820720_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NUH 1 H UAHULINA
Department of Environmental Qual

b ►M S jvS ►a ►(slob
'I
9 Division of Water Quality II
II Facility Number $� %� D 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
L0 Other Agency
Type of Visit P Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 9 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ® Arrival Time: '1 , Departure Time: County: -SOY—Soys Region:r1 ej,L_
Farm Name: G.w, ti%o((js- Falml Owner Email:
Owner Name: GWp"kloOIVPNQ((�S Phone:
Mailing Address: f Q Box 5%) (_'zyf§yj _;)6+41
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: j a —Dry Lot
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean I
Feeder
Other
❑ Other
Title:
I Phone No:
Integrator: Ind fen A+
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o = , = . Longitude: 1--1 o Q T I --]"
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: E—ol
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 CYNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
0
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes
WNo
El NA
El NE
12/28/04 Continued

l~ acility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No RNA ❑ 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: ri t
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
❑ No
tR NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
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?
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
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
C§No
RNA
❑ NE
R. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
❑ No
�J 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
DkNA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
L)kNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
❑ No
LXNA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12, Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
t� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
❑ No
VNA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
fWNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
CRNA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any IES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name S Nye lue- Phone: (110) 43L3333X
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: k1b6,ZDate: C( S. a Q S'
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: IDL — Date of Inspection a—ls
CarrR�
Required Records & Documents 3v�
t.
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? 10 Yes SNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check 0 Yes &No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP C] Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other ,tet
21. Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below. I5 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis CRSoil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield [:1120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ No WA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No [)I NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
IRNA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
51NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
CRNA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
RNA
❑ NE
Other Issues
FjhcTr�j:hSane-'Arm. ps'l`er `OOr ca4if ,
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
RNO
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
WNO
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
J 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
K No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or drawings:
}gyp Wee, 0" S p l), Of Q00`1 , Pat/"_9—dl! I Ota N&} fJain jj —10 >MP
A,
%Z' a orP✓ S O�beA�tS o) rto m� hvl 1 � -I� r yea,-,
S0mt -ae(d s pIa►jed4v ry-e 04 e- +t) 6� �jP.+ Ab com4aI iff."4 . ill sr�_
sot,)
FjhcTr�j:hSane-'Arm. ps'l`er `OOr ca4if ,
12128104

HIMS fa -to -07 SVS
Division of Water Quality
Facility Number $ a '7ql 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit 9Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit UrRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: e�i��0 Arrival Time: Departure Time: 1U%yT County: ST Region:
Farm Name: 6W th10lt illS. Paas' Owner Email:
Owner Name: "wpdeeft_It/A(PIS Phone:
910=385 -7018 (C
Mailing Address: 1 pO BOK$S: GAilaid_ NCiBa yy/
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:WMN _ e— VENf'S Title: MYI a- -t�Phone No:
Onsite Representative: ���� N6fll.i Integrator: .1-IVAfi1P d&L
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Other
❑ Other
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =o [:�] El" Longitude: =10
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
I I ❑ Layer
❑ Non -La ei
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'?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heiter
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
c_ What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: a]!
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
tirNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ NE
El Yes
El No
,9NA
NA
❑ NE
I�
RNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
t5NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
WNA
EINE
12/28/04 Continued

r► "
Facility Number: 4gal' NO
Waste Collection & Treatment
Date of Inspection Lam!
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No KNA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier -
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): ri/a—
Observed Freeboard (in):
5_ Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?VNA El NE
❑Yes ❑ No
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not property addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ❑ No M 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 KNA ❑ NE
S. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No krNA ❑ 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 ff NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes bg:'N0 KNA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
1. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No KNA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWW? ❑ Yes
ff No
❑ 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
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
I& Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
KNA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #i): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of faci€ity to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Aod�t* hergo A catrrrf ©( e a 41,e s, de of toad, ",Bght s�dej fra-'-'4 or', ~th �-
u m, P� w remolel s rh R
S iri� w L cfj iremo?d Producer says
Reviewer/inspector Name 3 Q Se. we "� Phone: 91[)-4 W-330 0
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: %a-10-011
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: ga. Date of Inspection —[p
Reguired�Reeords & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Pennit readily available? ❑ Yes EZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [Qt No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. RYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking 91Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" 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?
El Yes
❑ No
SNA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
CK 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
19NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
N NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
Cl Yes
EffNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
CKNo
❑ 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
9 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
ILI 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
IffNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
16No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
cTof ciror reurds �-v 1 off wi N of%#- re ct5,dj
12/2&/04

Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint O Follow up Q Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Q -Q Arrival Time: Ti0, �Q Departure Time: ✓���� County: S¢ Region:
Farm Name: �iU� /il/or'-"s /C;1l1Avf Owner Email:
Owner Name: C7. Uj, No,��s Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �'V �i7r�/... -A -d-T-6 S Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No: L
Integrator: _W;�Z�a/J
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: =13 = 1 =11
Longitude: =0=1 ❑u
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Design Current
Od No
Design
Currfn
I esign Cnrrent
Swine
Capacity Pn
pu lho
Pou
pliho '°
:Chi- ' p. Capacity PopWat;on
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ NA
❑ Layer
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ NE
on -Layer
❑Dai Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
,r
❑ NA
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to WeanDry
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NF
Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
SQ
❑ La ers
Page I of 3
12/28/04
(] Beef Stocker
Gilts
-Layers
El Feeder
El Boars
�] Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
-
{.. a
❑ Turkeys
.,..
Other
>:
❑ Turkey Poults
i
❑ Otherxx..:
❑Other
ldum6er of'Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
Od No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
(gNo
❑ 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
❑ NF
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
12/28/04
Continued

Facility Number: FZ— Z Date of inspection l�tD O
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes M No El NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?: . I
Designed Freeboard (in): /Y
Observed Freeboard (in):
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-sitc 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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 0 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 W No [INA ❑ 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
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [2f 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
��iiyy 1
12. Crop type(s)
�t
11`l-l4t✓ F .Susy��r- ,J#A0--A1" .S _
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
[]Yes
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
fA No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
18 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of property operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
(N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer toquestion #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any othertcommentsf
Use drawings_of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): wFal,
Reviewer/Inspector Name i`L G� Phone:S�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: F2 - 7201 Date of Inspection O-Dp'-GYp
Required Records & Documents
I9. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ;4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ®No [INA ❑NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design [I Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes EINa ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crap 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
VgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
5a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
VN'No
DdNA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
(II 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?
Q Yes
[A 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
P9 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
O No
❑ NA
0 NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
[:1Yes
�
!j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
OfNo
❑ NA
[l NE
Addihonal'Coinine its and/or Drawings: 4�
Page 3 of 3 1268/04
Page 3 of 3 1268/04

.�
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facilin. Number $aZ 7 c3
Date of Visit: /d /g/ "Gime: = 3 s0
17ot O erational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditional]-,• Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: C ^/OPA : 1 a r County: Sa ++� Oso+.i FIZC7
Owner Dame: G . Q "Orr I t _ Phone Ne. 9' a S•� S "T f
Mailing Address: — t` • o . Q awe _ S ss,a G n _ 1 a..eae,_[—
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative: G • W • lel n r .. i -4
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
PhoneNo;
Integrator: _Tr'1 ot, peek ggrA.
Operator Certification Number:
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude �' �•
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle capacity Po Mallon
Wean to Feeder 10 Layer I I 1 10 DaiTv
Feeder to Finish 10 Non -Laver 1 10 Non -Dain
❑ Farrow Io Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
® Farrow to Finish /SO Total Design Capacity
Gilts LL
BpaTs FTotal SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ iso Liquid Waste Manage,
Discharges 8 Stream impacts
I . Is any discharze observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Laaoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a- If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. Ifdischaige is obsen-ed. did it reach Water of the State? (If ves. notif}' DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notiN, DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
Area ❑ Spray' Field Area I
❑ Yes A] No
❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there anti• adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste C21lection S TEUtment
4- Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less titan adequate? ❑ Svillway
Structure I Structure ? Structure 3 Structure 4 Structtae 5
❑ Yes ❑ No
/V /A
❑ Yes ❑ No
©Yes El No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
Structrue 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05/03/01 Continued

Facility- lumber: Date of Inspection �d �
5. Are there anv immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion.
El Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed andlor managed through a waste management or
closure plan?[:3 Yes [:1 No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notif1 DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures treed maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes R) No
9. Do any srucWres lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Avollication
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
W] 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
Rectuired Records & Documents
17-
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
IN] 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 [seeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
El 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 DIM 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 X) 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 AA MP? ❑ Yes No
Q No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this 'visit.
Cotumeats:(refeFA6 question #) `Explain arty YES aaxwers andlor an} rtxatntneadat3oas or anv other comments: 3 : '�
Use;drnwrtegs of fact�tty-to better expiiiiii, itttattot►s. (ese sdtittionai pages as tteeessar31 x f
z-
Field Conv ❑ Final Note, i
LOI-L, YQ4,4.TCfw. bN Yrtpti"1"'4 +wTtrVs�.
Cov t -r G,r o j ip �cAr cAF
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/InSpector Signature: Date: %D " Iq
05/03/01 Q j Condmued

O Division of Soil and Water Conservation [] Other Agency
Division of Water Quality
® Routine O Cum hint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection d4v 24 hr. (hh:mm)
® Registered 0 Certified © Applied for Permit © Permitted [3 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: 1Xwl County:.................
Owner Name• . � ,...a.�'!S Phone No:. �� :�'�{..: s
Facility Contact: ............: ff..... �•{r Title: Phone No:
Mailing Address: ,%`� v�.•..�1!r..CP...+ ?.f�? ,1 ..,( I 6T7/ ........................
.......... ......... .....
Onsite Representative: P Irl!.�. ......1..1P4.e1_r . ....................................... Integrator: ..... .:�r�'.z:��........ '
Certified Operator: ..................., .. ... Operator Certification Number;.--._...................................
Location of Farm:
Latitude =a=1 041 Longitude ' =1 011
Y Design Current " ";' { Design CurrentDesi t Current
..
Swore y Ca achy Popeilatton • .Poultry . ,. _Capacit Po 'ulatton Cattle ; Ca ce Po Matron„
Y P,. Pa��ty P
�'=
.
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
F[IF:eFeMer
❑ Non -Layer °' ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
1(7
j. Total Design Capacity„
.¢
` 3X Xf'4 Y• 3M' b�NfS'i '.
Area
NEunbet of LagorinslHoldtng 1?ands ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon❑ Spray Field Area
�� ' � � - ��� y, � ❑ Nv Liquid Waste Management System �,
,�¢ .�� �
���
Feeder
..�: o Finish
w to Wean
❑Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gx1tS .
ss`
(] BOarS
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement? El Yes RNo
2. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑'Yes WNo
Discharge originated at: El Lagoon [I Spray Field ❑Other
a_ If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑Yes kNo
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ ) ❑Yes Pr
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) [I Yes Wo
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? [I Yes "MNo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? D Yes OCNo
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons holding ponds) require El Yes KNo
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? El Yes �No
No
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
7125191

Facility Number: *�_;F —7,#0
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need ro be properly closed? ❑ Yes ffNo
Structures (hagoons.I:loi ,1ng Ponds, Flush Pits. etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes XNo
1
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft):.......16.................................................................................................................................................... ...................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes ANo
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
(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 ApplLcation
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ....... oi�................................................. .... ..I........ .....
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -situ representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
No,vialations' _or, dAkiencie's.were;noted;during this;visit.: You;will receive.no ftirther
correspondence about this:visit:-'
❑ Yes X[No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes PKNo
❑ Yes CR(No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes XNo
Yes XNo
❑ Yes PkNo
i
❑ Yes INNo
Xyes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
�Coinmrer3tts'€refer to,,qutcstian if}q ° ;�pla>En any Y:ES a ers a illor say rem meadahons or -any
"'Oka "kc ,t3 --' we• -d d ^'f%'ra` -s,, irk° _
v
11gS t}i f8diity tobetter expiate Slttrahons (use additional pages as necessary) SKY
r
sZ�
Z/ , //Ti�i/� �/�� � i/✓_ `� Gly.` / N+ / / ` `_ t
4111,c.¢
`
Ae. Np4vr /A,y-s✓
7/25/97
-"U
Reviewer/Inspector
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: %�