970032_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Date of Visit: a} rrival Time: V 1pcy Departure Time: •(O: O ounty: Region: w5 (Z0
n
Farm Name: C OtJf'tq J e- 1S o t1 S Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �,p,Wt2rorN P&Y qu r✓ Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: I J /A,
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
0- NL a 8 670
brnnamIL) 4z'1-ersor
Phone: 0,Q3Vme,fo0
Integrator:
Certification Number: (\j hN
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wet Poultry
Layer
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
DairyHeifer
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Dry PcouItry
Layers
Design
Ca acin
Current
D Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
101 Other
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 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 E4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[-]Yes ❑No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes [—]No
[—]Yes CP No
❑ Yes E& No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑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 t4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 0 NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: �fTik-C K S 6n 601-h 5;J 5 0— ' P-A
�o
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): f kllpty MO CA,"G
5. Are there any immediate threats two 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 K_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 M No ❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the pennit?
❑ Yes ® NoNA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
JW
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes EZNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes IVI 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): aiA4J
13. Soil Type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes 5< 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 .5?-NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes 5Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the 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 ® 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 54 No
❑ Waste Application QWael ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
Page 2 of 3
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑NA ❑NE
�NA ❑ NE
21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
❑ No
rV1 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 fast 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
19 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)
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 f4No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 5� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes el No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes C. 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.: I
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use `additional pages asnecessary).
Z . due— oaj oa n .eg by errtd o f a 019 a 4- TincLuae� CqW-t Zinc-
A4. o-f Aq sPv�c�d� 3ue_-1v) aolSa
ll. NQ_v-> P'0_Xmt-t- issued vvoV-Q�60 a01/ .
CafFGe 0,&r-re#Lfe fr
W l CkajL- avi G(?a p 11 a► 0 lJc I CI4 l ► b f U�l a4,A
rakr.k lA. d-at-. r oect.t&A_� d hcua- CS t7rrt 4 ilt
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatui
Page 3 of 3
Phone: c�—!6 7 6
Date:
21412015

Type of visit: 76 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: (XRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: %jLkC5 Region: (Al$PO
Farm Name: l^tPAKDU6 -k SO S Owner Email: PHRPUC-fJiiO'� 9/ &krTWt`1 LW K,NET
(-t Owner Name: NN PARDUE Phone: 33G, 9-K �7451% (N)
Mailing Address: 1691 891-MCL AQ, 901484 Me— ott& 76
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: aM6RON PAP" Title: Phone:
OnsiteRepresentative: BAWaON -4r CAIAOotJ Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
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?
643POA) 'g841
^rtAWoau 1147.i
Certification Number: P WAt, r
Certification Number: ' A
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify D W R)
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 D WR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Longitude:
❑ Yes [gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No.
❑ Yes
IZ21
❑ Yes
[!�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - isDate of Inspection: 1
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 1Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: STRCVCI
Structure 5
Structure 6
J�
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �{
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
[—]Yes
NX 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 DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
[�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [)�rNo ❑ 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): Cp¢N C.RAkj�
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.
of 3P ❑Checklists ❑ Design e hkaps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑ Yes 0 No
[—]Yes [grNo
❑ Yes "No
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes R] No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
D Wtts`e --r9a❑ Weather Code
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ZI 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 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - I I I Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the pennit? ❑ Yes N'No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes *No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [—]Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes We,
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface 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?
❑ NA ❑ NE
'WNA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
QR�NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
KNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes terNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes Io
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes �-�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes EffNo
❑ Yes to, -No
❑ Yes r$ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Comments (refer to question ft 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).
aLo i0t1, 'Vz-sT ? 2Ok5 sokt-TrIT ? ;1,016 t(05/
— I.ow NM I)RftW + (3v V_V_'otic tN PA-5`1 Re A OPucna to°+J 6tew5 _ l torw UVJCS (T LCOW?
Q6ltM rT�E ARPla60 Fwz- R61X-,JNL ? 13 Il'So tl6
ItIb.
�OtL P�F Efl �y wATq5 Atftet)C uPPL CA63/ NesDs
Fw�VE A* t�rSis FFoF, (_U ?tn, 1,)or� 5"w>,1 Its QCportl.
6-tsr& Ar IN LY51 S 41 1 ( 16
l 90 V 0cf)
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signamt
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 336 - ka • 09 3
Date:
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
Date of Visit: - tb-2I0/5 Arrival Time: / ke Departure Time: /(9! en< Countyff: //rlkc5 Region: /V
Farm Name: er ,-dUs- 4- San s Owner Email: /papoUe�dfnl@LQ-^TurN��!(./le�
Owner Name: q Q , /Phone: 3 3/ t�4 3 ` %/��//� �� 1-}v^^Q,
Mailing Address: I b IQ l � 2 A e� �.✓� �D / -I 0
Physical Address:
5a rre_
Facility Contact: C o .w6Yoa /von /b/U e/ Title:
Onsite Representative: 6L4 jCP rn G a �'CYOrL
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
bra+ ww 3 36- 9 9,11- 6 Z sy c
Phone:eu�Won 3T6-157-4645/ C
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wet Poultry
La er
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
Cattle
Da' Cow
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
Wean to Feeder
]Non -Layer
Da' Calf
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
tr.
Layers
Design
Ca aci_
Current
P,o ,
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
VZO
5
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
—TurkeyPoults
Turkeys
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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [-]No
❑ Yes 10 No
[-]Yes ED No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
21412014 Continued

Facility Number: 477 - 3 Z • jDateof Inspection: 9 ,Z 2
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
2] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1S cure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: / .S�WCA �Jr
Structure 5
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
Aeatse
5. Are there any immediate 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
E[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
❑ 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
'Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
EC No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
ELNo
❑ 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): v rn
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
1�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
RrNA
❑ 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
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
2C 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? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ��d ® Waste Analysis QSoil Analysis E[Weather Code
E] Rainfall W Stocking rg Crop Yield ❑ t 90 Mim�o..s QMonthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ey
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 JNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: 177 Z S Date of inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No Ef NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [:]Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes
EjNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes rR No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ZLNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the ReviewerAnspector 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 ft. Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional oases as-necessarv).
Sor� %CS� pug Z04
/Gt�i ` /�j
�- /S�rwt G✓e�ha//uil e�of L.f�S{+E i�lfo pN?n�5 /Gi 6a CI GrS 9ovd'.
'-4K-e 4.X1 al_ Ilw afGa )"-/ �{'j`A Tl[/ /n �/aS u•t �- .4)J101,t.. Ira, 4A 4(A
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 33d'774' /Q 6
11
Cj Date: ��— ZZ —
21412014

Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: ® County: K)—O S Region:
Farm Name: PardU 6 so h5 Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone: 1.3.J?ip 1 g3sr 7 V-5-
Mailing Address: N (� a 8 6 7O
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �AM_P r-6n Pp_)r/ L3 ei Title:
Onsite Representative
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone: 15 7C_-
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wet Poultry
]Layer
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Da' Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
D .+P,oul
Layers
Design
C_a aci_ +
Current
P,o ,
DairyHeifer
Dry Cow
airy
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
lBeef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Turkeys
Turke 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 PfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [-]No
❑ Yes gNo
[:]Yes 5rNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3
21412014 Continued

]Facility Number: 9 7 - 113 1 Date of Inspection: $ 751
-j L p
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: D r u 5 +-a- C,
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
D, 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 ❑ 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 VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes CRINo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Pending ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ i 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): n rv) '9 I to -a -t'
13. Soil Type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes VO No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No [ NA ❑ NE
acres determination? c
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[>rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP . ❑Checklists [:]Design ❑ Maps [:]Lease Agreements ❑Other.
21. Does record keeping need improvement? I [-]Yes KNo [:]NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis []Waste-i'reasfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and N Rainfall Inspections [ eta °�
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes Of No ❑ NA /Q NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No J�rNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facilitv Number: q - Date of Inspection. /
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste app [cation equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes )�No VNA
❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑Yes ❑No ❑ 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 0o ❑ 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 DNo
❑ 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 dNo
❑ 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 I
❑ 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
C�(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
DIo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ff): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recoro4iendations or any other comments.
Use drawines of facility to better explain situations (use additional oaees as necessa J`n i l -%tea-< Q nM Z%u e
Soll fe'_fs clue5tnc,
Ober 2-O I a . (,U &-4.4 qo a 4 C t _ C2.o l `� (.t Q o� o l IrIR
-
Calib -"6rl dug aol3,Cnowasie appl�edino2ol3�Ccc�a�p�e �IIN
10
h0.5 re'r-uVed
ne w � ro_veA 1 lot hoL5 been51
�)1-
J
5,55
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Phone: -7 1 1 - SoZ $
Date: g a 711 -Lo
21412014
!4
Page 3 of 3

Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 6Roufine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral Q Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 7) Arrival Time: � Departure Time: County: �5 Region: ( k-),$ (ZO
Farm Name: Pa rri ut? Ko rl \ d- `nr,�,5
Owner Name: l u ! e O_ V—A u t✓
Mailing Address:
Owner Email:
Phone: 3�5(p , '?. • 77S l H (AinQ U l
4n . K1C� a 8G,70
Physical Address: '
Facility Contact: (�l •,Qme Mrs_ U e Title: Phone: 15 7- O g S I
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wet Poultry
Layer
Design
Capacity
C•ur:rent
Pop.
Cattle
Dai Cow
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Feeder
Non -Layer
Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
D , r P,oultry
Layers
Desigu
Ca aci
Current
P,o
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
I
Pullets
I
lBeefBroodCow
Other
El Other
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[�(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does 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
b No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
[f No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: �— • Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
`/� 6D , Structure 1 Structure 2 . Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in)�
:
Observed Freeboard in
t .
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the strucPesobserved? ❑Yes JMo ❑ 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
bj'l�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[�JfQA
❑ 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
C%No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
[:]Yes
biNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
[:]Yes
[-]No
N�A
❑ 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): 4 91 .RAJ c 4- 'o
z�'I44
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
J� NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
ff No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
No
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
tN
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
yo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. oes record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes No❑./NA ❑ NE
Waste Application n "'- -"- "- - - - ---' NrWaste Analysis Soil Analysis O_V s rs- Weather Code
Rainfall §Stocking�Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections C7m
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No P�NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - J• Date of Inspection: % O t
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
❑ No
CjrNA ❑ 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
XNA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
r ��V,,o
T
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
�(No
❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes [� No
❑ 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 [5] No
TbeNo
❑ 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 oaees as necessarv).
56q !/Aj 01 O1 err
Q 1 fl ac 1,3 .
- �96
nQ
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur(
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 7) 1— S a g 9
Date: 7 02
21412011

for Visit: ( Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: i I ,2 Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: W& _Tegion: 'LO-S P6
Farm Name: Pa—j (r:U-2 wFQY (yLa Ot1.$ Owner Email: 0c(IUrp fa tuM(Id'h+Url I)hX
Owner Name: fi n ci u P t_ r-d U � Phone: 3 3 6 - 9 3 S7 •
Mailing Address: t (. Q 9 CJ�`�l2 , P—d- fQ �L 2 g16 7 0
`-v` . 1
Physical Address: ' 9 I J�� l/� D� i[ � v � N � d 86 7O
/� Pn .-� 1 —� �
Facility Contact: L� thez0 n '�( 4-O UE Title: Phtinu G- Uj
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: K) Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Finish
Design Gucrent
Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
La er
Design
Gapacity
Gurrent
Pop.
Design Gurrent
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Da' Cow
Feeder
rEFo
Non -La er
Da Calf
o Finish
WeanD
I) , �P,oultr.
Layers
Ga aci
P,o P.
DairyHeifer
Cowo
LICE
Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes I KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [-]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: q 7 - JQ7 Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �/
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ►i/I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) fie
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 DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ IYI Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? [—]Yes 77❑"" 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 AIo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes JgNo
❑ 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): SWA `Ua r- d 14
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
�/
❑ Yes N/o
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
,hX
❑ Yes ���""I XN0
NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes 777""❑""""`No
�❑yy
W NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
T`
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[. 0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
I yl No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents7�(
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
1�X I/No
TI
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
A' No
"77""
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. es record keeping need improvement? If yes, check appropriate box belo
aste Applic 'on -Freeboard/ Waste Analysis Soil
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield M Minute Inspections onthly
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes No NA, NE
Analysis �CTrattsfer,. �❑ gVeatherCode
and 1" Rainfall Inspections ������e)
❑ Yes [Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No Di�rNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412011 Continued

1
Facility Number: jDate of Inspection: i I la
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes t9fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check [:]Yes ❑ No j<NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. T
❑ 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
I p, NA ❑ NE
`"`7YYY❑NA
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
,❑./No
1 No
11
T../
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
I �I No
%
❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
* No
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
�( No
❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
r-c
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
CIo
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
W 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).
96a1ibr6n o-r spfe,acltffdue- Z613
Soil �-es is C^fIL" o- 0LA_(_
I °llglaol �- = q.3 / A5. N%Totj
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: S a I
Date: Q �—�-
21412011

0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 970032 Facility Status: Active Permit: AW1970032 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Wilkes Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 12/01/2011 Entry Time: 10:00 AM Exit Time: 12,20 PM
Farm Name: Pardue Farm & Sons
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 1699 Bethel :. :.rd Vr
Physical Address: 1699 Bethel Rd Ronda NC 28670
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
From State Road 1300, turn right from Jonesville onto State Road 2305. Farm is 2.9 miles on the right
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator:
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number:
On -Site Representative(s): Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name Cameron Pardue
Phone: [phone]-*
On -site representative Cameron Pardue
Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melissa Rosebrock
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
14. and 32. Need to add small grain cover to list of crops in WUP in case the small grain is NOT harvested' Will need to harvest
T-10511 Fields AP10 and AP14 since almost 70 pounds of PAN was applied. Maximum for cover is 30 lbs. PAN.
21. 2010 and 2011 soil tests? Completed for both years.
24. Calibration due 2013.
3. Improvements to exclude wastewater from creek look good! Thanks.
3. Suggest increasing buffer width in #2 lot. -
19. Nothing new since 5/14/2010 WUP. Individual permit is ok to renew. Call J.R.
32. Need to add small grain (for grain) and small grain for hay to WUP. See tech specialist.
11/22/2011 waste analysis= 10.3 lbs. N/ton.
Comments entered by: S. Mabe and M. Rosebrock
Page: 1

Permit: AW1970032 Owner• Facility: Andy Pardue Facility Number: 970032
Inspection Date: 12/01/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current Population
Cattle
Cattle - Beef Stocker Calf 340
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Type
Identifier
Designed Observed
Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Dry Stack
#1 LARGE CATTLE LOT
Dry Stack
#1 WEANING LOT
Dry Stack
#2 LARGE CATTLE LOT
ry Stack
#2 WEANING LOT
ry Stack
ACROSS THE ROAD
Page: 2

n
U
40
Permit: AW1970032 Owner -Facility: Andy Pardue
Inspection Date: 12101/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Discharges & Stream Impacts
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. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
Facility Number: 970032
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the 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 (Led 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?
❑
■
O
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 3

Permit: AW1970032 Owner -Facility: Andy Pardue
Facility Number: 970032
Inspection Date: 12/01/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 100/6/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
C T 1
Small Grain Cover
rop ype
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
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 property operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
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?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
❑■❑❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑■❑❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
0
Page: 4

0
Permit: AW1970032 Owner • Facility: Andy Pardue
Inspection Date: 12/01/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Records and Documents
Checklists?
Design?
Maps?
Lease Agreements?
Other?
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Facility Number: 970032
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
❑
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
❑ ■ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate
❑
❑ ■ ❑
box(es) below: -
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating noncompliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
❑ ■ ❑
Page: 5

Permit: AW1970032 Owner- Facility: Andy Pardue Facility Number: 970032
Inspection Date: 12/01/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
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? 00.00
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 reviewriinspection with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 6

Inspection U Operation Review
for Visit: U Routine
Referral
Other U Denied Access
Date of Visit:4rival Time: 00 Departure Time: a County: W 1110E5 Region:
Farm Name: Pax-d V e- Farm .ISo n.5 Owner Emaardv N-f0.'r
Owner Name: n 1QL° t�iUf'Lj
(1 r
P�t�t?UPhone:
�} y1 d a
Mailing Address: 1409 AP -A e l P—T rO Gl 1 N L 291,70
Physical Address: 5 A M e
Facility Contact: tamw6n Title: Phone: C� 9-3
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: I Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Certification Number:
Latitude: Longitude:
u5 " a1
}.Q' eXt+
P f.
a+ tap
rca.r". L onto wj n�n14n
ni
o
e 1
2d po_lr
e
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Gunrent
Swine
Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
C-apacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dai Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Curceor
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
PAcity
P,o ,
Non-Dai
Farrow to Finish
Layers
eef Stocker 300-
a f C
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder oo+
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
�/
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
1 y No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
�`
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE k
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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
T�
Page I of
21412011 Continued

Facili Number: Date of Inspection:ja/ZjZ�61/1
Waste Collection & Treatment
No
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: r lj .Ss
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
o
❑ 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
XNo
❑ 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
en
I X No
7❑"
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
NA
Od
❑ 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
/
! V�[Vo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
7YY""ttt
Waste Auplication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land 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 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window o --,❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): A&A-U 4At, ftLA_eAJ JZ% KAL44_ ) '___( mil 10.y e-i q r_a3Yx
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?
9Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
j{NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
77'�
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
'ba4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
Vo
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
M
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists t ❑ Maps [:]Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. oes record keeping need improvement? II�aggreprta [—]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
�Rz
aste Applicat(on eebvf120
Waste Analysis oil Analysis 9imrsfcrr ❑ Weather Code
infall ��.._Q, S/locking Crop Yield ,L-Minute Inspections Monthly and V Rainfall Inspectionsy-
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes E] No P(NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

7
7
[Facility Number: Date of Inspection:
p ation equipment '02 020)
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste aas required by the permit? ❑ Yes No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes z❑� No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a PDA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? [—]Yes ❑ No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface 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?
❑ NA ❑ NE
jgNA ❑ NE
KNA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes I y No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes E;&
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Il:omments (refer to. question #):. Explain any YES answers and/or. any additional recommendations or any -other V „ "I
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
1-pp1I cQAion. 'In Fa 11 ezo ►o ?
al, Lb10w aoII Sal l tesis C01�er 143o`k� 2c>u S
ball br-a4ion dug 2-013 o
C�1reeX-
I Co LL ocd 171nc_f� lzs
ate.
�9 N ALL�->t 511gJ9010 tOv P,
F a N e 64t. W 95Zffl,kD -t7a) 1A-) u P LA -
10SI1- A P 100. d R P 1¢ p aQ1aO5-t- -Jo I &s _PAN Ix}C
� ast �. M 14.X 6 cr %1 0 1 s 30
11 l4rlct)la51s = IL• 3 Iles. N/-roN . —
Reviewer/Inspector Name: 1A D roclr, Phone: 1 7 I — _C;-
Reviewer/InspectorrS��-ignature: �41[� AG Q�,j Date: loi-/10
Page 3 of 3 3a 0 J' rrii 7� 21412011 i �o
-`l C1f nA?9 SIN /i I 4tJ� l—O �/ �1 ' W YICO

XDivision of Water Quality '• " .
Facility Number ' O Division of Sod and Water Cooservahon
Type of VisitCoompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance X
Reason for Visit Seq Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: %0 I V
Arrival Time: .k,jB4M
Departure Time County:
10.2s Region: WS 0
1
Farm Name: 'Pa rd
• f 6ytA A.vl d
sems
Owner Email:
Owner Name: A
tip{ 'Pq
f d N.G Phone:
Mailing Address: / 6
�jV /
Ad R d
/ / /,t
q�
, K CA JA
iJ 2A f'o 0
�[S�e
Physical Address: S/�'I(6
Facility Contact: IfAme/Gt1 grJt a
Title:
, /
Phone No CQ C?5 7— Q7S7
Onsite Representative:
6MGf6A & rJme
Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: �� Back-up Certification
ertification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: r3 I ° I / 2I ' � 7ta I k Longitude: $D ° 1�17 0
(J-rt+ exifp 2-72-7
5 rs 1- t4
,yam
-
'w_ / I
�T �T Intl,► OV^ dA
oA4 d3e4kel
1)estnCurrent
"
�g
Dtgrent
Svime _ Ca actty 'Pd Mahon
P P
Wet Poultry Ca act Population 'Cattle
P h P.
Ca act PO Mahon
n P�
y
a
'
❑ Wean to Finish
• ❑ Layer
cr ❑ Dairy Cow
.A
-:
❑ Wean to Feeder
I
] ❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish"""`'`
�,"' t� ❑Dai Heifer
».. ..
-: ❑ Farrow to Wean
w
Dry Poultry '"� �'^ '-"_~° ❑ D Cow
,�`,• El Farrow to Feeder
El Farrow to Finish
El Gilts
�"` - Non -Dairy
h
"a ❑ La ers t" eef Stocker 2 Q
= ❑Non -Layers ❑ Beef Feeder
❑Boars
El pallets ❑Beef Brood Co
❑ Turkeys
Other =
❑ Turkey Pouets a _
❑ Other ❑Other Number ofa�tutes: J�
m
.. .. .. ..
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes xo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
0
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[-]No
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 311 — 3 2 • Date of Inspection ! D 3 O •
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: Dry 54"ks
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): lj r4b eW . Ftl / 2-ol o,
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of de structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
El NA El NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes WNo ❑ 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 DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [--]No XNA ❑ 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 XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes )XNo ElNA ElNE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA [:1 NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or ] O 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) 6iA, Z"fh
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes No [I NA [I NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
El Yes
No El NA [I 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 El NA El NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
ElYes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
efer to question #):
IReviewer/InspectorName I�q{yiok M;'� hell/ 1Phone:V3L)77/- -5 I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �� Date: l C// V W I D
Page 2 of 3 1

Facility Number: — Z of Inspection /0 3 d •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes )KNA ❑ 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 j,.�,/
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes YSI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application II"'- Waste Analysis Soil Analvc:c ' rmrsfetriorr
Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield onthly and V Rain Inspections E 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 0 No )<NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑[1 NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes �{y�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes Ml No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal? ��\J
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 XNo ❑ 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 ElNA ElNE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes '' \\No ❑ NA ❑ NE
21 ZO Gcl g'0014— ? A+ 14,Li woJ4l -� mjkk- ,
2 �. �'1,'b�ti l row �t �/� 2d 11, l i/
z9 Pe�d dP. 4, 10� 'Al b Q, O'l
�2co/dJ �rx�
A)oAl 2-010.
py/�s�o S•s�dN/+
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit 17 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine
, Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: :Sly Departure Time: Oa County: kNN Region: �J
Farm Name: Q up f �F3 "A`Y On !Y Owner Email: q
Owner Name: NY1(' /�MP0�4'-dU� Phone: Vq_S�
It Mailing Address: t ,, `I Q $P, �� 1 Yld a I LJ L 2 FS 6% b
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
T
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
MA .% Phone No: 9S7
LA Integrator:
t 3 r-ar�doin
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ®o ®, ®" Longitude: ®o
vs qa i
Design
Current Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity
Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
10 Layer I
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
10 Non -Layer I
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
El Farrow
Layers
Beef Stocker
El Gilts
ElNon-Layers
Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Other
❑ TurkeyPoults
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ,1< No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: —3 • Date of Inspection ® •
Waste Collection & Treatment t 1
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
/gXucture 1 Structure 2 tructure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: -
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
❑ Yes PI ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental
threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
JNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the smctures 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 O(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
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 ONo ❑ 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 ElEvidenceof Wind Drift [I Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) V V J
13. Soil type(s) c,tz//
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
91
❑ 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
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
El Yes
Zo
o
❑ 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.
Reviewer/Inspector Name I y, z Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 Continued

Facility No of Inspection •
Required Records & Documents _a
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 �PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. U�11
ecord keeping need improvement? If yes, checkk e appropriate boo elow. ❑ Yes N(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
�ste App�lica/t)'on d LYWaste Analysis Kl Soil Alpalysis L�1 Waste Transfers om
0 kamfall Ly Stocking Crop Yield n �n * � - L1d'Monthly and I" Rain Inspections eather 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?
� I I t u �. 0� _•
7/3 l/ao
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes O No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
IX NA El NE
El NA El NE
VNA El NE
❑NA El NE
❑NA El NE
❑ Yes Jy No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
K,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ix No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
rrfAt-AM

Facility Number l 4] � i '} 01A 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation I PM
0 Other Agency I -
Type of Visit lb Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: �F--+--' Departure Time: � ao ounty: !.0 I I KS Region: >,r s2a
Farm Name: pa,rd v,c, (��ryl ctsof`AFFFF����++++s Owner Email:
Owner Name: f-f Y/Il U Par d tj e - {�� 0 Phone: 3 S —
Mailing Address: _I tOQq CJ2TrtQ� I�Q • 120ndQ , A) C _ a $ _211
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: M/)q
Back-up Operator:
95-7-oqS /
Operator Certification Number: rJ A
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ®70 ®, W "Longitude: ®o [a, ®1
us }{wyy 01 N. & 2X4 X) ���qqhf otf top of ramp, Luton& 01'n
m°n I ( to ab). %f. onfd �e`f e/ PA. Farm Off'%Ce On le7F-/ _
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feedei
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
J❑ Non -Laver T
Dry, Poultry
Pullets
Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures: FiEl
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes V No ❑ NA ❑ NE
,�ees ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — • Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
/Aucture I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes [�No ❑ 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? El El
I�(I No [I NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ElYes `❑ 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 11ZI yes El No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? /7t
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes tNo ❑ 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.) 111111
❑ PAN [--IPAN > 10% or ] O Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drill ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) ALP 4t2 A�
13. Soil type(s) �t•s
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes 19No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes Ao El NA El NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acr�dete ination?❑ yes /❑ No [XNA [I NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?deck Q�3\\pd' ❑ yes No [I NA El 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 n ecommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional es as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Phone: `7 a D
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
` �� 7d Continue
s

Facility Number: , — 44ate of Inspection La '-'ram •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have 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 El Yes p/� No ❑ NA El NE
the appropirate box. ElWUP ❑ Checklists El Design El Maps El Other �"
21. Does record keeping need improvement? IF yes, dreek-k-lheegp ❑ Yes I Io ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application rl "' " LWWaste Analysis Soil Analysis Waste Transfers Qrirwl (' '� n
Rainfall )6tocking Crop Yield „____ ,-_-_ _-_ 2 eatNy and
P' ---_
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes DSI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes //❑ No j9NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes o ////❑I NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ul No NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ...���❑///,,, No A ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? El�I Yes No El NA [I NE
Other Issues El/
',1,`
�
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? Yes I��(L No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes lEl 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 I,$dVo ❑ 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 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
A "tional Comments and/or Drawings:
aq 'Uihra( 6njue g/«/aojo, `
EA9, a f /Vo° 1l�IS�o7 l� P
tA�
PA ADW4tA.�,
no
12128104

F'
�•sion of Water Quality •
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 970032 Facility Status: Active Permit: AW1970032 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Wilkes Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 11/15/2007 Entry Time:01755 PM Exit Time: 03:00 PM
Farm Name: Pardue Farm & Sons
Owner: Andy Pardue
Incident #:
Owner Email:
�y�kI:'ikl•�L���
Mailing Address: 1699 Bethel Rd - R-Grdaj9ej2Wj78--
:. '. •F1�Ce33Z�lr�
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
From State Road 1300, turn right from Jonesville onto State Road 2305. Farm is 2.9 miles on the right.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator:
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
24 hour contact name Cameron Pardue
On -site representative Cameron Pardue
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
21. Waste analysis dated 4/2/07 = 6.0 lbs. Nfton
24. Due again 8/18/10
Operator Certification Number:
Title Phone
Phone: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Phone:
Date: %
Page: 1

�J
Permit: AW1970032 Owner -Facility: Andy Pardue
Facility Number: 970032
Inspection Date: 11115/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current Population
Cattle
O Cattle - Beef Stocker Calf 420 292
Total Design Capacity: 420
Total SSLW: 231,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
ry Stack
#1 LARGE CATTLE LOT
ry Stack
#1 WEANING LOT
ry Stack
#2 LARGE CATTLE LOT
ry Stack
#2 WEANING LOT
ry Stack -
ACROSS THE -ROAD -
-
-
-
- -
Page:2

Facility Number: 970032
Permit: AN970032 Owner -Facility: Andy Pardue
Inspection Date: 11/15/2007 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?
❑
000
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 (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?
❑
■
❑
❑
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: AW1970032 Owner -Facility: Andy Pardue Facility Number: 970032
Inspection Date: 11/15/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
PAN? ❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 Ibs ? ❑
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 (Grain)
Crop Type 2 Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 3
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 fi
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?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
Cl
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AVN970032 Owner- Facility: Andy Pardue Facility
Number:
970032
Inspection Date: 11/15/2007 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?
Cl
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?
❑
■
❑
❑
Otherlssues
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

Permit: AW1970032 Owner -Facility: Andy Pardue
Facility Number: 970032
Inspection Date: 11/15/2007 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

Division of Water Quality' t�
Facility Number a Division of Soil and Water Conservation P
O Other Agency
Type of Visit 9� Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit (Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Ran' <
Arrival Time: i / - 1 _Departure Time: ` � County: 1 (C Region: mko
t Farm Name: Lie ��h��i�` onS Owner Email: zrb' ' /
Owner Name: h a if Ue Phone: $3 5 — 7 �%— i
Mailing Address: Ipq °l I:IC I te-I 12 Ronda I rjC- a 16 & 7 6
Physical Address: I �g 91 &At I (�_d ..1 (zohd[1, N)c a-� �, b p t'-
Facility Contact: ro � jO eTiitlee�: �t . �,y�� Phone No: ` -7
Onsite Representative: A � I �""""'" �/ts'9'fRegrator:
Certified Operator: 1 v Operator Certification Number:�h
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ®o TO I M.. Longitude: Eao r-v n , aip-
(is HLIJY 4011 rj. to eXl ;;L- . ai- +zb P MrLLP. L-e_+ ort+a
Cl�n9movl ('A. ( to 21A). PU. orn+o -be+hf-► Rd. rarm o�fice- on
Swine
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Laver
0 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?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: E311
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
0
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
f(tAJ^No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 1— o • Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes jNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ `No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
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
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
El NA ❑ NE
through
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 environmenta��ll, threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
USl No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
,I❑``No �k<A ❑ 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 El Yes
�,[
Io ❑ 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
ElExcessive Pending ElHydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ElHeavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window [:]Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ 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
deternination?❑ Yes
No
NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
El Yes
*o
❑ 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):
ewer/Inspector Name Phone: —
LRevv
ewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
` '1 12,28104 . Continued

Facility Number: — IIate of Inspection , •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
21. ,D,,,,,____o,,,,ee/ssJJJJ'ecord keeping need improvement?
M Waste Appl�tion Waste Analysis oil Analysis
❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Ly No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes EVNo [I NA El NE
ainfall Stocking 9Crop Yield ❑frxtiH4yaad 1_Raia
cusp r'
.la
�Y
^ a
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
El Yes
ts��rrrssss
9,��rtttt No
❑ NA
El NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
El Yes
//❑ No
tkA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? $ I1510S
❑ Yes
�No
[I NA
[I 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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Otherissues
j
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
,L4•'/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
,._,(
�Cl No
[INA
El 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
[I NA
El 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
ElNE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

•
Division of Water Quality
n Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 970032 Facility Status: Active Permit: AN970032 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit Routine County: Wilkes Region: Winston-Salem
Date of Visit: 09/20/2006 Entry Time: 12:40 PM Exit Time: 03,00 PM Incident #:
Farts Name: Pardue Farm & Sons Owner Email:
Owner.
Mailing Address: 1699 Bethel Rd Ronda NC 28670
Physical Address: 1699 Bethel Rd Ronda NC 28670
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Phone: [phone]
Location of Farts: Latitude: Longitude:
From State Road 1300, turn right from Jonesville onto State Road 2305. Fans is 2.9 miles on the right.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator. Operator Certification Number.
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Cameron Pardue Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Cameron Pardue Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Melissa Rosebrock Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
4. Capacity of dry stacks is great. Very little waste in them.
9. Suggest re -seeding "no-man's-land" (where leachate exits) next spring to control soil erosion.
9. Suggest keeping an eye on the low spots along the fence lines on the lower side of the lots. Potential for run-off in the future if not
maintained.
28. Five fields have lower PAN (-140) for com grain as compared to com silage (-280). Suggest having both options for all fields, with
Cameron aware that he must harvest any fields with PAN applied at >140 for silage.
28. Cameron stated that he may want to add small grain (graze) and millet (hay,graze) to WUP.
Page: 1

Permit: AW1970032 Owner- Facility: Andy Pardue
Inspection Date: 0920/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Regulated Operations
Facility Number: 970032
Reason for Visit: Routine
Design Capacity Current Population
Catfle
O Cattle - Beef Stocker Calf 420 265
Total Design Capacity: .420
Total SSLW: 231,000
Page:2

Permit: AW1970032 Owner -Facility: Andy Pardue Facility Number: 970032
Inspection Date: 09/20/2006 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
Cl
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
MOD
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 (Ise./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property 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 altematives 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: AW1970032 Owner -Facility: Andy Pardue
Facility Number: 970032
Inspection Date: 09120/2006 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
Small Grain Cover
Crop Type 2
Small Grain (Wheat,
Barley, Oats)
Crop Type 3
Com (Silage)
--- Crop Type 4 — --- -
- Corn (Grain)
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 property 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?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

0
Permit: AWI970032 Owner- Facility: Andy Pardue Facility Number: 970032
Inspection Date: 09/20/2006 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?
❑
■
❑ ❑
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?
❑
E
❑ ❑
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?
❑
❑
■ Cl
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance 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

0
Permit: AW1970032 Owner -Facility: Andy Pardue
Inspection Date: 09/202006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Other Issues
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did ReviewerAnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 970032
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes
No
NA
NE
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
Page: 6

.IC°M
Division of Water Quality
Division of Sob and Water Conservation 1 PM!
Other Agency 1
Type of Visit _Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access p
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: 1 County: W i 1 YN S Region: LOS1�+-'
�T 1. t
Farm Name: pandd r 3 P _ FQ r m Song Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Phone: 13S_ ,7 `.Ty
Mailing Address: A—K—� V
Physical Address: (1�,n f) Nth i'irl A r)
�-, t
Facility Contact: �`Yf YG� oii P&4-3 Ue— Title:tttt,,,, Phone G 95 -7
Onsite Representative: caMej=� n�_Mnn Integrator: 'v 1 A
Certified Operator: N Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number: N J&
Location of Farm: Latitude: ®OUA,RE" Longitude: ®°RW� �
us gwY HMI N. -tV Cam+ 97 a. a+ +t po r". Go +a 4 - I.)"
S+m p a Our n l e +• -U tm ri R-0 owb Pirst 5ia+e- rcl . le r �3 h+. Fiu^ m _
Design - Current Design Current
to :. Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
Other ,
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
• LJ occi rcGUG�
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures©t Y
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
0
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
d No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[]Yes
P(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: —3 Z •Date of Inspection a 0 O •
Waste Collection & Treatment
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:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ yes o ❑ 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? 7�
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental thr notify DWQ
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs El Total Phosphorus El Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑Yes No El NA El
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
�,//
L](No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
777111
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 El Frozen Ground ❑Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
e
12. Crop type(s)
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
O ❑ NA
❑ NE
l2d NO NA
❑ NE
,y❑l
❑ NoJK NA
❑ NE
1No ❑ NA
❑ NE
XNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comtneuts r;
Use drawings offacility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):.
Reviewer/inspector Name r Kso f Ot I P one:
17I ' S 8q
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur Date:
glaololy
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — 3 2 Date of Inspection •
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
❑ Yes
Ip!!!! No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, eheek
❑ Yes
Yd No
[INA
❑ NE
aste Application ^ "",,((-''---c-.eeee�e- 11q Waste Analysis Soil Analysis
/
Waste Transfers
/ `
8 ^
Rainfall [<tocking Crop Yield
dCdLtRTCSAEr
tons E]
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b(NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? 'B
� � 11g %y!y'Yes
;ANo
❑ 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
El NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
%NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
El NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
El Yes
���I�(((,No
lll��,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
777
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ 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
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
>rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
,1
Page 3 of /1 1r^^ �' � �/K�'� j —� ( jmQ
(�z o �rosion o / 1 i