760061_INSPECTIONS_20171231

re
Reason for Visit: ARoutine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
r 1 q
Date of Visit: $ 701 Arrival Time: Departure Time: � County: 01 I1 Region:
Farm Name: T B W 'C�": e' Owner Email:
Owner Name: Tom Wpp d G h A , Phone:
Mailing Address: PO V o A_ 3 i 0 1 O h 10. / I v C pZ 73 6-6Physical Address: 36 d l NI I III It -a v) t lj D_� ,, Mc, a 7 3 s (3 q
Facility Contact: �� rn M Title: Phone: 3,3( — 343Z' ZS'{
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: ri 5 U n
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
U-5 311/ 1--7`l S f-o a-nate-17wtr11,3 S 311 eXii '4,3 0531f L
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish Layer
+ Design
Cattle C ypacity
Dairy Cow
Current
Pop.
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Design Current
Dr, P.oultr, C:a tacit Po
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
5
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
PulletsI
lBeefBroodCow
O-ther
Other
Turke s
Turke Poults
Other
Z �—
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?
[—]Yes Dj�<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes Wo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 1 of 3
21412015 Continued
c

Facility Number: • jDate of inspection: q 119 IM 1 7
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: rte' +✓ I,Uas+e'P t'f
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): r
Structure 4 Structure 5
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑No ❑NA ❑NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes ,�!rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
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 XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ 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 jrlVo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
7
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes U/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
,� /
❑ Yes M'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.) CCC
❑ 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):
Fe.6 L' u& P a.,5 �u r E'
13. Soil Type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
9Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes WTUP— PTINA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes to
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes `% No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required
19.
Records & Documents
Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes �a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes INa"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design [:]Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, chec o riale box b
eYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Waste Application r ❑Waste Analysis Analysis �ers ❑ Weather Code
Rainfall [Stocking Crop Yield �20 Minute Inspections hly and I" Rainfall Inspections ru""1'�''=e— =--"tee
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No / ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

J/h t. F P �(o_.
Facili Number: - Date of Inspection: 0 7 r L x ce I
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste applicn equipment as required by the permit. ❑ Yes X<0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No INaPVA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. 7�
❑ 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 N PMNA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ;R-�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface 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 IN No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ;2r<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes T'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ti): Lxplain any VIES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Usp4kawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
3 a VejeA-+iOof f {.54t,b(iske4 in 6XVe+r5 behind tar-je COLJ
6-rn5 ? Beer' P I ease C one I-) Ue e fro ri-5
a� (°,a ibrcA-ion 4-e8��re-d In aoL?,
al. 02.01(0� Zo 17 Soi� (� C�1-al (Z u2. w��-�"`
'��aa19
_-A
Reviewer/Inspector Name: ( Phone: A-77G,�99-774i�9�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:2/ldzoll
Vvk
Page 3 of 3 21412015

E
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: LL.= County: Region:
Farm Name: TB IA) a 4 4 I<% Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative: Omim ttia�C
Certified Operator: IL
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
a 73 sL)
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
s 52- s =- o
us r-
us. r t
/ n
Swine Capacity
Wean to Finish
- rei s
Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity
Layer
nt
Pop.
Design Current
Cattle CapaciVAN, op
DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
W P,oultr,
I Layers
Design
Ca acit
I
Current
P,o .
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
I
jBeef Brood Cow
Other
NJ Other
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharees 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?
[:]Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes D No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page I of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: - • I Date o section:
Waste Collection & Ivatment
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: 0-6 2 , Uk�Sh Pl+—
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes Nf7No ❑ 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 NJ-tQo ❑ 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 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 XYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there an�quired buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 2No ❑ 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 Pending ❑ 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): Te,SCUQi {JQ5 1yr�
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes eNo ❑ 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 C5KA ❑ 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 YNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 24 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:
2l Does record keeping need i provement? If yes, check t appropriate box belo Yes Vo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Applic ionekly Freeboard Analysis oil Analysis Waste Transfers Weather Code
Rainfall �tocking Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a'rain gauge? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No [(NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - Date o section:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste appl*n equipment as require 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 DKrNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes tZM
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes MNo
❑ 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 YNo
❑ 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 D!fNo
❑ 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 WNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
/
❑ Yes 17(I No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes Tj' No
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
/ ice/ i /! A A �
i
1
41 " 61 ZO16 uM4;e = a. 36 r ja-5 . Jv j
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
q-
i o?.9/4;.N�TnI
Phone
Date: out
21412015

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 0 Denied Access
r
Date of Visit: Arriv I Time: Departure Time: County: RjjLd61ph Region: �Q
,T IN co Te
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: Tm rvmy we lc3l Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: n I
Certified Operator: r �nt�l S KEA (I I a 0
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm: J_�
Latitude:
;o.. NC_ a7 3 Sb
Phone: 3B — ;? S 9
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
us wy 31 ov S+h +o cam- Sg. exr H
rr► rig
. Lo
oy1+o Bijs 711
Ri ht o o Ml II i
Fac11 i
&I rig
+6
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry Capacity
Pop.
Cattle
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Laver
Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -Layer
Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Dr, P,oult , r Ca aci
PE
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
I
JBcefBroodCow
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify 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?
❑ Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[]Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
0 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412014 Continued

[Facility Number: Date of Inspection:
ZD
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
ZYes
[:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
rk&)(' I1 Utd mw-f&es, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
is 12 rorrl t-o p Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
^
Identifier: �,p��}e Pit
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
JVNo
❑ 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?
OYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
E(No
`` tt
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Pending ❑ 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): 4160 oeP pCl. b2ie,
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
[:]Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
WYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes
[4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ErNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Io ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. DDRes record keeping need
P' ste Appli
1
5Ramfall StockirgM
1-y Freeboard Waste Analysis
Yield 6ji20 Minute Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Analysis aste Transfers a4eather Code
y and V Rainfall Inspections
Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No T!J 1A ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: - • Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? Id Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No DNA ❑ 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 CE]"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?
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)
❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[-]Yes tg/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes
No ❑NA ❑NE
�ejNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
�(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or, any, additional -recommendations or any otner comments. I
Usedrawines of facility to" better'exdlain situations'fuse additional naecs a"s`necesearv).'', r1
�e l�ph oy.\ gpli coon ipie to\ s ? P1e se eonttnt)e you et 'fur s
R.uvn o4p O� wd-ste; 0Csea Imev►t 214►1 He.ld5/lots eLVV dPv)ujej
PIea� to co r t�-- o in es f-Ct-b s h I i r vt
V maker lnsfia(Ied? [.G2,9 b,grssdret
7�Uf to log a(oIe
to [in 5pec+ g2� q raSS es-t-&lot islie-4
(fb L�lak, a s G, ilz"
t8 lie. L a � a
oMr J�t2o a
C�j GUI l pr12e-4 c&I ilora_f,_o * MV-v-5Preade_ I. 0 901S
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature
Date: 01-0
Page 3 of 3 21412014

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 760061 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWD760061 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Follow-up County: Randolph Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 01/28/2014 Entry Time: 10,00 AM Exit Time: 11,20 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Welch Livestock Owner Email:
I
Mailing Address: 3601 Millikan Rd Sophia NC 27350
Physical Address:
Phone:
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Question Areas:
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Other Issues
Certified Operator:
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number:
On -Site Representative(s):
Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name
Tommy Welch
Phone: [phone]
On -site representative
Tommy Welch
Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melissa
Rosebrock
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s)
Page: 1

I
Permit: AWD760061 Owner -Facility: Tommy Welch Facility Number: 760061
Inspection Date: 01/28/2014 Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Inspection Summary:
8. New concrete storage structure will need to have a permanent marker installed prior to permitting. per technical specialist, the
maximum waste level mark is to be 12 inches from the top.
34. DWR will need to check the operation again this Spring or Summer. Will look for: 1) vegetation on cattle and application fields; 2)
any runoff of sediment or waste into surface waters; and 3) marker on the new concrete waste storage structure.
No discharge from cattle trailer wash area. New concrete wash water holding basin looks great. Some waste has over -topped. Owner
says this sometimes occurs when agitator is running.
The electric pump which was initially installed, has cracked and no longer works, so owner is using a PTO driven pump.
Dry waste from dry stack barn is land -applied approximately twice a year.
Per Mr. Welch, about 200-300 beef cattle are brought in each Monday and Wednesday and shipped out on the weekend.
Technical specialist, Randy Blackwood, has completed the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAMWP) but will need to add
newly acquired fields before submittal to DWR. Mr. Welch, Mr. Blackwood, and DWR are working to obtain a Certified Animal Waste
Operator for Welch Livestock. After that, Mr. Welch will work with Mr. Blackwood to prepare permit application package.
Page: 2

Permit: AWD760061 Owner -Facility: Tommy Welch
Inspection Date: 01/28/2014 - Inspection Type: Structure Evaluation
Waste Structures
Type
Identifier
Facility Number: 760061
Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Designed Observed
Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
forage CONCRETE 05/01/13 96.00
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?
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge, ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
Lagoon / Storage Pond
Other
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
113
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
■ ❑ Cl ❑
Page: 3

V
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 760061 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWD760061 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Complaint
County: Randolph Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 05/28/2009
Entry Time: 12:30 AM
Exit Time: 01:30 PM Incident #: 200901405
Farm Name: Welch Livestock
Owner Email:
Owner: Tommy Welch
Phone:
Mailing Address: 3601 Millikan Rd
_ Sophia NC 27350 '
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant
❑ Not Compliant
Integrator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: Longitude:
Question Areas:
0 Discharges & Stream Impacts
Certified Operator:
Operator Certification Number:
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name
Tommy Welch -
Phone: [phone]
On -site representative
Tommy Welch
Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Michael M Mickey
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
1. and 3. Staff observed the washing out of cattle trailers. A trailer is backed into a designated concrete area and washed. The manure
is allowed to down the hill and into a UT to Caraway Creek. Mr. Welch staled that 200-300 cattle may be on site at one time before
they are shipped to the midwest. Referred to DWQ-APS for follow-up.
�)OQ `IV . W,9__�

0
Permit: AWD760061 Owner - Facility: Tommy Welch Facility Number: 760061
Inspection Date: 05/28/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Complaint
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?
Page: 2

"ArFgpG
Incident Report
y�oF
C3
<
Report Number: 200901405
Incident Type: Complaint
On -Site Contact:
Category: APS -Animal
First/Mid/Last Name:
Incident Started: 05/28/2009
Company Name:
County: Randolph
Phone:
City:
Pager/Mobile Phone:
/
Farm#: QWzi1'60�b
Responsible Party:
Reported By:
Owner:
First/Mid/Last Name:
Joe Milliken
Permit:
Company Name:
Facility:
Address:
3958 Milliken Rd
First Name: 'rp
fr1
Middle Name:
City/Stale/Zip:
Sophia NC 27350
Last Name: VV e,�
h Phone:
(336)3824721
Address
Pager/Mobile Phone:
/
City/State/Zip:
Phone:
Material Category: Estimated Qty: UOM Chemical Name
Reportable Qty. lbs. Reportable Qty. kgs.
DD:MM:SS
Decimal Position Method: Navigation quality GPS
Latitude: +35°48'39" 35.810800 Position Accuracy: Nearest 10th Of Second
Longitude:—79°51'47"-79.863000 Position Datum: Unknown
Location of Incident: Welch Livestock (Tommy Welch)
Address: 3601 Milliken Rd
City/State/Zip Sophia I NC 27350
k•.
Report Created 06/05/09 01:44 PM Page I

y 0
Cause/Observation:
Caller said Tommy Welch was digging holes with a bulldozer
and burying cow manure.
Action Taken:
SWP visited site 5/28/2009. APS and SWP visited site again on
6/2/09. 83 miles round-trip.
Incident Questions:
Did the Material reach the Surface Water? Yes
Surface Water Name? Caraway Creek
Did the Spill result in a Fish Kill? Unknown
If the Spill was from a storage tank indicate type.
Containment? Unknown
Cleanup Complete? Unknown
Water Supply Wells within 15001t : Unknown
Report Created 06/05/09 01:44 PM
Directions:
US Hwy 311 south to Sophia. Right onto Milliken Road. Facility is on right.
Comments:
Met with Tommy Welch at 12:30 pm on 5/28. They had recently cleaned
the manure and bedding waste out of their barns. The pile was pushed
that morning down an embankment. Tommy indicated that the manure
would be spread on pasture fields with leased/borrowed manure
spreaders approx 3 times per year. Also noticed the washing out of cattle
trailers. A trailer is backed into a designated concrete area and washed
out. The manure from the trucks is allowed to run down the hill and into
an U.T. to Caraway Creek class "C' waters. Did not look at cattle loafing
areas. Tommy said that they can have 200-300 cattle at one time before
hauling to the midwest. Two to three loads of cattle are shipped out each
week. The greatest quantity are shipped out on Saturday. Each truck load
can hold 48,000 pounds of cattle. Cattle can be any size but usually no
smaller than 480 pounds each. About 130 cattle were on site today
(6/2/09) and the number builds throughout the week.
Referred complaint to APS who, along with SWP, visited site on 6/2/09.
No run-off of animal waste was observed from the lots/paddocks. Small
amount of cattle manure leachate was observed on the down slope side
of the solid waste stockpile. Waste from the stockpile is flowing into a
"draw" that flows into the UT. Suggested that an earthen berm be
constructed on the down slope side of the stock pile to contain leachate
and solids. Solid waste is to be spread by July 4, 2009 onto
approximately 85 acres of pasture land nearby. 20 acres of different land
also received chicken litter. Mr. Welch stated, and we observed, that he
had dug a small retention hole below the truck wash area to contain
solids but it was full of solids today with evidence that solids have been
overflowing this hole for quite some time. Sludge worms were very
numerous at the discharge into the UT as well as downstream of the
discharge. Samples were obtained up and downstream of the discharge
for analysis of BOD, turbidity, fecal coliform, and nutrients. DO, pH,
specific conductance, and temperature were also recorded up and
downstream. The yy wash 2-3 trucks each month. Mr. Welch estimates that
each truck takes 20 minutes and his well flows at 13 gal/min. so about
780 gal. of liquid waste is generated per month. This does not account for
the rainfall that also falls on the concrete pad and flows down hill.
Discharge was actively flowing today. Lenth of discharge Into the UT is
900-1000 feet.
Conveyance: Ditch
Estimated Number of fish?
(Above Ground or Under Ground)
Groundwater Impacted : Unknown
Page 2

Event Type
Report Entered
Referred to Regional Office - Primary Contact
Incident Start
Report Received
Standard Agencies Notified:
Agency Name Phone
Event Date Due Date Comment
2009-05-29 08:50:54
2009-05-28 02:30:00
2009-05-28 09:25:00
2009-05-28 09:25:00
First Name M.I. Last Name Contact Date
Other Agencies Notified:
Agency Name Phone First Name M.I. Last Name Contact Date
DWQ Information
Report Taken By: Report Entered By: Regional Contact:
Steve W Tedder Michael M Mickey Melissa Rosebrock
Phone:
Date/Time: 2009-05-28 09:25:00 AM 2009-05-29 08:50:54 AM 2009-05-28 02:30:00 PM
Referred Via: email
Did DWQ request an additional written report?
If yes, What additional information is needed?
Report Created 06/05/09 01:44 PM Page 3