.00
1.8
50.0
87.50
S-April
4299
3A
AuB
K
50.00
2.3
50.0
115.00
S-April
4299
4
AuB
K
50.00
2.5
50.0
125.00
S�April
Total 12.3
Available N
*DWarence
2542.75
1536.00
-1006.75
-Indicates that this field is being a seeded (i.e. interplanted) or winter annuals faliow summer
annuals.
*A negative number reflects the total lbs of additional nitrogen needed to achieve yields on
acreage fisted in chart. A positive number means additional acreage is required to utilize the
nitrogen produced by the farm.
NOTE:
This plan does not include commercial ferWizer. The farm should produce adequate plant
available nitrogen to satisfy the requirements of the crops rated above.
The applicator is cautioned that P and K may be over applied while meeting the N requirements.
In the future, regulations may requite farmers In some parts of North Carolina to have a nutrient
management plan that addresses all nutrients. This plan only addresses nitrogen.
In €nterplanted fields (i.e. small grain, afc, interseeded in bemmuda), forage must be removed
through grazing, hay, and/or silage. Where grazing, plarrfs should be grazed when they
reach a height of six to nine inches. Cattle should be removed when plants are grazed to a
height of four inc he& In fields where small grain. etc, is to be removed for hay or silage, care
should be exercised not to let small grain reach maturity, especially late in the season (i.e.
April or May). Shading may result if srrraii grain gets too high and this will detrnat * interfere
with stand of bermudagrass. This loss of stand wM result in reduced yields and less nitrogen
being utilized. Rather than cutting small grain far hay or silage just before heading as is
the normal situation. you are encouraged to cut the small grain earlier. You may want to
consider harvesting hay or silage two to three times during the season, depending on the
time small grain is planted in the fall.
Page: 3

The ideal time to interplant small grain. etc, is late Septernber or early October. Drilling is
recommended over broadcasting. Bermudagrass should be graced or cut to a height of
about two inches before driving for best results.
The following legend explains the crop codes listed in the table above:
A
Barley
8
Hybrid Bermudagress - Grazed
C
Hybrid Bermudegrass - Hay
C
Com - Grain
E
Com - Silage
F
Cotton
G
Fescue - Grazed
H
Fescue- Hay
1
oafs
J
Rye
K
Small Grain - Grazed
L
Small Grain - Hay
M
Grain Sorghum
N
Wheat
o
Soybean
1.6 lbs N 1 bushel
50 lbs N 1 ton
50 lbs N 1 ton
1.25 lbs N 1 bushel
12 lbs N / ton
0.12 lbs N 1 lbs lint
50 lbs N 1 ton
50 lbs N / ton
1.3 lbs N / bushel
2.4 lbs N J bushel
50 lbs N 1 acre
50 lbs N 1 acre
2.5 lbs N 1 cwt
2.4 lbs N 1 bushel
4.0 lbs N 1 bushel
Acres shown in the preceding We are considered to be the usable aces excluding
required buffers, filter ships along ditches, odd areas unable to be irrigated, and perimeter areas
not receiving full application rates due to equipment limitations. Acbjal total aces In the Melds
listed may, and most likely wlg be, rnorie than the acres shorn in the tables.
See attached map showing the fields to be used for the utilization of animal waste.
SLUDGE APPLICATION:
The waste utilization plan must contain provisions for periodic land application of sludge at
agronomic rates. The sludge will be nutrient rich and will require precautionary measures to
prevent over won of nutrierHs or other elements. Your production facility will produce
approximately 0.072 pounds of plant available nitrogen per animal per year in the
sludge based on the application mod listed earlier.
N you remove the sludge every 5 years, you will have approximately 1152.00
pounds of PAN to utilize. Assuming you apply this PAN to hybrid bermudegrass hayland at the
rate of 300 pounds of nitrogen per acre. you wall need 3.8+4 acres of land. If you apply
the sludge to corn at a rate of 125 pounds per acre, you will need 9.22 acres of land.
Please be aware that these are only estimates of the PAN and land ram. Actual requirements
could vary by 26% depending on your sludge waste analysis, sad types, reafistic yields, and
Page: 4

mr.r.M711, ti
APPLICATION OF WASTE BY IRRIGATION:
The irrigation application rate should not exceed the intake rate of the soil at the time of inigation
such that runoff or ponding occurs. This rate is limited by Initial soil moisture content, soil
structure, soil texture, water droplet size, and organic solids. The application amount should not
exceed the available water holding opacity of the soil at the time of irrigation nor should the
plant available nitrogen applied exceed the nitrogen needs of the crop.
if surface irrigation is the method of land application for this plan, it is the responsibility of the
producer and irrigation designer to ensure that an Irr%lation system is installed to property
irrigate the acres shown in the precedmg take. Failure to apply the recommended mates and
amounts of nitrogen shown in the tables may make this plan invalid.
The following is provided as a guide for establishing application rates and amounts.
Tract
Feld
soil
T
AppEscetion Raba
kVhr
Application Amount
* inches
Ail
AuB
CFt
0.60
1.00
*This is the maximum application amount allowed for the soil assuming the amount
of nitrogen allowed for the crop is not over applied. In many situations, the application
amount shown cannot be applied because of the nitrogen (imitation. The maximum
application amount shown can be applied under optimum soil conditions.
Your facility is designed for 180 days of temporary storage and the temporary storage must
be removed on the average of once every B months. In no instance should the volume of the
waste stored in your structure be within the 25 year 24 hour storm storage or one hoot of
freeboard except in the event of the 25 year 24 hour storm.
It is the responsiability of the'producer and waste applicator to ensure that the spreader equipment
is operated properly to apply the correct rates to the acres shown in the tables. Failure to apply
the recommended rates and amounts of nitrogen shown in the taffies may malm this plan invalid.
Cali your technical specialist after you receive the waste analysis report for assistance in
determining the amount of waste per acre and the proper application prior to applying the waste.
Additional Comments:
Page: 5

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN CER77FICATION
Name of Farm:
OwmedAlAnspr Agreement
Nwe understand that ! must own or have access to equkm erd. primady kroAm equrpmmt,
to land apply the animal waste dembed in this nutrient wn platys. This eguone�rd
must be avaftle at the appmprida p Lnvq*g time Much that no discharge occurs *am the i *onn
in tine +aunt of a 25 y ear 24 hour storm. t also omffy that the =ste win be apprad on the lard[
aoo r ft tv tht piers at the appmprmte fin and at rates whits produce no nmoff
ills plan wig be fWd on site at the tarn aft~sce ad at the office of the local Sod msd VVWer
Cormrvatlan OMM and will be available far redew by NCOM upn nxpea
"Rom Of Facft owner A161"V104J. 77C/
Signature. �� �- ZeA e
ivaaRi
Hum of Manager (ff different from owner]:
Please Print
Signature:
Dube
Marne of Technical Spy Sonya J. Barber
AfObdon: Hawed Net, bre.
ems: P.O B" 32
mil, MC
Tom: (NO) 94"758
Page. 7

I+'aeility Number: — Date of Iuspcction Q _ l Printed on: 71211217017
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes 110
seepage, etc.)
b. Are there structures on -site which arc not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or XNO
closure plan? ❑Yes
(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? El Yes No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yesio
Waste Application ]]��
10. Are there any buffers that need main tenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes [ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? []Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes �60
12. Crop type Slrhra /1 y"0
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes es]S(No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? El 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
JVNo
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
o
Required
Records & Documents
17,
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
o
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
�CN o
19.
Does record keening 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
o
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge'?
El Yes
VNo
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with ott-site representative?
❑ Yes
No
24•
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
a
25,
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
ElYes
fNo
yiolii[ions :or . C encips -Wi�ri� n[}teti iiriitig lt s.v, sit; • Y:o(t '.with reeei�e
--_corres� andent:e:a�atit:th'is:visit.:• • -'� •� � :.�...•.•.•..� - :.�• .•.•.•.•.� �.� :.:.:.....• •
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
we.(( �,..,�>� -u.J r►,� �, f ._
w
Reviewer/Inspector Name
1
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: _ �U �3/�Qa SIDD

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 110-31-6vi Printed on: 7/21/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes r
o
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes o
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes o
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29; Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes tNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yeso
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
I drlitianz& omments'anrilor Drawings:
❑ Yes
5100