410002_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Division of Water Resour.,c
Facility Number - Q Division of Soil and Water,servation
O Other Agency (AM
Fype of Visit: O Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: O Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: S u 3p I Arrival Time: Departure Time: '. County:C� wd Region:
Farm Name: w a yd Fay-M S Owner Email:
Owner Name: �p�r} Wares Phone:
Mailing Address: 5n:] C001L- — si-twarl- WA
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 1-QUa ward Title: Phone: ,�r'>�jG — VIM
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
VIVS Vuede
Certified Operator: Certification Number: flAd Of 2-0121
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
140 g) to
Alamckra
Noy-Ck �_J kLl�q OL 6y�k0
MU COOK` S-f
G
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Laver
Non -La er
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pop.
La ers
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 DWR)
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 DWR)
2. Is there evidence of 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?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Cow
_Dry
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA ❑NE
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes W No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: ZA- Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment 4
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes '�ff 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
Identifier:)—� r�
Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?.
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): !r
5. Are there any inunediate 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 0 No ❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes 5a No ❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes RQ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes No ❑ NA
❑ NE
_9.
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 X 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): �� '1 � Wd�! �5VO CUf l
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
[T�,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
LpJ 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
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
❑ NA
❑ NE
[ Waste Application Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Vj Soil Analysis
❑
Weather Code
I Rainfall ❑-SFeekdaig � 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
❑ No
Dq NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of
21412015 Continued

F/
Facili Number: 4k- Date of Ins action: 10, . aj=
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste apoion 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
r111 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?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
24. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
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 ❑ No r 7 NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes JZ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes '� No
❑ Yes L No
❑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).
'•� tau (�i-y 5��;-I�inu� �Rw+�.e�y O1+�Y1ei'S � r,..Pp1<<d �vY ��o (�r�imal �eXt�-+-f- �
E Mt3C i� tv�an,� o� Coo r- - 5feAAxx f-t Q� d t;V-c J- mn , 1" 0 V'.l i tl i�
°J p + w f ca t l c`�se d Walt o�J�
bUn qm,? en 7 Choc YA\ ��o S
�J,wt �Us�i-, p ipcs ever c. vcie�l 'rt rw cry �tle ae� ass ? Q ►`,OpYI C� tG� Vi, c{G,�ed
Lh2&V Sk-ream eN, CA R c5 c �.� "t +� oy-� J�CAG YiU UPS CCU. �� Ci��J"1 n 5 i 2
y� obit �-es �u�� ) d�J��o n a cor,ce.�rn
P4�'L)
ueA n5 reeve de�� , +Qal I V)roJ-i 6V1 d%Ue, �i-ha 6 Ltaus(�( -7) -ZWU--
M
o al` Sk-tw 4k r a l � r 2 � no rl-t �: l� G veA rq �c r r q ,c t {t F c,iln
h()o�� c�u�s c�,{- )" rti
t ?P1
SV\l+n.e z pooi+� v�aS� c Pk�nS land v 1 rvmc� n �c a�erc -e�-
Q;k �Jvljvl { jvd copy j
i(b tw.11Ito o`'.�`l �p,h�.ol itl�SiEt'�1 �1ZlCiiMl1'� h' "►'e0�
Reviewer/Inspector N
Reviewer/Inspector Si
Page 3 of 3
Phone:; �A�- q I
Date: W 1301 n
'T^
21412015

r6 Division of Water Resources
.Facility Number © - 0 Division of Soil and Water C ervation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: 15 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 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time:❑ County: C_VtL,feC1V Region: (,jSRO
Farm Name: WA" FARMS Owner Email:
Owner Name: •)o FW &WO Phone:
Mailing Address: 6'M C>oK • STi,-wAma (vD n ase71-N e 577
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 6R_ 6G WARD Title:
Onsite Representative:
Phone: 3 501 - 0 S t; ( w1+)
Integrator: PQPy Ij
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Uo EhS1 4a Cl �1RC to ¢p ,� t D$ 1✓ a� p4t6s �f 4m t l:D M to Pow! �� R o+�r "41k *t Y R D.j
L opt ke64c sty RPM R nu oadre b7t_wAR1' Rp•
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish LtuDo
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Layer
Non -La er
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layers
Non -La ers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkev Pouets
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State?, (If yes, notify DWR)
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 DWR)
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?
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes C'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
CKYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: Cooly Stea►!!Mµl , 0,IJu S p P er
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? Vr 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
C '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
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
F�2'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
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
N:fNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [XNo ❑ 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
N;�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
EfNo
❑ 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?
D Yes
FKNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
K No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
gNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available`? If yes, check
❑ Yes
allo ❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
eE�'ddti'P- ❑Checklists ❑ Design LgAtaps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
ZYes
❑ No ❑ NA
NE
VV s
Weather Code
❑ 120 Minute inspections ❑ .
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
gNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ro No K NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: jDate of Inspection:
itA
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applion equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes Ki No c�Tt❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes eNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes [R'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes IgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
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 tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes �`No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes C& No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes C2�rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
E[ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes Er No
❑ Yes Kf No
❑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).
set &- -M51- We !�-O%
7} flLXOnw Vtat" ►wtiv4f►va6-{P AT Q kT SkuerV*.E? Y Cs 5 -
3� co+a0 ffs w of Vlk f W ? SCE tMVt*'L W To wrap aTT't.,- of i ? r)A w "4u ?
f00 (J
a� kk)SN pkp6s 6k'c"P60 Acok-A (Nr-roc- Acazs3 S�PPosaO 1ST + E `f
1� 1¢ts
A►sALYSIS C0.*APtre`TOAD "J ? Y(_S-
� R► 'F��y. PtT is
kt.c. cs�u-ra4SEo ot►.� per, �� tic owwAct �
f3F
QuN�E�i1 Ebw1� w�v 1'•�st� WF urcrao►r' 86- cwsclf� -
*3-) 647i;e s tU 0.!5,v_Lw e- FamC- Tc> K6CA1 C..kTtt _ ovT-o f
cf,66K
g U l 'ue 61#ZB&p w \Re Nt-4_Lo 5 nnoD�w —1-djJAAJ Cr
C_
aOlr7 - 3a- 56 E 5 NJ% '7
0,-3 G 0�1o� e�� �� a-b� �b� rooa► 6h
3 15 (1�
1FL5 = �•] = 0,96 % I [aeaa 6P. t- Iblreo
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
ReviewerlInspector Signatur
Page 3 of 3
L� ),} = o- 35 (D
a WIcL
Phone: 3S6- 404- "4('3
Date: 4. �3 • l.6
21412015

i-
(Division of Water Resources '
Facility Number❑ - a O Division of Soil and Water Con _ rvation ltij
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 411outine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: a Arrival Time: Departure Time: L�1_c County: �ji U1 Df u
Farm Name: WoL d. Foxm'5 y Owner Email:
Region: &3,5(26
Owner Name: � h 1) 'd Phone: q � -1
Mailing Address: S337 �1����'�tr"
o0_ptc-L �IV , • t R /t/TX''I%j � O? 7,377
Physical Address:
M 3J7-173Y
Facility Contact: Title: Phone:, IN 7- O/ 76
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: _ W/ Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
� �o fo a.m 5-n c c_ [cam f I L P re,sto -P.r 60.n
-Th j<_see__ Pj e. co �4 - P J -
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
]Non -Layer
Non-L,
Pullets
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 DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[:]NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWR)
2, Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or otent�ia`v�rse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: - . Date of Inspection -
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ 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: 00 (7Lr WSP�
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ONo ❑ 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 Vj 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? 9 Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 5,/N/o ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require 0 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):
l
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those esignated in the CAWMP? J
Ed Yes
[5�`No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
5fNo
❑ 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
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
t o
❑ 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
�IVo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall
Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
� NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412014 Continued

IN
Facili Number: - Date of Inspection: % 1/
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applin equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes WNo
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [] Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes [�(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes YNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
0 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
ElkfNYes
o
❑ 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 answers and/or any additional recommendation�'s or a_ny other comments.
r
MA
Us,��awings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary). AS1L
V' �
yt_. 60-.
8ij
I1 V'
. 5 (Vt3 r_. S+��J �c1�br Cpol� 5��-c-� IYlairl r} �Oi�. /j,� 1E
t1
©,
v.�ocd y ve+L� n,�,�r.n l�-me�o sP-
wiIbr-&Aiorl due- �o1 -, �pAle4 . q
a Soi 1s r-q 0 r +-
-I. LOOM v 40- at_'Ho n Of -P�vAM r—VVeA/t.-t- o�
� �h
coo►L-
�
Ole,(Cre a led z ! l� ,2 aS 6o nA � ws Ra ~fiO-+ wu�5te sire C 1 � Y .
Rut
o
f I, fl I L� � ! 3�r''UU1J �, W v`-�.� � � � f�(J� _ � �V�-�1 ✓"
FIvA p t Qes off- LoaV- 5fel.��-Owe- +-d b2 5. pore �-
lit s�.a �7,, _ fJ �►
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
i,�/�sjui
1,
ralk-1
KA I ?. 0-5-
n.7r" A- V A r 1,A R L. E
Phone: �1 & ' b I 1
Date: r L,�toj
11
C� =2a1 2 gas

fir.';+�. �.)��`► ��1r� FDA
7_"Ciiity
Division of Water eta 'jftNumber z - O Division of Soil and Water aservation
0 Other Agency It I
(Type of Visit: 0 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: (,(Routine O Complaint O Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency O Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: ,� s Z! 4 Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: , 1Region:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Phone:
3ei
Title: Phone: (H ) �` 6176
Integrator:i.n s
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
r / "lyrµ..v-^ic. C-r`' G (S,yi IZ. L.7� T \ fGY7'� ✓1 i•-- ej- i-/ rv�' f ra'-wA OWL �t�Lt-{�-c-,r W.� - 4'. bL�'_ U L^
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
]Non -Layer
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Pouets
Other
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
EdNo
❑ 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 the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number; qj - a 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: �S w i fP
Spillway?: S N U D
4
Designed Freeboard (in): 2'� 1
r� j
Observed Freeboard (in): 1 J J
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [�j 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? [�Z Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [O 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 [21/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 dNo ❑ 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): rt4 &
13. Soil Type(s): ��✓�
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
[:]Yes
[EI/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[;�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
E3 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? ❑ Yes dNo
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes Ej No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility dumber: jDate of Inspection: 2 i
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [v No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [3"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ff No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? Z004 ❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes [2/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Yes eNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [2"No
❑ Yes UNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the ReviewerlInspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes [3(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional Doges as necessarv).
Z01-I ✓ /
po„d - o ff 01 ?
s DiiS mf-r[ �"�)Vaj t
boot &rl l d r0 s �plv ' -tic, jvay. 5c;�
po ) _ w �� � �� �t� st ('� r'^ p h &,t^
l �
06
�'W' 6 - i"jool,�� 54 Qo �� - V'-
AVw V� ; � �v to Wi�, tilt" ', aP 0, r,043 A �D!
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
ReviewerlInspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
1
! ,L I /
000 L I Dlut j ✓!l� �'^ (� COm oqAJ r_ he 5 t'i7Zz J
Phone:
Date: 2 Z
21412011

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number - O Division of Soil and Water Arvation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: R o pliance Inspection O Operation Review p Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
O 3 apt 3
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: 3:r3d County: G,c,�a� Region: rr SKO
Farm Name: � q—,r 1 MS Owner Email:
Owner Name: r W' t d
Mailing Address: 5-3.3.7
Phone:
WJ :-L,4f J6 27377
Physical Address:'
l 3 3 `} -17-3
Facility Contact: r�j (>� ��I q �� Title: Phone: ( 2 fn 5 7 — 1)1,7 v
Onsite Representative: Integrator: FiA f V -'S
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish D � r! .
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
La er
Non -Layer
Non-L;
Pullets
Other
Poults
Design Current
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a_ Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
DaiKZ Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [—]No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

6116,-2,0f 3
[Facility Number: 7- 2 Date of Ins ectio .
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? Xyes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1
Identifier: Cookj�.i..a4
Structure 2
,yy i,
Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
P/
Spillway?: �1463
d o
0 a
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): r1' /r
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 gNo ❑ 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? 'V
Waste_Applicatiors
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes [ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
T�
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, et6.)
❑ 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): S M`' I q� f� 7"(J�J`e. + "W
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 A 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 0No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes 9No
❑ NA
0 NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes jqNo
❑ 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
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather
Code
❑ Rainfall [:]Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections . ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
[:]Yes [:]No
NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412011 Continued

DI 03
2t� 3
Facilfty Number: - 2— O Date of inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
XNo ❑ 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.
5i
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge
levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
I
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
kNo❑ 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
IX I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
%T
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?
❑ Yesk�'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.
Use drawings of facility � (
ity to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
2 V. 14 P F(1 kz- efcR /V en L.t �i�drq „ mac. A.Q v l— � y� 20/3,
51.1 * "J&>C+ JAIZ � ) 1�� 11.1 0 f SD I
crn .37z- H,
C)11t iiblr+ ��ei1 �.G7w I �� 1 j 4 �
jDram',., �s
ip=[,2.,C-�S=[,��; �a,8�16hi
Reviewer/Inspector Name: , k&k Phone: t �Zaf7 1
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �`/L Date:
Page 3 of 3 21412011

Facility Number
5 helm( he
Division of Water Quality
O Division of Soil and V1'ater'
t t 0 Other Agency
poor
ation
Type of Visit: 91Co pliance Inspection O Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: ❑ County: Co [ Region:\S �O
Farm Name: `�� [ `(� F-- , #} fS Owner Email:
Owner Name: 0 ho Phone:
Mailing Address: S �?} ��noIL -5 R_ . �'�(j 11sek 7
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Latitude:
In
Phone: 7,30 C
�L t`f- 7- O1 O
tegrattooVr: I' U
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
eAsf
r , to
CCU 111 5+reaju
Lef f 0 n to
Ca!r ne 11 P= orL
e see
Swine
Wean to Finish
W an to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity, Pop.
[Layer
Non -La er
Dry Poultry
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Design Current
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other: _
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
[:]Yes �fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes �6o
❑ Yes �No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
®i
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: 6a-- Date of Ins eetion:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applle6tion 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? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately. 4�0
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes] 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 _FX 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 4'No
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes ❑ 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).
E xan c� 4-i (!
4• col(
3a41.? -
XT(L c2lr nil — OQ I Ve c3e- I tp
%, L � chi
0.��
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
214/2011
a

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes J�(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): 3D b i
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 ❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
PNoo
❑ Yes ❑ 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 6 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes tRNo ❑ 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 Uffer from those d signa d 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 wired 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
❑ Yesg�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑ Other:
21. oes record keeping need i p ovementT}f�eS ek 9stz-be�el ❑ Yes sio ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Applic lioneekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis J� �eather Code
[Rainfall [Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections onthly and 1 " Rainfall Inspections [dge 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 *A ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Conhinued

Facility ,Number
1
�
Division of Water..Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation �% s
Other Agency
IType of Visit q Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit (yRoutine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: l Ip Arrival Time: 5 Q Departure Time: �. Q ounty: I Region:
Farm Name: �QrrtS Owner Email:
Owner Name: So rl n �Q]� r L /� Phone: 1 �i 3 9 - u . �i C) G re 4 g
Mailing Address: S 3 3 1 „ _o0 L�- ! S T el tkif f ` / �r I A-)h ! t ie lT ' MC.- � % J I
Physical Address: =) OLM Q j
Facility Contact: I` Qtr( Title: Phone No: -.to? ' a1 7 0 N
Onsite Representative: Integrator: (-0 LO
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Q ©' � « Longitude: � o . � «
T- q6 Mt . pe Lhk)rc-h (�.alP,+. �{- �p 4 rQ� . i St road fa
r- hk ��{ � 5treark� LeFf 0rf it�Canre-I/ leer Pl-f- bnto KeeSee,a
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity, Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -La er
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
0�
S
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other J
Dry Poultry
Dischartles & 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 I
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ DairyCow
❑ DairyCalf
❑ DairyHeifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:.:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system`? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes xNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[--]Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
PN�No
El NA El NE
El Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 11/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: q I— Q • Date of Inspection D S d •
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes A - ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
��tt Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: C (M V1- 5j&kAr - [ V l 0. Vi ' p— U -15 P P j �—
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
ElNA El NE
Ak"
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
% No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
El
No�E]NA
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? Yes
o ❑ NE
0
(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
XNo ❑ 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
*o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
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 w
NA
NNoo
❑ NE
—❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
ID Yes
o ❑ NA
El
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):
7 P&watt h&ck- `lkd P
Lea l< r` n h o u� e S f,�� r,ei red
Reviewerllnspector Name ^10, 16'Seo__ (' ( Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: lal, to
Page 2 of 3 � � � _ �j ^. n ` � 12/ /04 Continued

Facility Number: 41 — O,�2 1 dk of Inspection 11310 10 9
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes Ind No El NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check [I Yes 'rr®No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping neeYee
rovement? ❑ Yes Lj'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
LY aste Application ly Freeboard Waste Analysis 02 Soil Analysis rs
2 Rainfall Stocking rop Yield 120 Minute Inspections EI Monthly and I" Rain Inspections MTWeather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? 1 ❑ Yes] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes /❑' No 9NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[( No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?]
Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
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
)&
❑ NA
❑ NE
Ad ' 'anal Comments and/or Drawings: bli n hno-- �Sue ao t (e d 74 I -7
�u n
a ,C'oo -S ewar�il L_VA Main]' 1a oon SurU 5 -LjL"-�
a�. _20ro 50tl des404 "j� CDI�p Jeted ? -
n,���-o
C�- S+e I -
11141I0 d,s= o ( TR-z­ bqD M= p.S`S
lali40 IIQ .te-ice (I . RAm �� IoJQ47 -sass 6 11rs
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number 4��M
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit Y Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
{O
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: County: UI r[�JRegion: 05PO
Farm Name: I3-y' 1 Q-1f`rn Owner Email:
Owner Name: 0 �Y1 W Phone: 9 -1 73 C re
q�_
Mailing Address: —3 �— 5 1�[ o f :5 dL /�x OZ.3 7
Physical Address: am e—
Facility Contact: eP r WOA Title:
Onsite Representative: re_Q�. `+_aA
Certified Operator: 05yeaq- Ga
Back-up Operator:
Phone No: 1, n 64
Integrator: k ro W/
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: �° Longitude: �° � �
a - Ll 0 e to K+ . ". �- � .fro . � 5t-
Cl4 ill 64re.a4u) . Le- f onfd CA to nel�, )Pd taf - oalo -
Swine
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
I q10010
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non-Layet
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 Heifei
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy.
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cowl
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: I V
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 kNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: q — Q • Date of Inspection
Waste Collection R 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 tNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
�. Structure l t cture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifie'r:: Gook- Sielw4 IVW, o S R- LOSP
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'? ❑ Yes �,J No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 4No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soii
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift/ ❑�Application
nOutside of Arrea� ',,
12. Crop type(s) � }-(,1,P1-�Qi1Lt.f1/, _d �'IEL4W al IC J , )f w '0�1JCh_ 1VI 1 )C .
13.
Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designs d in the CAWMP?
es
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
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
P a t v_A i le-d e" .ao usf be eo � kfed cti N�,ca:i n rarm
AVC k ( ! 1 OQ
Mex o-� �)606e. 30 ak C�ol�- Sf� wax-t M5 te-ay'(>� vjalk .
IUD. Ye.Patr 5jrlce- i+15 nttu-Lree6L
Reviewer/inspector Name S y'Cac Phone: -
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Pate of Inspection
Reg-uired Records & Documents /
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes I, -No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. D WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Doe 'record keeping need imp ovement? I rn�-- , �,� Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[�W ste Application J�Zop
Freeboard Waste Ana 's Soil Analysis d aste Transfers
MZinfal! L� Stocking Yield 120 Minute Inspections LV Monthly and V Rain Inspections aher Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes NIa
❑ Yes YNo
El NA El NE
[`NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
y No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
A2rNo
[]NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
,NrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[f No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional 1 and/or
l/
r
1
n
r ! MORONr fr • ! / if �� I �1 r

Facility Number
0�L
Division of Water QualitIq
Division of Soil and Water
0 Other Agency
servation I 3o
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit di Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up Q Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
. I
{
Date of Visit: Arrival `Time: Departure Time: r� County: U r Region: �✓
Farm Name: *j of Ray- rn 5 _ , Owner Email:
Owner Name: John ��'-Phone: C
4(nre�e
Mailing Address: 5 3 3 ] c-oOjC— 562tu0'f+ if S-Qtj t NC of 7313
7
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: . 6 rf-3S (00ZA Title:
Onsite Representative: _
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
m_ yoe- tb lrlouo+ B- bpe_ ch. Vd
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phone No:
Integrator:-,i�r&.4 _ i" O W y
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ®o � d a Longitude: ®o ®' E�] "
n r+. *_�- -hm p a-� M" , 1 sf pd, fn Qf . C M; I
I�� , �%• on Kee .see
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
II ❑Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey Pouets
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
i . 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 Heifei
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cowl
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: 141
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 T,No ❑ NA ' ❑ NE
Oyes
ONO
❑NA
ONE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
E No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Q . Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes qNo ❑ 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
S Identifier: Cooe.-5Lea"I �_%t_11_ SfZ ,:6n _r Prf
Spillway?:
Desi ned Freeboard (in):
g
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ( Yes
❑ 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
)(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
d
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
L, No
❑ NA
ElNE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
ElYes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?V Yes
�No
El NA
El NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
I & Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
X Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Can c-V- e}e ? �e .
Dtscv)a�q+? us? 0-�_
Pi
Reviewer/inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
V.
a� 001 11 o
Phone: 01
Date:
LWIVIlm- �.Ir

L a o rty\, Redo 1 p .h
Facility Number: — (j Date of Inspection oZ 0
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes M�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ibbelow.
El Other
21. Do s record keeping need im ovement? If yes, the the appropriate ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application Xcrop
ly Freeboard Waste Analysisil nalysis Waste Transfersdi -ttrifivati.
CS/Rainfall Stocking 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
❑ No
JN A
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
L)(J No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
[.$'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawines:
001 — DIJL
W
�tli b�Q+i�h d ve aoo$ N an1L
a0b_7 5judge 5 urvekd--,S ? ' �61 aoo a
mGij n'ns Cdro c) 2 M-1L., wD_�
akj_� OAAJ
m i c uo m� 1,c ma#
12128104

•
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 410002 Facility Status: Aoive Permit: NQA?41002 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance—In-spection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine_ County: Guilford _ Region: Winston-Sale
Date of Visit: 03/01 /2007 Entry Time:10:10 AM Exit Time: 12:10 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Ward Farms Owner Email:
Owner. John Wad Phone: [phone] _
Mailing Address: 5337 Cook Stewart Rd Whitsett NC 27377
Physical Address: 2076 Keesgg Rd Mc Leansville NC 27301
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
Latitude:36"01'26" Longitude:79°39'45"
From WSRO: Take 1-85/40 east to Mt. Hope Church Road and turn right at top of the ramp. Take 1 st road to right (Mill Stream) to
stop. Left on McConnell Rd. Right on KeeSee Rd. 1 mile to farm. Gregg-2043 Keesee Rd., McLeansville, NO 27301
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Certified Operator: Gregg L Ward
Secondary OIC(s):
Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Other Issues
Operator Certification Number: 18886
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Gregg Ward
24 hour contact name Gregg Ward
Primary Inspector: M
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Phone,
Date:
Inspection Summary:
4. Concrete pit needs to be pumped down 6" as soon as possible.
6. Must get concrete pit included in CAWMP or cease using. See tech specialist.
7. If using concrete pit, it must be backfilled on three sides and vegetation established.
7. Continue efforts on dam at JR Farm. Looks much better.
9. Neep to prop up flush pipes at Cook -Stewart Farm.
9. 8" discharge pipe from houses at Cook -Stewart must be repaired or replaced within 60 days. Suggest adding clean -outs or using
larger pipe.
9. if using concrete pit, cattle must be excluded from the area (around pit and pipes),
16. Acreages in WUP for T-6686 F-8 don't match those in records. See tech specialist.
2/7/07 waste analyses:
CS=2.8, Main=0.95, and JR=1.2 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Page: 1

•
•
Permit: NCA241002 Owner -Facility: John Ward Facility Number : 410002
Inspection Date: 03/01/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 4,100 3,700
Total Design Capacity: 4,100
Total SSLW: 553,500
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
COOKSTEWART
21.00
agoon
MAIN FARM
19.00
Waste Pit
CONCRETE WASTE PIT
37.00
Waste Pond
JR COOPER
26.00
Page: 2

•
•
Permit: NCA241002 Owner -Facility: John Ward Facility Number : 410002
Inspection Date: 03/01/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
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 Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage 8& Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.eJ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ■
❑
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
■
❑
❑
❑
S. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
■
❑
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

0
Permit:NCA241002 Owner -Facility: John Ward
Inspection Date: 0310112007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number:410002
Reason for VisIt: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 2
Corn (Grain)
Crop Type 3
Corn (silage)
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ■ ❑ ❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ E ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ E ❑ ❑
if yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Page: 4

• •
Permit: NCA241002 Owner -Facility: John Ward Facility Number: 410002
Inspection Date: 03/01/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑ ❑
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■
❑ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑ ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑ ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑ ❑
Other Issues
Yes No
NA
N�
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑ ■
❑
❑
29. Did the facility fail to property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑ ■
❑
❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
❑ ■
❑
Cl
Quality representative immediately,
Page: 5

Permit: NCA241002 Owner -Facility: John Ward
Facility Number :
410002
Inspection Date: 03/01/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues
Yes No
NA
NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑ ■
❑
❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ ■
❑
❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ ■
❑
❑
Page: 6

Facility Number
XJ Division of Water Qualih j
0 Division of Soil and Water
0 Other Agency
onservation
Type of Visit �C..[ompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit l]7 Routine O Complaint o Follow up O Referral O Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 'b - `� Departure Time: io County: Region: 1VDSP-b
Farm Name: �'�h i av- farm 5 Owner Email:
Owner Name: ^ —To nn Ward _ Phone: 3�3 — -7 3 l C-r�.7
Mailing Address: _S �� �— - 5 T�-w�'+ }' &J C_ 3
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: r Title: Phone No: ` o i 7664
Onsite Representative: Integrator:M.r0ri3LA_,ErnLQy)
Certified Operator: V- Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: M o tM ` ®" � ° �r
,3 Longitude: 7
.1 -40 Fasf f& "UA (.h u rc1h . Cl- f -u rn- r- i t 1.0 P o -raAtp n
sV-O(k& AM ri� A�I i U 5 es�) L �4 o r) mL C-o n �� o h IMP e
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
Ion-Layet
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifej
❑ 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:
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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
[INA
[INE
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: _qj— i) Date of Inspection -`fIA
Waste Collection & Treatment ,,_j
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes *o ❑ 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: _CaO C[�S au+ Main J Sriatt
Spillway?: P1+
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes �(No ElNA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan? 1
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA El 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 ElNo ElNA ElNE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No El NA El NE
El Excessive Ponding El Hydraulic Overload El Frozen Ground El Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn,ietc.) - /l,�{
[]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 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 El No
El NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
j❑ Yes YNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes �(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Qrop up V1V5 p i pes `
9 is c- I e, F-ro rn C-5
Cad © It
ft!L -bl cam- -- Q� an t o'11.)
I
f .OD
Reviewer/Inspector Name ro Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: i Date: 3/1 D
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — ? 'Orate of Inspection 16 65 -FUM -e_
Required 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 approprrate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists El Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Do record keeping need provement? If yes, chec the appropriate box elow. El Yes No El NA ❑ NE
Waste Appl cation Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis 2Soil Analysis Waste Transfers LEA ual Certification
Rainfall Stocking L� 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 WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No VNA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ofNo ❑ 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 VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ yes
tANo
❑ 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
�6 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
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
*o
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
*o
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Additional Comments and/or Drawings: I
AUJ4-96` �J
A S
4110-7 IWO
12128104

.0 0
© Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 410002 Facility Status: Active Permit: NCA241002 _ ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance In§pection _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Guilford Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 08/10/2006 Entry Time:10:05-AM Exit Time: 12:15 PM
Farm Name: Ward Farms_
Owner. John Ward
Incident #:
Owner Email:
:1 11111614*1414.1 �
Mailing Address: 5337 Cook Stewart Rd Whitsett NC27377
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36°01'26" Longitude: 79°39'45"
From WSRO: Take 1-85/40 east to Mt. Hope Church Road and tum right at top of the ramp. Take 1st road to right (Mill Stream) to
stop. Leff on McConnell Rd. Right on KeeSee Rd. 1 mile to farm. Gregg-2043 Keesee Rd., McLeansville, NC 27301
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Gregg L Ward
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
I
On -site representative Gregg Ward
24 hour contact name re_�g Ward
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Operator Certification Number: 18886
Title Phone
Phone: [phone]
Phone: 000-50M597
Phone:
Date: ICJ
Inspection Summary:
6. Must add small, uncovered, collection pit to CAWMP ASAP.
7. Continue efforts to mow vegetation and control groundhogs.
B. Maximum waste level on uncovered concrete collection pit must not be higher than height of end wall that has fallen.
24. 2006 calibration ok.
25. 2006 sludge completed and is ok.
28. T/F-6686 (8 or 15 acres?) Wettable acres? Four acres?
28. Should PAN for soybeans on TractlField-8245 be 104 or 120? Check with tech specialist.
29. Need to burrow dead swine at least 300 feet from flowing waters. Dead hole was about 250 feet.
Records look great!
6/14106 Waste analyses:
JR farm=1.5 lbs. N/1000 gal., Main farm=1.5 lbs. N/1000 gal. CS Farm=3.0 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Page: 1

e e
Permit: NCA241002 Owner -Facility: John Ward Facility Number: 410002
Inspection Date: 08/1012006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 4,100 3,900
Total Design Capacity: 4,100
Total SSLW: 553,500
Type Identifier Closed Data Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
�agoon
COOK-STEWART
23.00
agoon
MAIN FARM
30.00
k1ste Pond
JR COOPER
28.00
Page: 2

•
•
Permit: NCA241002 Owner - Facility: John Ward Facility Number: 410002
Inspection Date: 08/10/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges S Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
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 Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No-
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ■
❑
❑
❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
■
❑
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
' 10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: NCA241002 Owner - Facility: John Ward Facility Number: 410002
Inspection Date: 08110M06 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
PAN?
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.? ❑
Total P205? ❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil? ❑
Outside of acceptable crop window? ❑
Evidence of wind drift? ❑
Application outside of application area? ❑
Crop Type 1 Com (Silage)
Crop Type 2 Soybeans
Crop Type 3 Sudan Grass
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
n
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: NCA241002 Owner -Facility: John Ward Facility Number: 410002
Inspection Date: 08/10/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
Cl
❑
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
2& Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
■
❑
❑
❑
29, Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
■
❑
❑
❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
❑
■
❑
❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

•
r_1
L
Permit: NCA241002 Owner - Facility: John Ward Facility Number: 410002
Inspection Date: 0811012006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ ■ U ❑
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

Division of Water Quality .
Facility Number MU9Division of Soil and Water 9-1servation
- 0 Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: �l) Q Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: 1 r Region: �9y
Farm Name: .��,��C�,ri`MS Owner Email:
Owner Name: r
MAN h r Phone: 3 C
Mailing Address: S 33-7 (`r�ex-_P--� • ��5 l�-� �C�
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representai
Certified Operatoi
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
t CP
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Other
❑ Other
Phone No: I 0 C'l�
�pq q
Integrator:
Operator Certification NImber: g25P
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: M ° 0 1�� Longitude: °
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
��� ❑ Layer
�� I w ❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
0
Design Current -
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: ©,
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2, is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
❑No
❑NA
❑NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 4 1 — 0 � ! Date of Inspection r
Waste Collection & Treatment
o
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes tNo
❑ NA [-INE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑Yes
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 o Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: Nailh Tp— 5 A Z~
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3 V, SD 1
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.) �f
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed � [Yes El No
El NA El NE
through a waste management or closure plan? !�
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes $,No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [ (o
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
[]Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) (,b 1rn
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?
❑ 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
❑ NE
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
%No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
'`eels
ReviewerAnspector Name I Phone:
Date: 001
ReviewerlInspector Signatu e: al�l 2
0
Page 2 of 3 — V V V - ' V T`-- 12128104 " Continuer[

Facility Dumber: 41te of Inspection Q 0
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Doe 'record keeping need imp vement? pr lo�w� ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
�W to Applica 'on Wee y Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil n� a sis rite Transfers Annu 1 Certification
ainfall Stocking Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections onthly and I" Rain Inspectionsather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
L]I No ElNA
'o
El NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ YesIN
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
El Yeso
ElNA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
ElYeso
ElNA
ElNE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
ElYeso
❑ 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?
IJ(J Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ 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 ko
❑ 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 PO No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes io
❑ NA
❑ NE
dditional Comments and/or Drawings:
["XV- =
I.s
M � 1-4�-
&s = 3.0
-311INP
=
1'y C,S
= 3,7
�k 1.3
ra K)IOX � -b �.� joo
S. a,00
,ZOO&
)j'A4_S PA*J SB ao oq ?
Page 3 of 3 12,28/04

.9 6
Division of Water Quality
[] Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 410002 Facility Status: Actives Permit: NCA241002 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Ins2ection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Guilford _ Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 05/24/2005 Entry Time: 01:00 PM Exit Time: 03:15 PM
Farm Name: Ward Farms
Owner: John Ward
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 5337 Cook -Stewart Rd Whitsett NC 27377
Physical Address.
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Integrator: Murphy - Brown,
Latitude:.36°01'26" _ _ Longitude: 79"39'45"
From WSRO: Take 1-85/40 east to Mt. Hope Church Road and turn right at top of the ramp. Take 1st road to right (Mill Stream) to
stop. Left on McConnell Rd. Right on KeeSee Rd. 1 mile to farm. Gregg-2043 Keesee Rd., McLeansville, NC 27301
Question Areas:
0 Discharges & Stream Impacts
0 Records and Documents
Certified Operator: Gregg L Ward
Secondary OIC(s):
0 Waste Collection & Treatment 0 Waste Application
Q Other Issues
Operator Certification Number: 18886
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Gregg Ward Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Gregg Ward Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melissa M Rosebr Phone: [phone]Ext 383 _
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Phone:
Inspection Summary:
7. Continue efforts to control groundhogs in the dam at the Cook -Stewart Farm.
6., 7. and 8. Operator has begun using the previously inactive concrete pit at the Main Farm. Need to have tech. specialist check,
certify , and add to waste plan to be able to use. Block wall of sloped end has fallen and has been back -filled with soil. Structure does
not have a marker.
24. Operator has already calibrated spray equipment for 2005 and conducted sludge survey for 2005.
5/12105 Waste analyses:
M=2.0, CS=3.8, and Cooper-0.92 lbs. N/1000 gal.
Page: 1

Permit: NCA241002 Owner -Facility: John Ward Facility Number: 410002
Inspection Date: 05/24/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
O Swine - Feeder to Finish 4,100 3,300
Total Design Capacity: 4,100
Total SSLW: 553,500
Waste Structures
TVDe Identifier Closed Date Start Date Desioned Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Lagoon
COOK-STEWART
23.00
;TE777
I MAIN FARM
28.00
Waste Pond
LJ R COOPER
26.00
Page: 2

Permit: NCA241002 Owner - Facillty: John Ward Facility Number : 410002
Inspection Date: 05/24/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
DischaraQ5 & Stream Impacts Yes No NA , NF
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ M ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWO) 0000
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
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 Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Yer. No NA NE
Waste Collertion. Storage & TreatMent
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large trees, severe erosion,
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
❑ ❑ ❑
closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
0 ❑ ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks
❑ ❑ ❑
and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
improvement?
Yac No NA NE
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or improvement?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu. Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110lbs.?
❑
Total P2O5?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 2
Corn (Silage)
Crop Type 3
Fescue (Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 4
Soybeans
Crop Type 5
Page: 3

0
•
Permit: NCA241002
Owner -Facility. John Ward
Facility Number: 410002
Inspection Date: 05/24/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Applinnflon
Crop Type 6
Yes
No NA
NE
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
Do
❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
0 ❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
1 B. Is there a lack of property operating waste application equipment?
❑
Yes
0 ❑
No NA
❑
NE
Record- and Dnnuments
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Cl
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
IN
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
a
❑
❑
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0
❑
❑
25, Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
0
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
2
❑
❑
Page: 4

Permit: NCA241002 Owner - Facility: Jahn Ward Facility Number:
410002
Inspection Date: 05/24/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Oth Pr Issups
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
Yns
❑
No
■
NA
❑
NF_
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those mortality
❑
■
❑
❑
rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality
❑
■
❑
❑
representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector tail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑
■
❑
❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■
❑
❑
Page: 5

�,. %Drvtston of Water Quaitty ,�
fY- l)ntsian of Soil and'Water.0 ti
;' ,FaC11tt� Number I of vatton
Q'Other Ageney r
E
Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
for Visit x
Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 2&7Arrival Time: � Departure Time: County: a Lzr Region:
Farm Name: , {N rQ t-1�'Y1 Owner Email: t� /
Owner Name: John �3 Phone: 33 ! Q � 731 (C2
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: C }
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No: ) f
Onsite Representative: r YvQ� Integrator: Rr'ow Vi
ii
Certified Operator: r Operator Certification Number: 4
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number.
r e
Location of Farm: Latitude: e Longitude: ® °
4o EA54 to M+. Church -t- rn
15+ ra_+ p o 2rare.-P "Ta-
r Left tgn YcConned. Eiq-hf
o .I e Seed
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Nyean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
I q I
rr4i3
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
40 Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non-Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes
No
❑NA
ONE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: — Q Z • 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 Nvaste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
StWture l Structure 2 StrluIcture/n13 Structure 4
Identifier: ay-) )o
Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? {Yes ❑ 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 ElNE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Anplication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 1 O lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifi ❑ Application Outs, i e of Area
12. Crop type(s),
13. Soil type(s) cr
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes VjNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No El NA El NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination,[:] Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ![ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name I (' Phone: , d3
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date: o b S
j w _ - 12/2 /0�_ogtinu C) P

Facility Number: — OZ Da Inspection S j
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WDP
❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Doe 'record keeping need im rovement? If yes, chec the appropriate box low. ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste A lic ion ; �Icrop
1 Freeboard Waste Analysis oil A al sis ii __ �Zeather
Certification
pp Y Y Y
ainfall Stocking Yield l20 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rain inspections Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
� S A?nI D
l�l ac)o4 4 cS= 3,� sP_ =0.q(0
PA r a`d -1P,
C&U�
C.CO.!5- a
� aa�
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
,VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
I iNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes
No
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
t No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

§ton of Water Quality
"
n,.: tsiowof Soil and Water"Conservation "
Q Other Agency.?
F
f Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 41 42 Date of Visit: 9/29/2004 Time: 1300
Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: 1?!'.axd.farms ............................ .. County: Guxlf d............................................ W.S.RQ........
Owner Name: J.Qhit......................................... .Y. Ard........ ................................................... Phone No: 9,.1I 4.C�)..ux..SOt�..CSC.I..Ce).............................
Mailing Address: 53.3,7.Gtrak.SteW4.ta-Roa.d ............................... ................. V1't►AtSett.J`1.................................... ........... 2.7.3.7.7...............
Facility Contact: G.regg— 'ard...................................................Title . Phone No: GQ7.-Si.17.Q.(kt�......... ................................................................ ..............
Onsite Representative: Grregg_ .a1Cd/ Ambcx................................................................ Integrator: Ruirphyar.owu................................... ..................
Certified Operator:Gregg.L.................................Ward ................................................. Operator Certification Numberj$$. 6..................
Location of Farm:
,rom WSRO: Take I-85/40 east to Mt. Hope Church Road and turn right at top of the ramp. Take 1st road to right (Mill +
itream) to stop. Left on McConnell Rd. Right on KeeSee Rd. 1 mile to farm. Gregg-2043 Keesee Rd., McLennsville, NC v
®Swine []Poultry ❑ Cattle []Horse Latitude 36 e 01 f 26C6 Longitude 79 • 39 ' 4544
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
4100
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 3
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Ca aci Po ulation Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 4,100
Total SSLW 553,500
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ®No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ®No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ....Caok.Stew-art.... ............ Main ............ ........... CoQprr........... ................................... ......................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 20 21 24
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 41-02 0 Date of Inspection 1 9/29/2004 0 __ - I
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ® No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes
® No
elevation markings?
Waste Apalication
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
®No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12.
Crop type Soybeans Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
®No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Odor Issues
17.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
®No
19.
is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
®No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? if yes, contact a regional
❑ Yes
® No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): i❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
A.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Meli sa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date:
12112103 P r r I i� ` Continued

Facility Number: 41-02 Da f Inspection 9/29/2004
Required
Records & Documents
21.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
® Yes
❑ No
22.
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
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
® No
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
27.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
® Yes
❑ No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ 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 Form [-]Crop Yield Form []Rainfall [:]Inspection After V Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
0
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
3. Operator has approx. 18 cattle in pasture.at Cook -Stewart. Need to watch for stream bank erosion and manure in the creek. Looks
:)k today.
7. Need to establish permanent grass on dam at Cook -Stewart.
16. Need to replace dry-rotted/torn hoses at irrigation pump and also on the reel. Need pressure gauge for the irrigation gun.
1. Operator had COC but no permit. DWQ to send copy.
23. 2004 soils look ok. Records look great.
y where Cooper lagoon is located is leased land. Operator expects to loose this land Dec. 2004 since owner plans to sell the
v. The C4 WMP will need to be revised at that time to remove lagoon, application fields, and approx. 450 swine from the
plan and permit.
12112103

Type of Visit 1�Co pfiance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visii Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number pate of Visit: H 0 Tune:
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted [3 Certtif`ie_d] [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: ANI County: _ U ... rj -----
Owner Name: _ � 1 t.1�7� U .... ... - Phone No: _ 3 v I. `i '3 __
-Mailing Address: 3 ... NO �`�'�� f--...l_ � f 1 . . _a 3.1_.__..
Facility Contact: lr .. Title:.__. __._ ._ _ . .. _____. Phone No: �M 5M . 6
Onsite Representative: C_� yam___ . _..., ._ .. Integrator:
Certified Operator:__. �' ( . „ _... . _ .„ Operator Certification Number:, g.�g
Location of Farm:
1117
�' cast/ 11 r 1..' R0 A • i■ A A112 % I MIT �_l-A C1
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®• ®� �'� Longitude �• �' °
'Design CITiTeOt a r'c Deszgti iCurrenE Desygn - "� Current
y
Swine Ca ci Po ulatioaPoWtry'Ca -ci PoIatiam Cattle ` Ca acr 'Po ulattoa
Wean to Feeder =OLyer
' ❑DairyFeeder to Finish i Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean r-
Farrow to Feeder
. Other
Farrow to Finish
��` � r Total Design Capac>Ety
❑ Gilts
Boars.." K_ TOtai ►Z+ v S s d V
Discharses & Stream I_maacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2_ Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway
Structure 1 structure 2 Struc f -) 1p��`` Structure 4
40
Identifier: ii.... .... 1lti.L....� _ — - --- - -
Freeboard (inches): `l
Structure 5
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
VN0
❑ Yes
P(No
❑ Yes
No
0
Structure
6
12112103
Continued

Facility Number: q I — o Date of Inspection /
5. Are there any immediate threats to the in4ty of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tree3-evere 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 jKNo
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes XNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes N0
elevation markings?
Waste application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance./improvement? ❑ Yes No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type SO(1 h&7r3 r\ C . < M Cry. (. l (2 rn
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in tI�e Certi
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Odor Issues
Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional
Air Quality representative immediately.
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ,
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes �' o
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes X10
,Comments (refer t0 cluesteonI Exp14aipd� any YFS answers and/or any recommendations or. y otly. rr eo ts.
Use dii*ings,af farxplsxrx s�tuatraas: {use addxkonal pages as necessary") Field Copy Final Notes
e
-�- w.. at C Low
Q. ? hoc_
JCD4 55�0 ? -rad_ Labr"
� �
i4i4
Reviewer/Inspector Name_
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
r
Date:
ici a it va _ a.wKarsr�wu

Facility Number: ' —O Da of Inspection p
s
Required Records & Document.~
21. FaiI to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23. D 'record keeping neeWFPnmeboar
'rovement�Xaste
, check the approp ate box below.
,Waste Application d Analysis �il Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause, noncompliance of the Certified AWNS?
NPDE5 Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, slap questions 31-35)
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
35. D record keeping for DES required fo need impro ement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
king Farm Crop Yiel Form [►f R /ainfaIl spection After 1" Rain
120 Minute Inspections Annual Certification Form
Yes N No
❑ Yes &No
❑ Yes XNO
❑ Yes )CNO
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes XNO
XYes ❑ No
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes P'No
El Yes / �No
❑ Yes XNo

0 Diy+_ _f 3yater Quality, ,
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit © Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Q Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 41 02 Date lot' V"'f ` Ot3C18/2003 Time: 1250
0 Not -Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered
Farm Name:%rd.l;U[it.5........................................................................
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold_ _ __ __ __ __ __ __
County: Guilfa d_
__. WjSK0-_.__.
Owner Name: 14bn��td----------------------------- Phone No: JQhu-6919-622-or_F�acm�39�17�4_--------
Mailing Address: SJ 7. ASt�.S1gYK�t.1�St7d..................................................................whiuOt. NYC............................................................ Z73.77 ..............
Facility Contact: Gugg..Ward...................... ..........Title:............................................... Phone No: Cei1.S0$,6597..................
Onsite Representative: Gzcgg.Aard-----------_._------------------------- Integrator:SiWtbfield--------------------------------.
Certified Operator:lriregg.1. ............................... Ward ................................................. Operator Certification Number: 1138$C.............................
Location of Farm:
From WSRO: Take I-85/40 east to ML Hope Church Road and turn right at top of the ramp. Take 1st road to right (Mill
stream) to stop. Left on McConnell Rd. Right on KeeSee Rd. 1 mile to farm. Gregg-2043 Keesee Rd., McLeansville, NC w
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude OF 01 26 Longitude 79 39 45
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Pnnulatinn
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
4100
4000
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder'
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer i I ❑ Dairy I _+ I
❑ Non -Layer I I ID Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 4,100
Total SSLW 553,500
Number of Lagoons 3 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Arca
Holding Ponds / Solid'Traps 0 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Dischar��e originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. ll'discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (Il'yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection K 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway [:]Yes 0 No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure h
Identifier: _..._MainFatm..... .._.Cuak-_StcwarL-- ------- faapen....... -•--•--•-----.--•--•--•--..--------------------------- ...........................
Freeboard (inches): 18 24 25
05103101 "4,e, ��1f,-p0 Continued

4
Facility Number: 41-02 �atc of' Inspection 08/28/2003
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, Yes No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? Yes ®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? []Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Soybeans
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
[:]Yes
®No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
® Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24,
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
3. No cattle at the Cook -Stewart Farm. Buffers look good.
_
7. Continue efforts to control ground hogs and mow vegetation on dam at Cooper Farm.
8. Operator is to repair leaks in wall of house at Cook -Stewart Farm within 10 days.
17. Need to contact Sue Homewood for copy of NPDES Permit. 919.733.5083
19. Operator did not obtain soil analyses for sudan fields that received waste in 2002 but has already received the results for all 2003
samples.
Reviewer/Inspector Name 'Mel' osebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. ' Date: zo
05103101 " f r � Continued

1. Facility Number: 41-02 Date III* ectiun 08/28/2003
•
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
1 19. 6/26/03 Waste Analyses:
Main - 1.5 lbs. N11000 gal. Cook -Stewart - 3.0 lbs. N/i000 gal. Cooper - .58 lbs. N11000 gal.
27. All mortality is going to Curtis Packing in Greensboro.
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Ad
J
05103101

1 PM
Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
D Other Agency -
«t"
Type of Visit C mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Time: W—t—L]
Facility Number
Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted U Ce�rjtified j 0 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operate or Abrpo
Thre hold:
Farm Name: Yy rC i Q rim c� County: 1A r?
Owner Name: Sok a 1,,J'
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: re
Location of Farm:
x- 0 E.,5Ls+ 4--o
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle
Design
Swine Ca acid
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish q10
El Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Title:
Phone No: 3 3 �. (O 9 xl_ -1 6 Z- Z
d-_;l2h47se4� I\10- a 7377
Phone No: r r
_ Integrator: 3 3 1. 17- 1a 3 C 0�' -5-9 F'�
_ Operator Certification Number: op
a
IAA?6
ChurC,h lc�fa-f 16pot rat4. 15+,-;3h+ 6n
'e_ on mL- Con e,11 Pd. f onk leeeSe -
❑ Horse Latitude ®e [�` ®u Longitude r' ' �� K
Current Design Current Design Current
Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
00 10 Non -Layer
- — — — -- — ---I ❑ Dai-- —
1 _+ I
❑ Non -La er I 1 10Non-Dai
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity I g, Ito
Total SSLW SS', , Sd
Number of Lagoons I 3 II ILJ Subsurface Drains Present _ 1LJ Lagoon Area IL Spray Field Area II I
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps ® ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Spillway
tructu 1 St�ucture StructLVe 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
KNo
Structure 6
Continued
�/A

0
Facility Dumber: 41 — 0L Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the inte,riry of anv of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion.
seepage, etc_)
6. .Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate. gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markints?
,i aste Application
10. Are there an,., buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? / ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ H/ydraulic Overload
12_ Crop type 1i�Y ® /
13. Do the receiving crops di r with those designated in the Certified n mal Waste Management Plan (CA
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reguired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
] S. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ V6'UP. checklists, design, maps. etc.) /
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie! irrigation. freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20_ Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility- fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional D'�X`Q of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie discharcre, freeboard problems. over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review;inspection With on -site representative?
24. Does facility, require a foilow-up Visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes XNo
Yes ❑ No
Yes ❑ No
Z
❑ 1'esNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ;<No
❑ Yes �No
IYes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
Yes No
❑ Yes No
El Yes I�I0
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
!0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You AV receive no further correspondence about this visit.
•: �.a.r� . - :. ti.r ..�.3 -- f_.,2 .. '-S. �9w.T'.ia -'?'--}_m..N�:a� ii= :w-.Y s'-'C+�
Comments"(refer to gnesdati #)Ezglatn any YES answers andlor;anommendapans or anp other, comments.
_ ..
Lse drawings of facility to better a lain sttriations. use additional a es°as necessary)
S_ zP t p g Field Final Notes
ld Copy
_
r
Reviewer/Inspector Name xR,��_
° �" r k �; gam` r ' .
_ ., _
Retiewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
r-t -ics P
❑ Yes No
ElYes A
o
❑ YesNo
Additional i and/or Drawings:
1
/� �� � � ,� if � �'�� � - •�`
I
kirn-
10� o-W �er��etwao uP-
Ceak--
q19. 733 so $3
--4cy Aetj 4&4vAl
05103101

Technical Assistance Site Visit
IlWion of Soil and Water ConservatidW
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Soil and Water Conservation District
Other...
Facility Number 41 - �2 Date: 12/03 Time: 1 11:15 1 Time On Farm: 140 WSRO
Farm Name Ward Farms County Guilford Phone
698-9622
Mailing Address 5337 Cook Stewart Road Whitsett NC 27377
Onsite
Representative Gregg Ward Integrator brown's of Carolina
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
IN Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
4100
3000
O Routine
O Response to DWO/DENR referral
Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
Q Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
Q Follow-up
O Emergency
O Other...
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3• Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWO notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? [:]yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Main farm Cook -Stewart farm Cooper farm
Level (Inches) 19 19 26
CROP TYPES Corn Soybeans Wheat obacco, FC11
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES EnB ApB
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3• Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWO notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? [:]yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Main farm Cook -Stewart farm Cooper farm
Level (Inches) 19 19 26
CROP TYPES Corn Soybeans Wheat obacco, FC11
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES EnB ApB
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3• Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWO notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? [:]yes ® no
Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier Main farm Cook -Stewart farm Cooper farm
Level (Inches) 19 19 26
CROP TYPES Corn Soybeans Wheat obacco, FC11
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES EnB ApB
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

r
n
Facility Number 41 - 2 Date:
4/2/03
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
® 9. Waste spill contained on site
5. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
2
❑
❑
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
El
[313. Waste structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
30. 2H.0200
El
El❑
15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
re -certification
016. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organizelcomputerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
® Referred to NCDA Date: 4/7/2003
43. Irrigation designfinstallatlon
❑
❑
❑ Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1 • The waste plan was amended for application
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop evaluation/recommendations
❑
❑
windows.
2. Cattle have been removed from the creek area
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
at the Cook -Stewart farm.
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
El3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
®
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5.
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6.
58. Crop/forage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

•
Facility Number 41 - Date: 4/2103 I
COMMENTS:
Waste analysis: 3-26-03 ALS (CS) 5.2 lbs. NA000 gals. I, ALS (M) 3.6 Ibs.N/1000 gals. I, ALS (JR) 2.0
Ibs.N/1000 gals.
Soil analysis dated 4-28-02
There was some waste runoff that occurred due to hydraulic overloading on the field adjacent to the
main farm lagoon. The waste was contained in a diversion ditch and will be pumped back into the lagoon.
Mr. Ward had a new mortality disposal method at the cook-stewart farm. I informed Mr. Ward that he
needed to have an approval in writing from the State Vets. office for the new method. I called the State
Vets. office on 4/07/03 to have someone from their office take a look at the disposal method.
Talked to Mr. Ward about the requirements of the NPDES permits scheduled to be issued this year.
Talked specifically about the sludge measurements and removal procedures.
Mr. Ward is interested in having underground irrigation mainline and hydrants installed on some of the
existing and new application fields if cost -share funds are available.
w
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST IROCky Durham Millie Langtey
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: /7/03
Entered By: lRocky Durham
03/10/03

ision of Water Quality
ision of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1flav20a2 •time: fl95fl
Facility Number 41 2
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .............
Farm Name: WairdXatrm ................
Owner Name: dohta........................................ WAt`d..................................
Mailing Address: 7.�.Qok.Ste.TYa..�ioad........................................
Facility Contact: G.ugg.3? ard................................................... Title: .
Onsite Representative: Gregg.l'Y.ard.......................................................
Certified Operator:.Gr ggj... ............................... Ward .........................
Location of Farm:
.. County: Guit ord............................................ W.SRQ........
PhoneNo: --9622...........................................................
....... WM5941NC........................... :.............................. 2.7.377...............
Phone No; ......_t�. Ea. �,2 1
..... Q (� ..........
........ Integrator:1,i1.d£pendulk...............��D a................ ......
...
....... Operator Certification Number:J&H..6.............................
From WSRO: Take 1-85/40 east to Mt. Hope Church Road and turn right at top of the ramp. Take 1st road to right (Mill
Stream) to stop. Left on McConnell Rd. Right on KeeSee Rd. 1 mile to farm. Gregg-2043 Keesee Rd., McLeansville, NC
® Swine ❑ Poultry []Cattle []Horse Latitude 36 • Ol f 2644 Longitude 79 • 39 ° 45 46
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pooulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
4100
3950
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 4,100
Total SSLW 553,500
Number of Lagoons 1 3 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JEI Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 0 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges R Stream ImRacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ®No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ® Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier Main Farm Cnnl- Stevvazt Con C
...... .... .............. pP........................................................................................................ I...........
Freeboard (inches): 40 21 24
05/03/01 ,1 � 3 �v � Continued

Facility Number: 41-2 • Date of Inspection 10/22/2002 1 •
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste ADolication
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
[]Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
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 Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Sudex (Hay) Soybeans
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Reouired Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments: /9
`Use -.drawings oftfactlity to better explamIituations (use,addrtional pages as necessary)) _ ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
..34�L.�aUk
.+u�3. t2RWla ��4.aS .50If1
3. Several feet of stream at Cook -Stewart farm is impacted due to cattle traffic and stream bank erosion. Suggest fencing out creek
and/or rotating cattle.
4. Need to pump as soon as possible! Cooper lagoon is at max and Cook -Stewart lagoon is only 3 inches below max.
16. Operator is using borrowed pump but does have one of his own that he could use.
19. Still need to obtain soil analysis for Sudan field for 2002.
r— —
Reviewer/Inspector Name 'Meli FAa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature�-/AA&AADate:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 41-2 D- f Inspection 10/22/2002
� i
Odor lsssuue s
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
[--]Yes ® No
1 19. May want to label waste sample with farm initials for better recordkeeping. Cook Stewart waste analysis on 9/27/02 was 3.0
NI1000 gal.
119. Records look real good!
M1
05103101

1� A m
Division of Water'Quality V
Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine Q Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Numbe0r
Date of Visit:
Permitted )0 Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered
Farm Name:
Owner Name: -,11) h n _ a
M� 3ailing Address: 3 1 CmK G+eu-� oL „P44' -
Facility Contact: r r itle:
Onsite Representative: W vK.
Certified Operator: v rQ
�f'Sme:
Not O erational 0 Belo►►• Threshold
Date Last Operated Q rA f ore,hrold:
Count►•• /y//� flQT/27 rC.Jf
Phone No:
1�4` 4 1
Phone No -
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®' " Longitude
.Design Current
Swine Canaciry Pnnnlatinn
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Ca aciry Population Cattle Ca acity Population
❑ Laver 1 ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Laver ❑ Non-Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW ss3 Qd
Number of Lagoons ID Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 S ra►• Field Area ,
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream lmnacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes [(io
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑Yes ❑ No
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? KYes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes KNO
S.t�ruc f ,$tructur�� 5tructur 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: A 1 r ^ p
Freeboard (inches): t o
05103101 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
ANO
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
El Yes
No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
`` No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
11. Is there evidence of ov application? ❑ Excessive Pending ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
o
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Manage nt Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
o
TNO
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
ElYes
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
XZ40
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Oyes
X No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
XNo
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CertifiedAnimal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
j
El Yes
No
1/f ;/%
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis &t soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
A 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
A
r
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or anyrecommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (useadditional pages as necessary): Field Corn ❑Final Notes
17
1l�. o ra DQ.l�u�jQ,a•Gtc.� ,� �•so
Q
Reviewer/Inspector Name !
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date: LQ ,
nainzinr

Facility \umber: — mate of Inspection
Odor- Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? V
27, Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes \o
28. Is there anv evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation. asphalt, ❑ Yes 'o
roads. building structure, and/or public property) V
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ; o
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters. etc.) ❑ Yes X'sio
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? [:]Yes X No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes No
Comments and/or
Ov
1 W e ete-dq e e.�ae✓
.0 As N/i000�P.
/9 7 /6 -PL-
O5103101

OJDivision of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 41 2 Date of Visit: 4/16/2002 Time: 4:38
0 Not -Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered
Farm Name: Ward.Eaffns............................................................................................
Owner Name: J.Q.t p........................... ...... Ward
..........................................
Mailing Address: 53.3.7....ROK..S.(qW4t.i..R4ad ...............................
..........................
Facility Contact: .........................
.. Title:
Dale Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
County: G.U.UfQrd............................................ WISRR........
..... Phone No: 69.&9622...............
..... Wbtn.U.NC ..........
Onsite Representative: jGrgP,g W..ar.d..................................................... :.......................... Integrator:
Certified Operator: Gr.egg.L................................. Ward.......
Location of Farm:
2.7.3..7.7...............
Phone No:
... Operator Certification Number:l8$.8Gt...............
From I-85 south on Mt. Hope Church Road. Take 1st road to right (Mill Stream) to stop. Left on McConnell Rd. Right on
KeeSee Rd. 1 mile to farm. Gregg-2043 Keesee Rd., McLeansville, NC 27301
® swine [:]Poultry []Cattle []Horse Latitude 36 • O1 1 2611 Longitude 79 • 39 4 45 «
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
4100
3300
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other -
Total Design Capacity 4,100
Total SSLW F 553,500
Number of Lagoons 3 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps JE1 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream 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. ]f discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ)
c. II'discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: ....Conk:Ste ua>a... .......main.farm.................. Co,aprx..........
Freeboard (inches): 25 36 35
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes [--]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
®No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
Structure 6
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 41-2 0 Date of Inspection 4/16/2002
5.' Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, sere erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffets that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
t2. Crop type Corn (Grain) Wheat Sudex (Hay)
F
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
B. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YF.S answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): a ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
7. Mr. Ward is continually battling groundhogs on the lagoon embankments of the Cook -Stewart and Cooper farms. He has back -filled
_
holes that were evident today.
r. Ward just received his revised waste plan with the wettable acres updated on the application fields, Remember to use the wettable
acres on the next applications.
Repairs that were made to the leaking cracks on the Cook -Stewart farm seem to be working.
Overall facility and records are in compliance.
Reviewer/Inspector Name ERocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
O5103101 Continued

Facility Number: al-2 Ac of Inspcction 1 4/16/2002
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanenthemporary cover?
aste analysis: 4-2-02 ALS # 1) 3.5 Ibs.N/1000 gals. I, ALS # 2) 2.3 Ibs.N/1000 gals. I, ALS # 3) 1.1 lbs.N/1000 gals. 1
9-11-01 ALS #1)2.5" ",ALS #2) 1.7" ",ALS #3) 1.0" "
analysis dated 7-17-01 looked good.
[:]Yes [:]No
[:]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
[:]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
J
O5103101

Y t
jtvtsron'of Water Quality.,
I�
of S .:'.W...a, ri'.aLCi Cunservaiion- ...
o Other Ageney N
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 41 02 Date of Visit: 9/11/2001 Time: 0900 Printed (on: 9/14/2001
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3Registered pry Last Operated or Abase Threshold: :.•.•..••........
Pa !11111 ■e: t'.[F.atrd.fax s Eat: WSRG _._.
Owner Name: dol>.a.
.. Ward......
Mailing Address: 533..7...Co.A.Ste.Koxt.'Road.....................................
Facility Contact: G.r=Mard....................... :........................... Title:
Onsite Representative: QFggg,Waird..............
.................................................
Certified Operator:..G rggg..................................... Ward ......................
Location of Farm:
Phone No: 33,6n69&9.6Z2......
........ .......................................................... 2.7.3.7.7...............
Phone No:.fi�7.,2,$42.........................
Integrator: latdt:l mduat....„•
...... Operator Certification Number:,18.486 .............................
From I-85 south on Mt. Hope Church Road. Take 1st road to right (Mill Stream) to stop. Left on McConnell Rd. Right on
Keesee Rd. 1 mile to farm. Gregg-2043 Keesee Rd., McLeansville, NC 27301
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 ` O1 & 2b « Longitude 79 • 391 F 45 «
Design Current
Swine CanaCltV Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
4100
3000
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 4,100
Total SSLW 553,500
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area I0 Spray Field Arc,
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ® ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges R Stream impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ...... Main_ F.aran....... ....Cook:Ste.wart...............Cowper....................................................................................................................
Freeboard'(inches): 36 25 - '30
05/03/01 �#�3 Continued

Facility Number: 41-02 • Date of Inspection 9/13/2001 6,rinted on: 9/14/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
8- Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
UYes
@&No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid Ievel
elevation markings?
Q Yes
® No
waslrEk�yiicatiaRr-... .
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
09 No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
12. Crop type Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Sudex (Hay)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
®.No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
[:]Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(jet WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comm (refer togtion�#)xpiatiany�YESansrs anor�anyr commendations or any other comments:
Usetdrawtngs of facility�tto better�ex"plamFsituatwons: (use: atltl�tional pagesasnecessary): ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes
8. Continue to monitor condition of exposed waste pipes. Look ok today. Need to fence cattle away from exposed flush water pipes at
_
Cook -Stewart farm. Continue efforts to repair leaks in houses at Cook -Stewart farm.
Reviewer/Inspector Name !Melissa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 1 r Continued

Facility Number: 41-02 gWe of Inspection F-9—/11—/-20-01-1 Is
Printed on: 9/14/2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
CJYes Jallo
❑ Yes 09 No
0 Yes 9No
❑ Yes ® No
,&I
05103101
J

9
Division of Watir ty_ ,'��
a 1
Ds�sron of Soil and Water'Conservatton _ a
x Q Other
Agency
X
r
Type of Visit V Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 1k Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other 1 ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time:
Q Not O erational Q Below Threshold
Permitted ;Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name:...�1,.,iard..... �Q,!�..�'i:�.�. County:...... V.1..1.�cd...-----•---------•........................
Owner Name: ....... �,..lolla.... Loach ............... . Phone No: 47' a a �/ !'................ :.
................................................7......
'7 C 1 - � •L � 1/' a7� �i q/
C"ailing
cility Contact: ��.`S �J...:f........... to.O.K!...i.?..i�.lI Darr.................:...�..44��1r..S:�. ..f Phone No.' ... ... .. ....~..LIl..
Address:.... ..r.................Y Qrl ........... .7,,rt�.... �. J I.+E.Ilfim.d1..e..,........:7501.................
......
j- ----- i. a
Onsite Representative:.. ?.. ....1o© r..4..................................................... Integrator:......T J.RA. ...........................
Certified Operator:....,.-� ... Operator Certification Number:
d............................................................ �g,.
Location of Farm: c C
aou See =-$S" P2 e ^/S+ Z5 •
11*� S ea Le f a fa 6 o
Swine ❑ Poultry [ICattle ❑ Horse Latitude �� ���� ongitude0� ®«
= Design Current
Design Current
Design Current ._
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
CiipacityPopulationCattle
Capacity Po ulatioi
-
❑Wean to Feeder
❑Layer
❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish
4 1C0
3n
I[] Non -Layer
I
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design- Capacity
/OQ
Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
k-S 3 (]�
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds / Solid'Traps
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagonn Area
❑ Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes
No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
❑ Yes
No
Structure I Structure�2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
�Q rrt— fit -
Identifier: ... .!a!�..F�.Ir.�......... .....A............r!�:�I.:�......:Q.Q.�. ........................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches)_ 3Cp .30
5100
Continued
on back

Facility Number: — . Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the swctures observed? (ie/ trees,'severe erosion,
❑Yes
No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
0�0
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
)(No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
�(No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ YesNo
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
XNo
11, Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Fonding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
P(No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops 4er with those designated in the Certified Animal WQSJManagement Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
YNo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? f,
❑ Yes
:No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
VNo
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) / ❑ Yes No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes jV"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 XNo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes A No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes N No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes XNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes XNo
;?'VQ•viala(iQnjs:oi-defciendieg were'h6 ed•dWing�his;visit* Y:ou wiii•reeeiye iiti further
corresporideirce.'about this visit:: • • • • • •
Comments (refer to question #):-Explain.any,YESanswers'and/or any recommendations or..any other continents:: {"
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary)d R
v
Reviewer/Inspector Name A �t roc
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur J Date: 5100

Facility Number: — ate of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes VNo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes XNo
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes X No
R4Pllca�hr,�tt�das?S�e Scope �/rn �d�
3YO
3aa
J
5/00

9avision of Water Quality
vision of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Dale of Visit: 4/5/2001 Time: 9:45 Printed on: 8/28/2001
41 2
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .................
Farm Name:W..ard..a= ............................................................................. County: G
.......................................... S . O........
OwnerName:..0m......................................... 3?Y.A rd...._............................................._........ Phone No: 69,8::9.622 ....................................................................
Mailing Address: 53.3..7.Qook..S.tewarLRoad................................................................ Wb1t5v.U.CIO..... ........ ..... ................................. I ... ... 2.7.3.7.7...............
FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:..................................................
Onsite Representative:.Gr;Q,gg,j.ai:d...........................•..,....,.. „ Integrator: ..................................................................................
Certified Operator:.GIregg..................................... W. ..;I .d.............
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number:18B.S,6 .............................
From I-85 south on Mt. Hope Church Road. Take 1st road to right (Mill Stream) to stop. Left on McConnell Rd. Right on
KeeSee Rd. 1 mile to farm.
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 • O1 & 2b Longitude 79 • 39 f 4564
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
4100
3500
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer JE1 Dairy
❑ Non -Layer 10 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 4,100
Total SSLW 553,500
Number of Lagoons 3 10 Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharnes & Stream Impacts
L Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ...... Main.Farm...... .... Co.&:Stemart............... Cosapf-r........... ................................... .....................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 30 25 32
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 41-2 Date of Inspection F 4/5/2001 Printed on: 8/28/2001 " •%
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Avnlication
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
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 Small Grain (Wheat, Barley,
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required_
Records_& Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #}: Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments: , =
Use drawwin fPfacy ty to better explain situations (u�eyadditional pages as necessaryO ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes
7. Continue efforts to get rid of groundhogs at the cooper farm and control vegetation around the cooper and cook-stewart farm.
Waste analysis: 9-22-00 ALS Main farm 1.8 lbs. N11000 gals. I
Cook -Stew. 3.2 lbs. N/1000 gals. I
Cooper 0.86 lbs. N/1000 gals. I
1-.0-01 ALS Main farm 2.1 lbs.N/1000 gals. I
Cook -Stew. 3.0 lbs. N/1000 gals. I
+
Reviewer/Inspector Name lRocky Durham
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

t actliiy Number: 41-2 D ` of Inspection 4/5/2001
Printed on: 8/28/2001
dor Isms
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
3t. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
[-]Yes []No
05103101
J

1�" 7
J
y Aston of Water Qualih°
aision of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 41 2 Date of Visit: 9/14/2000 Time: 0900 Printed on: 9/18/2000
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: 'a1C.f1. a1Cm ............................ ....................................... County: G.ujjkojr.d ............................................ �4'SR0........
OwnerName: Fat.egg.L................................. �4! rfA........................................................... Phone No: f-4 .:Qf...........................................................
Facility Contact: Gr999.L.AY.Ard............................................. Title Phone No:
...........................................................................................................................................
NfailingAddress: 2041&m.ev..l3.dr......................................................................................................................... 2.7.3U1..............
Onsite Representative: G r.i�ge.�Y1Xd............................................................... ................. Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:Gre99,L................................. Ward ................................................. Operator Certification Number:.l.&8&4.............................
Location of Farm:
rom I-85 south on Mt. Hope Church Road. Take 1st road to right (Mill Stream) to stop. Left on McConnell Rd. Right on +
,,ee5ee Rd. 1 mile to farm.
0 Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude FT0 « Longitude 79OF 39 45
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
4100
3900
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 3
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 0
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity PopulationCattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer JE1 Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 4,100
Total SSLW 553,500
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discbarces & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes M No
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway M Yes ❑ No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Stricture 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ....... Ma.in.Farm...... .....Cock;ste; uan..............Cooper......................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 42 26 16
5100 - I�' Continued on back

Facility Number: 41-2 1 Date of Inspection 9/14/2000-1 Printed on: 9/18/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the int�ty of any of the structures observed? (ie/ treei"Were erosion, ❑ Yes N No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? N Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes N No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding' ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes N No
12. Crop type Soybeans Corn (Silage & Grain) Tobacco
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes N No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes N No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes N No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes N No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ic/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20, Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
0: No yiolatiotis:or deficiencies- vere;noted duriiig,this: visit.• ;You'Will receive• nti•flirth:ei-• : • ;
correspondence about
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
N Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
4. Need to pump #2 as soon as possible. #3 needs to be pumped now. Ak
7. Continue efforts to cut vegetation on #2 and #3 lagoons.
9. Recommend horizontal pipe across marker for dam and maximum levels.
19. Freeboard readings are up to date...just revose maximum level readings.
Waste applications in .Tune did not have samples within 60 days. Some waste applications in February on wheat and Soybeans in
August were outside of application windows. Need to revise plan??
[Need to clean up small amount of spilled feed at #3 house. I W I
Reviewer/Inspector Name Melissa Rosebrock
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5100

it
Facility Number: 41-2 D,*f Inspection 41t412Q00 S Printed on: 9/18/2000
`Odor
Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
®No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
®No
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
® No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
❑ No
al Comments and/or ravings:
A,t
5100
J

'.40 or 9 A
iviision of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
(Type of Visit XCompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
.i
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number I)atc of Visit: Time: Ml= Printed on- 7/21/2000
�Pfrmitted
0 Not O erational 0 BelowThreshold
0(Certified [3 Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ...........•.
Farm Name:.......II.V.+,d.. ..... t1...acm5............................................................. County:....6U.'L] 0....1`Cl.................................--.......
Owner Name:......L�.i� I
L.!........iJL1 r ...................................................... Phone Nn: 1�..�..� Q........1..11r' ..................
Facility Contact: ..a.l.........L.c.a.......t/Li�•........Title:................................................................ Phone No:.�'Iailing Address: ....a......... e..5.ee.-...... ...............m. -....a s...V�..1.f-t-.......a 301................Onsite Representative:.. ...---.4,/�jt'? (�' ........................................ Integrator:......
Certified Operator.....dreqq ..........[...... .(`{................................. operator Certification Number:...Location of Farm: `J
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude
Design Current
awme
Wean to Feeder
Fecdcr to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Other
Longitude • LA44
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
Total Design Capacity Q
Total SSLW �Q
Number of Lagoons 1 3 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present Area ❑ tips}• Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste klanagement System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is ohscrved, 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. 11' discharLe is observed. what is the estimated 11ow in gal/rnin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system:' (If yes, nosily DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes] No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'? ❑ Spillway Yes ❑ No
Structure I SgUre 2, S ructurec '3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ....h-Un....LxrrA......10.. 4.........lr ....
�- � (d ►�
Freeboard (inches): �
5/00 Continued on back

Facility Number: Date of Inspection Printed on: 7/21/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the , Irity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan`?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11, Is there evidence of over application? jj ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type l 1 �r01i1Y1 G .ia3 L° ea . c o4—Y1 0 -r' , h —
r
13. Do the receiving crops differ with Those designated in the Certified Ani l Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment'?
Required Records & Document~
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available'?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps. etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge'?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit'?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did ReviewerAnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency'?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
0: No -vi6lhti6ris'oi - deficiencies -were n6tei1- during {his*visit' • Y:oi} :will •receive iW fuether •
;corresporideRce'about:th&: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):
❑ Yes ANO
❑ Yes YNO
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes .No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
Cl Yes rNo
o
ElYes
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
7. C.on`h1)ue eMrkS 4a e L)+- V e 41i on on 41, oQL03
o
+6 Pub � s0bn as pass !o!e_o -43 PuvA� hele�
Q We � u
ro P-eco YI mei �o rl'Ub!'�f4.i `� C� C�,Ir0�5 1Y�4�t�'�L fo t_
m Q MI5 , P
Reviewer/Inspector Name 11401,5na ICnSio hr
Reviewer/Inspector Signature -Mg %/ W A_ 1p -alj J,y AZ j j Date: If %/ l/ / 66 5700

Facility Number: — I of Inspection Printed on: 7/21/2000
Oder issues
0
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage and or lagoon fail to discharge.,Wor below --r"' z.o
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? OM 1 7
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes VNo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
24. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
one I T- a000
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
490 --DaxVx- r -I - 11 ` Ak 3
7 and s - , C (S� 4a bjx-k.
iLIW 2M '
U-f"
o No
� 6
> I boo `
4sal
rf as lags
iq. Frame.boo-rd reacl i nqS
►��se Mrs. lev.�1' �.�adi�,
t'u- (0
❑ Yes XNO
❑ Yes XNO
❑ Yes No
Om

ision of Water Quality
ision of Soil and Water Conservation J
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access !+
Facility Number
Date of Visit: 612Q/2000 'Time: 9:10 Printed on: 9/12/2000
41 2
Not operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .......................
Farm Name: 1?l'.axd.faC71t15...................... .............. ..... ......................... County: Gufford ............................................ WSR.0........
OwnerName: hha........................................ WArd........................................... ................ Phone No: 69.8:-.9.622 ....................................................................
Facility Contact: G.egg.L...War.d................................................Title: Njanagu ............................................ Phone No:(3�(}.��L:2.�.4.7.....................
A -tailing Address: 2441K"5.ee.RoAd................................. ................................ -............ NJ.v.UAas.yJ1lP..NC ................................................ 2.7.301..............
OnsiteRepresentative: Cr.i>g. Y.Ard...........................................-..................................... Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:..C.�ug.1................................. Ward.................... ..................... Operator Certification NumberO.$$$C.............................
Location of Farm:
From I-85 south on Mt. Hope Church Road. Take 1st road to right (Mill Stream) to stop. Left on McConnell Rd. Right on k--1
KeeSee Rd. 1 mile to famr.
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle [I Horse Latitude 36 tll 26 �� Longitude 79 39 4544
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
4100
3800
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I JE] Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I JE] Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 4,100
Total SSLW 553,500
Number of Lagoons 3 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spra} Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 SoIid Traps I ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes []No'
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & "Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: .......Maizi.fa=....... .... Cook.-S2ew=..............C.00per.......
Freeboard (inches): 42 40 42
5100
❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure G
............................................................................................................
Continued on back

Facility Number: 41-2 . Date of Inspection 6/20/2QQ0 Printed on: 9/12/2000 a
5. Are there any immediate threats to the i;rity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trevere erosion, El Yes ® No '
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? M Yes ❑ No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes M No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes M No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes M No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Soybeans Sudex (Hay)
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ W1JP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (icl irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
No.yiolatitiris:or deficiencies•rvere;noted'duting•this; visit.'Yqu'Will receive-n6•furt1fer•;
: carrel bridence:abbut this:visit. ::::: :::::: ; :: ::: :: : :: :::
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes M No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes M No
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
# 6. There is a concrete waste structure on the main farm that the Soil and water conservation office will be developing a closure plan
# 7. Operator has sprayed herbicide to control weeds and woody vegetation at the cook-stewart and cooper farms. Continue efforts.
# 19. Need to start keeping weekly lagoon levels per the General Permit requirements.
Other records look good.
Owner requested that future correspondence be sent to his son and OIC Greg L. Ward @ 2043 Keesee Rd, McLeansville, NC
27301
# 8. Severe Thunderstorm collapsed back wall of hog house @ main farm. This was under repair during review. No discharge
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham Millie Langley
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5100

Facility Number: 4I-2 Da n of Inspection 6/20/2000 • Printed on: 9/12/2000
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge actor below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
® No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
®No
roads, building structure, andlor public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
® No
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
® No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Additional omments avid/orDrawings:
5100

7:
Facility Number 41 2 Date of Inspection F 12/15/99
Time of Inspection 09:30 24 hr. (hh:mm)
® Permitted ® Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered JE3 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: VL(axd..ar3otts...................... County: G.uxl[Qxd............................................ WSRQ......
O,.iner Name: dohu......................................... J4' ........... Phone No: 69-9..C2....................................... .......
.........-............
Facility Contact: .............................................................................. Title:................. Phone No:
Mailing Address: 5 6..Qok.S.ten:at..�iaad ............................... .!'['.t�,itsett.k�G............................... . Z.7.3.7.7...............
....... ................... ...........................
Onsite Representati,.-e:.Crx.ilgg.aild.JQtltx.Wfu.d...........................................................Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:...GnX ggl................................. Ward ................................................. Operator Certification Number.j,$.$,6.............................
Location of Farm:
Eromt.�-.��..�Qua4h..Qxt.�t..�4.pe..�1►�!�clt..Road....�ake..l�t.tgoad.tQ..t:ig�tk..i��iA1.�>Cre�tna).to.�tQu,...1�e��.ou..has.C4rt.neAl.�tA,...Rit�kxt.Qxt...
tra�................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Latitude 36 • O1 26 Longitude 79 • 39 45
Design . Current Design:4. Current .. Design Current
Swine.: Ca acit Po ulation , Poultry _ Ca acit Po ulation Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
N Feeder to Finish
4100
3000
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
t ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
�'. ❑ Other 1 1-
�` =,Natal Design Capacity_ 4,100
- Total SSLW 553,500
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Dischar«e oripinated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed..vzts the conveyance man-made?
-- --w --b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the S(ate'? Iif yes. notify DWQ) — ---
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed. nhat is the estimated flow in 21ill111in?
d. Does discharge bypnss a la«oon system? (Ifyes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes N No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier-: 8239 6686 8245
Freeboard(inches):...............1.0..............................4... 22...... .....................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes N No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back
Printed on 12/17/99

Facility Number: 41-2 Date of Inspection 12/15/99
�- 6. Are there structures on -site which are noperly addressed and/or managed through a *management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes N No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ® Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes N No
Waste ADDlication
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
N No
12,
Crop type Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Soybeans Alfalfa Sudex (Hay)
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
N No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
N No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
N No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
N No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
19,
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
N No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
N No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
N No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
N No
23.
Did Reviewer/]nspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? [:]Yes ® No
0..N.6- iolations:or defieieneies-were noted ;dining -this; visit. ;Yau:will' r't cive itp-fu_rth:ei-- ;
: correspondence abou' f this :visit. :
Active ground hog hole in dike noted at structure 8239; recommend continued efforts to detect ground hog activity and to �*
icate as soon as detected.
Recommend pumping of structure 8245 at earliest convenience due to small margin of usable storage (free board) and approaching
wet winter season.
1W
Reviewer/Inspector Name Tom yr e
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: i ���/, Date: / a 711 f 'j
Printed on 12/17/99

Facility Number: 41-2 Di , ��f Inspection 12/15/99
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below [:]Yes ® No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e_ residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ® No
- - �,ommentsran �• - - -
Printed on 12/17/99

I Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number, I
Registered 0 Certified © Applied for Permit C] Permitted
FarmName:. .r.. ............................................ ....
Owner Name:
Date of Inspection !
Time of Inspection � 24 hr. (hh:mm)
113 Not Operational I Date Last Operated: ....................
County:..Vzf t! . Y.-_ ti��l�' ...
Phone No:..................................y,.� ..................
Facility Contact: .............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No P. �..�..... a ,, v.......
Mailing Address:.......................................................................................................................................................................... .......
.. r.. e......
Onsite Representative:.,,..Lf%tr".........�..� ...... Integrator: . ................................................................................................
Certified Operator; ....................... ............ Operator Certification Number ;.......................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ' 4 " Longitude ° 44
Design Current Design Current's Destgn < _ Current
Svvine�r k -_ Capacity 'Papulatton Poultry Capacity' Populattou Cattle�CapacttyPopuLatean
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non-Layerf ❑ Non-Dairy'N5,
x> :<
❑ Other
' TotaUMMgn Capacity
7 tl,
a.
Numberaf Lagoons / Holding Pondsa ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
ME
Feeder
o Finish
(j
o Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenancetimprovement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a, If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
mai ntenancelimprovement?
b. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25197
❑ Yes �Io
❑ Yes I�No
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes t6o 4
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
E�No
❑ Yes
4g�No
❑ Yes
EfNo
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes [�No
Continueed an back

i
Facility Number: — •
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures fLazoons.liolding Ponds. Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure 1 ' Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes [/No
❑ Yes No
Structure 6
Identifier: ..........................................................................................................................
...................................
Freeboard(ft): ................. ...........................................................................................................................................
10.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes No
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes �ji No
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
[1Yes ❑ No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
/
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes "No
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes d No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notif DWQ)
15.
Crop type . .....W.{ .-----.0 1 N ....A�1(.I.f�4>...............................................................................................................................
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes YNo
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes ONo
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes �No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes ZNo
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes )ZfNo
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes P(No
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
P'Yes ❑ No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes No
24.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
Yes ❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes Ll No
NO* AO'l:itionS:Or deficiencies:were,noted_during this:visit.: You:wiifi recei�e.nti:ftirther.::
.-r-dU.cJ i.vc-
�� r* Ld IDA% .5
r g� Ati c
r
7/25/97 FA
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature• Date: �j (j

e f'�
10 Routine O Complaint O Follow -tit) of DWO inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number � Date of lnspectior:
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
M Registered 0 Certified 0 Applied for Permit © Permitted ID Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: .r?........../�!!r7 ......... .... County:..11..fT1.. ...... I ............
OwnerName: .................................................... ......... ............................ ............ Phone No:.......................
N.
Facility Contact:........................................'-----........---......----........... Title:................................................................ Phone No�..� .p #...........
Jet
MailingAddress:............................................................................................ ................ .........................................a
Onsite Representative: ..... - t� Integrator:.. .............. CE �a
......................................
`
t o
Certified Operator; ................
Location of Farm:
...................... Operator Certification Number
0
'o
Latitude =o E=D' o46 Longitude • 6 "
�AzDestgn,=Cur'ient
a�w.Desi tj #Curretit°" �� �' Destgn Current
'S' '� }-
.psi - =b -y.,4 - - .c - .e:''
5wtneNxCapacityPopulahon~Poultry# Capac�tyPopula#�on� Cattlet CapacetyPopulation
�
p
❑Layer ❑Dairy
�s
t
pq
❑ Non Layer ❑ Non Dairy
'.-..ss�:,ax:C" ,e5.% 3' --c4 .•a-{`2,�:`rosa?t^,3e �-7" may=
10Other
GTota! Destgn Capactty,
' �Totai SSLW 3
k
❑ Subsurface Drains Pres nt ❑ oon Area ❑ S ra Field Area
Number of Lagoons 1 HoldmgPonds� Lag P Y e
�
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System '
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑Lagoon [I Spray Field ❑Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DVl'Q)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flaw in gaUmin?
d.. Does discharge bypass a Lgoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
mai n[enance/i mpro vement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25197
❑ Yes � No
❑ Yes � No
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes � No
❑ Yes edNo
❑ Yes 90sio
❑ Yes dNo
❑ Yes F�No
❑ Yes
�qNo
❑ Yes ONo
Continued on back

Facility Number• 1. 7
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures(LaQoons.Holdin£ Ponds, Flush Pits. etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structur Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: L!-
Freeboard(ft): .�...... s..... 6......... ........ i..................... ................................... ...... .............................. ......
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
Structure 5
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering wat rs of the State, notify WQ)
15. Cr .
oP type ....... f:� ``'(.. ... .� `
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does 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.violationsor deficiencies. were- noted. during this,visk-Xoa:will receive°no-ftiriher,:
: . correspondence. alpouE this:visit: : : :
,(6 - 6�, e,, d Pfau 10
0/6rfl C,-r t_,v oyz ru /V e ow- � -
�ii�3s
,tom- �W� cTo o�
tea; /Veg�P - 12) oa
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes PNo
Structure 6
...............1............. ..................
MYes iNo
❑ Yes (2r'No
Yes ❑ No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes m No
OYes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes eEfNo
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes !!� No
❑ Yes � No
XYes No
❑ Yes] No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 11 No
7/25/97
J
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Insnector Signature:

Facility Number / Date of Inspection 7/fir] iit4'
Time of Inspection Q9i 24 hr. (hh:mm)
O Registered O jCe/rtified © Applied for Permit © Permitted ❑ Not Operational /� Date Last Operated: ..........................
Farm Name: ....1W.4!�....+ �ri.f County:.....a,zs...............................................
...l....................................................................... / . �............
Owner Name: ....... ,�o+fn &.iQ�[ .......... Phone No: I ��(ol %.` .............................
M
Facility Contact: .... a l I : `!...... ... Title: �! e /........... ............... Phone No:
.....V.. ....................... .......................................................
Mailing Address:.....fZR?4....Ke[.��C......�U, 1%1cC�CQhrv,%� �,�,/ �.dal..................................
._r f
Onsite Representative:...1f,_.< <��4�........ ... ........ Integrator: ......................................................................................
Certified Operator• A�i5�. ... ,. ( r ................. Operator Certification Number: ...... .%nl-6.................
Location of Farm:
huh ��?�„ .t''!..011.,10W CkwcL k4. J7A*e P-I-rcud do ri%rA'f (M,115kcas- I t sl'ep I? ��C{�M>atll �i: �f�L[l dt A,
..i.. ..�.. ......... ......... ........... ... ...... ....... ... .............. ........... .. ......... ............. .
............................. 1.. •{:::t ........ ...... ....... .... ...... ...... :...... '...................................................
Latitude ®• O/ Y �° Longitude ©' J 5�S 64
❑ Wean to Feeder
S-Feeder to Finish
2bO
4A2b d
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
General
1. Are there any buffers that need mauitenance/iniproveuient'? ❑ Yes P�No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of die operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c, If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'?
4. Were there any adverse unpacts to die waters of the State other titan from a discharge'?
5. Does any part of die waste management system (other dean lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at'the time of design'?
7. Did die facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
❑ Yes M No
[:]Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
[XNo
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
allo

Facility Number: 411 — Date of Inspection
8. Are ithere lagoons or storage ponds on sit*h need to be properly closed'? •
❑ Yes
No
Structures (Laeoons,Holding Ponds Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'?
[] Yes
j No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure b
Identer: &r,- 3.......................................... ....................................
......................
..............
Freeboard (ft): ..... z �.�?................... ...................................Z. 0
10. Is seepage observed from any of die structures?
Cl Yes
(51TIo
i . Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'?
❑ Yes
2TNo
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement'?
[] Yes
21 No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate ninimum or maximum liquid level markers?
C1 Yes
9 No
Waste Application
14, is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
ZNo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type K..�.s!.. W.`� :�...................i'l/.Crcl......2A.............................................................................
...............................
16, Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application'?
❑ Yes
No
18. Does the receiving crop need nnprovement'?
© Yes
allo
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
M No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency'?
❑ Yes
No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'?
❑ Yes
® No
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
C1 Yes
E No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of die Animal Waste Management Plan readily available'?
❑ Yes
® No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
99 No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes
M No
q•Nb•ViotatiDds'or-&66'4�riFies•Avere'noted'during 1t�1iS•visit.-.-YOq-�ill' reCeive'npfa i-111er
.correspvuiience as�iouf this:vasit::::.:: :.:: :::::: ::::: • : :

JUL-14-1995
15:34 FROM DEM WATER QUALITY SECTION TO
WSRO F.Uelue
Site Requires Id5ediate Attention:
Facility No. Z-
DMSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SrM VISITATION RECORD
DATE: SJ� 7- 1995
Time: _ i 3_
Farm Name/Owner.s1�-—,�
Mailing Address: 'ifs1eZ11 `L s �, %AJ 5- 7 , le
County:
Integ�atar: Phone:
On Site Representative: Phone: 2za gK� 7 - es o 7
Physical Addressa oration.
Type of Operation: Swint Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: d 6Lv 7Number of'Animals on Site:
DEM Certification Number: ACE_____, DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
7 Latitude: a�,_--7-"6 „ `Longitude: " Elevation: Feet
a Circle Yes or Now/
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon hav ufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hoar storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) e'esyor No Actual Freeboard: _Z_Yt. Inches eZ—
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes or T@ Was any erosion observed? Yes or('
Is adequate land available for spray? C' or No Is the cover crop adequate? < res ar No
Crop(s) being utilized: L,. .0--
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria?QW� from Dwellings? Yes or No
100 Feet from Wells? Ycs or No 7
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes o N�O
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line? Yes mco
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with ver crop)? Yes or No
Additional Comments:
Inspector Name
cc: Facility Assessment Unit
Use Attachments if Needed.
1 `r'" �� TOTAL P.02

JUL-14-1995 15:34 FROM DEM WATER QUALITY SECTION TO
WSRD
Site Requires 'ate Avention:
Facility No.
DMSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: _ L0 7� J—, 1995
J Time;
Farm Name/Owner. GJ ,.-/
Mailing Address:
County:
Integrator: Phone:
On Site Representative: Phone:
Physical Address/Location: e //' S;�,..J- � /f
Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: /-2 6-d_ Number of Animals on Site:
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
"Latitude: Longitude: " Elevation: Feet
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) Yes No, Actual Freeboard: __ L—FL . ) Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoons)?, Yes oY64dWas any erosion observed? Yes or io
Is adequate land available fogspray? es ' No Is the cover crop adequate?�s)or No
Crop(s) being utilized: 42za-
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings? ej�T No
100 Feet from Wells? cs'-� No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or4§o_)
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Lune? Yes orl�
Is animal waste discharged into waters of thestateby man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes o of if Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? Yes or No
Additional Comments: / V "// � wP o 7t
Inspector Name
Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit
Use Attachments if Needed.
TOTAL P.02

WSRO P.02/82
JUL-14-1995
15:34 FROM DEM WATER QUALITY SECTION TO
Site Requires Immediate Attention:
Facility No.
DMSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: SO 7 ; S ; 1995
Time: Z,' 3y
Farm Name/Owner_ D�r� �GL.-12-- -1-/- -f — -
Mailing Address:
County:
Integratcr- Phone:
On Site Representative:
Physical Addressa ocation:
Type of Operation: Swint Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity:
Phone:
Number of Animals on Site:
7D�Ef�M Certification Number: ACE_ DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
\ _ Latitude: w / '1 Longitude: 1 a Elevation: � Feet
Circle Yes or No
4 Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of i Foot, + 25 year 24 hour stoma event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) e-slor No Actual Freeboard: Wit. Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes o 1OiWas any erosion observed? Yes o io'
Is adequate land available far spray? es er No Is the cover crop adequate. Yes?or No
Crop(s) being utilized:
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria meet from DwellingO< em' r No
Feet from Wells? �s or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or 141/
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line? Yes or 1
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
simUar man-made devices? Yes 014§3 if Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with coves crop)? Yes or No
Additional Comments -
inspector Name
Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit
Use Attachments if Needed.
TOTAL P.02

��
a � r �►
�� �� � S
( �r
� � ° � s�
Q � � � �� 4
< < Z. 3
0 i � l/
�� �3� �
r�
d � / � S�
�. � 3 �
S `-�

,�;L �:V frnz^.ciintt At:_anitcri
v
I'scilit� Number,.Number,.�L c
7 � � � -- ViS�TA•i•iaM RECaRn
c _ 1995
OwFaro tisrn..
County- C' UI L F'a2 D
AgsztVisit:,gSites ✓o ,�' - /t/,�) 2,F�wS Phonc: 4/0-333-S1r'�O
UJiI +_ Fhane: ` ),-
On Site Reprmcntativo: �j Phono.
I'i►ysicai hddsess: �/�'T o r C', r _ —/c�� ,:_/ o c•^� r. �Rc/�n /�c S— cis 1�
_ --
Z
M,:iing 4lwdiras: _2 O 7 C
Tyre of Operadgn ~ Swinc Poultry Cattle .�
' /D] ign Capcity % 2- O d '. lumber of ,lnimai3 on Sitecq:1 . �L ;
4. -L .tirttde: 3� o b' I ' � Lonetndc; _ILO 2 SO R
TypV of :n�-,icn: Gmuid aerial
Circle Yes or Na
Docs Lhc AidizA `f asm Lagann 1:ava miTimcnt 5mehanrd of 1 Foot f 25 ye r !_4 �Our sioM, evtmt
(approtimaIeI l Foot-7 in(: ^-zs) (Yis) or No
For fac Tides `vRh mom ram``...^.S p1mse addrasS the cdxr lag oui' ir=bortd unccr the
cullunrcilis =Cdoa.
Wns any seapagc observed izom t`y 1a ron(s)? Yes or(g W as Icm erosion of thm dam?:
Is ad •r,uLrc land lkvallahIe for lard t3npiic: icn? Ycs or Na is tits avc; crop _degoat=? Ycs cr Ito
Additional Con,mems; Z
�14 t u %, n s S •�-.f C� s- .,� ccc o �2 =� /4 �.�- C i.. dc,2 d le c iC
Fs--, tR [phone]'
`1.
r.
3
�ILT2.'1LLiC 4F.'�fy't7lt

® Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of D"'Q inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection 708
Time of Inspection / �} 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours 0
Farm Status:,P Registered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:L25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
❑ Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection includes travel and processing)
❑ NotOperational Date Last
Operated:
Oper.ka1t.e.Yd:.r^.....�._�....._................... _............... _...........................................................
.....................................
Farm Name:.....5......... _....... County: _5/.^...... . _. _...
II 55 _......._.....
Land Owner Name: Q.h._h.............. l�sl.acr_Sk .......................... _................. Phone No: .�I Y!.p.rf.. ..t� .....................
Facility Conctact..... C,
Mailing Address:.S?t..!
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:....
Location of Farm:
M
Title: ........ Q.L... 2..�. .......... Phone No: 9'/a/_...��.7..-a�i�?
Integrator: .... ...... ..... ................. _._...._................._.........-........_.
Operator Certification Number:..l.A�r JC..._..,
Latitude 3 6 • [Z�' 0" Lon-itude E 2�• �• ®•
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
Swtoe 1)estgn Current ' D sign Current t Deesign Cur nt ;
. Poultr ,.,;Ca acitw Pi Mahon Ca acit 4Po9 ulatttiu'
..,.Xatact „rPo Mahon -s Y .,Cattle, •�`
❑ Wean to Feeder I❑ Layer"`` ❑ Da'
Feeder to Finish Q `, ❑Non -Layer ' ,,' ❑Non-Dai
El Farrow to
Farrow to Feeder Total Design Capacity , �
El _Farrow to Finish
❑Other Total SS�TZLW1
Numbe'rof Lagoons /Hording Pondr� ❑ Subsurface Drams Present }"
❑ Lagoon Area Area `
General
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field [Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)'�K
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes R No
0jrYes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
jYes ❑ No
t ///
Yes ❑ No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes X No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes allo
Continued on back

Facility Number: .../''/... — _ Z_
6. Is facility not in compliance with any af6able setback criteria in effect at the time of #n?+-IL
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures, (Lagoons and/or lioldin.3 Pond,
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Structur 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
f__. . _.....------- __..2........ ........
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? '} +f
(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 Aunlication
❑ Yes E�No
❑ Yes 01"No
❑ Yes MNo
❑ Yes Wo
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes �WNo
❑ Yes ,f9'No
MYes ❑ No
OdYes ❑ No
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
E'No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type 5��..._..... 7......11 •..............
..............................................
1 V
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
PWNo
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
RNo
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
P No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
A No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Yes
❑ No
2l.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
fa No
For
-Certified Facilities Only
22.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
23.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Comments„(refer to question #) Explain any YES 'answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments A'
Use drarvmgs of facility to better explain siteiations (use additional pages as necessary}
t .
3 6 01 ' 4
G f 9° <3 �' C/,s R
-7T N 0 , oZ f 6. v to +--• I ' �'� r Cry 4�- (4W 0 t a S `, py .�
-)-- +- t, e, h rt- mod( 4-m 4, _e_ e- ►-• a .j e c� ._
Cj+ 7d- Ge_ )tjJ��.II 6� � -F y -,r
Reviewer/Inspector Name ,., ems Yam, ° " 7MMIMMW
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97