040005_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Type of Visit: S Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visits ; / Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region:
e /*2
Farm Name: .i�Vi [ 7� Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone:
Title: Phone:
Integrator: �j�, <x
Certification Number:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Swine
-i!
Design Current
cl, IP.
W.yy►►e,�.t�� Poultry
9IYI 4 �•I
Design
Capacity
I
Current.
Pop.
Design Carreat
Cattle ; Capacity Pop.
-IA
Wean to Finish
Layer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
InE
r:..:
D , Poult , `.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
j'�
Design
Ca aci
Current
Po .
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
W., ' ON I A ' 1 'I'
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes A 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 DWR) ❑ 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 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 ❑ No Og NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: jDate 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 F1 No NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3
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 i�i No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan? `P
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 j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? T
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need [] Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes rp No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window . ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[�bNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
I S.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
0 Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No
[71 NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
IT
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
1] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18_
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[`"j No
L "
❑ 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? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes I? No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes E)No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes '4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

If I
I+acility"Number: IDate of Inspection: /9// r?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?. ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check [] Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA . ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #) ,,Explain any, iYE5.,answers and/orany additional rercominendations-ur any�other comments.,j+i ,F
.. 1
lUse drawings of facthty to better explain situations (nse�addltional;pa es as necessary)..
Reviewer/inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: -3
Date:
2/4/20 5

i ype of v rsir-. %p %:ompuance inspection v vperatIun meview lJ structure r,vaivauon v i ecnnseal Assistance
Reason for Visit: Q Routine O Complaint ® Follow-up O Referral Q Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: O ;00 Departure Time: 'D County: SD
Farm Name: A &Q �qwm Owner Email:
Owner Name: A4 D6& MAP Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: We �Gi'P Title:
Onsite Representative: _
Certified Operator: V
Back-up Operator:
Phone:
Region:
Integrator:
Certification Number: 16610
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Swine
Design Current;
Capacity Pop. ':
Wet Poultry
La er
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
tv
er
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Feeder to Finish
Dr P.oult .
ILayers
Design
Ca aei
Current
Pao
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Boars
I
jPullets
er
Other
#urkeys
Poults
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 V1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[—]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
NA ❑ NE
�NA ❑ NE
NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

[facility Nbmber: 4 - r 71 Date of Ins ection: 1
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
V No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Pg NA
❑ NE
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: �^
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): ,31 If
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
[�fNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public bealth or environmental threat,
notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
T®'
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
T
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,3&4ndow ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved
Area
12. Crop Type(s): reSGc..4k4o-�1
Soil Type(s): 3'Wd t1saQ�& I aJ q
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
Ep No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
T
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 1P No
[:]Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes o] No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: Date of Ins ection: Z
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [:]Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
T No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[]Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
$] No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
l omments reter to_ uesnon L+ is n . YLS answers;and/or,an additional recommendations or any other�commentss'4- t
Ilse drawtngs of:fac�lrty'ato,ltetter ezpfauttsrtuahons.(nse�addrhonal�pWs'as necessary)
Spy
r e c c ,-
d-es
W"'( ��­e f 201(o
Puon
q wti `�
reczE- s 43­00_�
c► v_C't_� On,
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
TIM,
Z
Phone:
Date:
2141201 S

Type of Visit: ® Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: ® Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 9,Q Departure Time: , vo County: Region:
Farm Name: 4, r i i�%�GI 4q-e �I�t
Owner Name: //ul.Q Rye
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
W
Certified Operator: it
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Latitude:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number: 1 �/
Certification Number:
Longitude:
y Design LCarrent
Swore Ca ci Po
P hr P•
— .s- Design .Currrent Design Gurreat
Wet Poul Ca acr Po Cattle Ca aei Po
trY P ty p• ., P tY P-
Wean to Finish
La er
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Nan -La er Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Design Dry Cow
D , 1'oultr Ca aci Pa Non -Dairy
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other a
Turkeys
Poults
Other
-,Turkey
Other
DischarEes 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 E�3 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
T❑
❑ 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?
Page 1 of 3 2/412011 Continued

1FAcility Number: jDate of Ins ection:
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
Struc e l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): it
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes P 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 fi@ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures
require ❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
Pg NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
EANE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground
❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure
to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift
❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
P NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
$ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[ NE
acres determination?
TT
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
T
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? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA
NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
[] Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
[::]Yes
[::]No
❑ NA
NE
Page 2 of 3
21412011 Continued

Fltcili number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail 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
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA
NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA P NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA e NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
[:]Yes [-]No
❑ NA
NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes [-]No
❑ NA
NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or aay other comments:,:
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional, pages as necessary).
—
01I0W—V TD rev e'.j-�-
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: %-Y35-33100
Date: 7
21412011

i ype or visit: W uumpuance inspection v operation meview V buructure r,vamation V i ecnnicai Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ,Oo Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: VAXw, Owner Email:
Owner Name: !� YyaRt-p— Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative: u
Certified Operator: u
Back-up Operator:
Title:
Region: fi2o
Phone:
Integrator: �L•-���j?��-►Js-�
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Design
Cattle Capacity
Current
Pap.
Wean to Finish
I
ILayer
I
I
Dairy Cow
A.
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
Design
D , P,oultr Ca aci
Dairy Heifer
Current Dry_ Cow
1?0 Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
I 113eef Brood Cow
..
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Gilts
Non -Layers
Boars
Pullets
Other
Other
Turke s
Tu -key 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)?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
® NA
1y
❑ NE
[—]Yes
[:]No
NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
MNA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3
21412014 Continued

F;WRi Number: - Date of Inspection: /
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [n No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes [:]No [�PNA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: �—
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 32�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [?q 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 Up 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 f�b 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 J� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
maintenance or improvement? T
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[j NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
�i%}i NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
1�r NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[4 NE
Reauired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WJP [:]Checklists❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
M NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
[:]Yes
[—]No
❑ NA
f�j NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

- FadfNumber:
/
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA [ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA [0 NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA TNE
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 the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
[—]No
❑ NA
rrn 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?
MA Yes
[—]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question Eaplaiwany YES answers and/or any additionalMrecommendations or any other cominentsE- � � �
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as.necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: i3 33w
Date: 147
.k
2/4/2014

Type of Visit: 0 Co m fiance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: ine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 0 ! Departure Time: p`3oq, I County: DO Region: !LJ7
Farm Name: A. 04c MrQq-e- Ptvm Owner Email:
Owner Name: Vq�_ w V% A Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: j
Facility Contact: _ Title: Phone:
0
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Integrator: W �.
to
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
DesignCur rent
Design..
Eurrent
Design
Current
Swine
Capacity,MPop
�'et Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity
Pop.
Wean to Finish
rM
La er
Da' Cow
Wean to Feeder
0 Q
Non -La er
Da Calf
Feeder to Finish
D ' Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D , P,oul
Ca aci
P,o ,, _
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Puliets
Turkeys
Beef Brood Cow
- 3 "
Other
Turkey Poults
Outer
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 $DNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
EP NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
EP NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: jDate of Inspection: p 'li
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? [:]Yes [:]No [�NA
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): _
�l
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ 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
]E� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
E� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
®-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
_Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
TT
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes T 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): Gum toots") —
13. Soil Type(s):
0
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWM.P?
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?
IT Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
E4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
®No
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes Uri No
❑ Yes [B No
❑ Yes M No
[:]Yes EP No
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes EqNo
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ 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? ❑ Yes fpNo
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes V No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
[] NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: jDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
�NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes IF
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
D Yes 1�3 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 151 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes FM3No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes `D No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes fjp4o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments '(refer _to;:question.#):.Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or. any otberfcomments'�
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pales as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: '7/0, q33
Date: 4 p 17-
1 412011

II ype 01 v isit: W I.ompuance inspecuon v vperattun meview v structure tvatuanon V i ecnntcai Assistance
Reason for Visit:y Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: p: Departure Time: D' County:
Farm Name:Metou t [•Pi— Owner Email:
Owner Name: tL [" cp"p Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: D4 4-0— Title:
Onsite Representative: U
to
Certified Operator:
Region: P 24D
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Design Current Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
1
INon-Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Design Current
D , P,oult . Ca aci P.o
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
I Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Pullets
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Boars
Other mill
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No Ej�NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
® NA
T
❑ 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
'0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

r _
Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: 3JU If V
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in).
Observed Freeboard (in):
26 "_
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No ® NA ❑ NE
Structure" 6
❑ Yes
P No
[DNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
J�j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes [a No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ trom those designated in the CAWMP?
U Yes
1P No
U NA
U Nt;
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
E�j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reouired Records'& Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
[:]Yes [R 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.
T
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Faciti Number: Date of Inspection: 2re17
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA M NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ® NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA � NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [!&NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA C+ NE
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
QPNE
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
[B 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
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
MYes
❑ No
❑ NA
jFWj
IUse drawings of faciluestion # : Explain an YES answers and/or an additional recommendstv_:to better exulain situations4use`additional>uaees as necessary) t�°ns or, � I� I
Comments refer -to any othercomments.
a
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 1p 3 3 3300
Date:
21412011

Type of Visit: a Compliance Inspection V operation Review V Structure Evaluation V "Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1 (.127111 1 Arrival Time: Departure Time: ��f�� County: �%SO� Region:
Farm Name: -A I "_P__ Faf -lta Owner Email:
Owner Name: Rah 101apae- _ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
N
k
Latitude:
Integrator: Mgt j2L—,0,,il ,x
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Swine
Design Current
Capacity Pop.A et Poultry
Design
Capacity
Current.
Pop.
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
OLC
Wean to Finish
La er
7oqD D1 jNon-LaXer
D . P,oult .
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turke s
Turkey Puults
Other
I
I
Design
Ca aci
Current
P,o
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non-Dai
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[] Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
MNA ❑ NE
P 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 1P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes "Ep No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

4
Facili l umber: jDate of Inspection:
f
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[P�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Z^ 4
Observed Freeboard (in): tea!
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
y
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
M 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
q] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box,
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
'LM No
❑ NA
❑ NE
D Yes 'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
f,�3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
M No
[DNA
❑ NE
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes r
o
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yeso
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

F;icilify- umber: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes �q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [n No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes W 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 P9 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 [P No ❑ NA 0 NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? [] Yes
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or a
Use•drawings.of.facility to better explain, situations .(use additio4n$1 F
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Phone: %0
Date: (' jai /
21412011

c ype ui r wiL: qV a..u1up1Jauce iuspecuuu v vperauuKI iceview V OLructurc avxiuxuvn V ic�umca� t►�s���uucr
Reason for Visit: ® Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral 0 Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time:County:
Farm Name_ /W1 " O `Gae ki. Owner Email:
Owner Name: bat'P N &R_ Phone:
Maiting Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
14
Certified Operator: 11
Title: Phone:
Region: P9
Integrator: H 'LCC
Certification Number:
Bach -up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pap.
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
��
Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
on -Layer
D . �P,oultr
Design Current
Ca aci Pao
airy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
airy Heifer
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Soars
Other
Other
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turke s
TurkeyPoults
Other
Discharges and Stream ImDAetS
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
171 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
3 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
Lg 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
1�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Condaued

Aw
. Facili Number: - Date of Ins ecdon: 9
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: /
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 4
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes T 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 [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes T 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
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA P NE
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 Typc(s): Scat I 'w
13. Soil Type(s): L j1e9.OtMOt¢r'
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
[:]Yes
[:]No
❑ NA
Q9 NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA RM NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check [:]Yes [—]No ❑ NA NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other.
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [—]Yes ❑ No ❑ NA �1 NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall [:]Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

r�
Facili Number: jDate of Inspection: AMA
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
J�JNE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
IM NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey []Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA
NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
P 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
[PNE
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
IF
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:
r
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES•answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
"Y
Use drawines.of facility to better explain situations;(use,ad litional pages.as necessary) , -
F-0 ( ( 0 C"i L"f
Reviewed] nspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
e p4,, % e,
Phone: JD 33�
Date: d9111
214 011

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral Q Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: / 0 Arrival Time: Departure Time: i County: .50111 Region: -/Cwa -
Farm Name: c' Owner Email:
Owner Name:�Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: !"t Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: Af Urp 11.4iZ?nt L i
u
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: E—] ' = ' � " Longitude: 0 ° E�:] r = u
Design Current
Design Current
Design current
Swine Capacity Population
'Vet Ponitry Capacity Population
Cattle capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
I
E]Dairy Cow
5 Wean to Feeder
0 O
2
❑ Non -Layer
El Da Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
[] Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Dry Cow
ElNon-Dairy
❑ Beef Stacker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑Beef Brood Co
Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑ 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 RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No PNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No 7] NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes M No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 1PNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

f
r
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 1 b�
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No
' NA
El NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): a`�t
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ yes [A 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 1ANo
❑ 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 P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 7?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 El Yes hn No [I NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > l0% 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 typc(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes IM No
[INA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement'?
❑ Yes
J� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
plain ahy.WE,S answOrs and/or any recom attons or, any other camrnents iy1
Use dranwrn s of fac�Lueta� better exx g ty plam gituatrons.:(use additional pages as,necessary).
,.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: 10 - -3 30a
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: 3 n
12/28/0 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 1 V41io
ReQuired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? El Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No [?NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[7-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
t�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
INNA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
F) No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 19 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: S01V Region:
Farm Name: A, ha le ` �}",cam -e_ _ _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: A . V4 /' iG Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: PAP 0 `Cyale- Title: Phone No:
OnsiteRepresentative: u Integrator: lvfip�i'i'�
Certified Operator: I I Operator Certification Number: &6 70
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = I =" Longitude: = o =' =
sign Current
rCaPacityPlition
Design Current
Design
C*urrent
Swine "
Wet Poultry Capacty Population
Cattle Capacity
Population
Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
El Dairy
❑
Cow
Discharees & Stream Impacts
Is
any discharge observed from any part of the operation? El Yes [�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: El Structure ❑Application Field ❑Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
El Yes
❑ No
P NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
El Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑yes
❑ No
11 NA
❑ NE
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
El Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
El Yes
$,,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
_
Page l of 3
I2/28/04
Continued

Facility Number: — Date of inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes tp No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No P NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
If/
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
EP 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
1PNo
❑ 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
W'No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
No
[INA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
Po
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13.
Soil type(s) q
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
biNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
P9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
59 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
J;No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/inspector Name Ike Phone: 10' 33- 33rC>
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: YOq
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

.40
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes PI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes '%No ❑ NA Cl NE
the appropiiate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 5j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes PONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
'JgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
P] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
F] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
6 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 concem?
❑ 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
P 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
SNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
K No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit 0 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
Date of Visit: 2f Arrival Time: .' �?- Departure Time: 0: Xzm County:
Farm Name: �Qk /4U24-f E4W. Owner Email:
Owner Name: A,Tbb 1 C Kqz- Phone -
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: _ Pab MLA Q Title:
Onsite Representative: p
w
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Region: Jz:1_1R0
Phone No:
Integrator: LiyD
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: [= e 0 4 =" Longitude: = ° = ❑
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
0 O ❑ Non-Layet
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Daia Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Daia Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d_ Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ff No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
I PNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
PNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
P�NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
j
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Y--- Date of Inspection /
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes EkNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No _5!PNA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: f
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes &dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes &No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes tR)No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes P3 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 5?PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
1 1. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 91 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ FAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Wind w ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) Avc- uP AS
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
F3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
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
®,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
r
Reviewer/inspector Name Phone: /0 `33�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Oa
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection) JJ�/L0�2J
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes PNo ❑ 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 ❑ Desig
n El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes UP4o ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 5INo ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
KbNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
gbNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
J&3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
[FNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
PrVo
❑ 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
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative inunediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ 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
rK1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
F] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

� Division of Water Quality ^
='=Faefffty�Number O Division of Soil and Water'Conservation
Other Agency
Type of Visit 4D 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
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: SO A/ Region: J*4�D
Farm Name: A, W'e 1' lG 'e Pty m Owner Email:
Owner Name: X " r 0C&t Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: jj/j Dn Q
Facility Contact: `tr`�— Title:
El
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
k
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ❑ o = d ❑ d Longitude: = 0 0
Design CurrenI
Morsign
Current
Design Current
SwineIlLp.,apagirvBFopulation
Wet Poultry
Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Wean to Finish IEJ Layer I
59 Wean to Feeder 1 1 ❑Non -Layer
Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Farrow to Finish
El Layers
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
El Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood CoyA
❑ Boars El Pullets
❑ Turke s
Ot e MIEI
❑ Other
Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
JA No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
M NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
M NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
® NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
1 Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
q9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: - —
Date of Inspection p
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 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: I
❑ Yes Q3 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No [PNA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): if
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 [�LNo ❑ 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 V2.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes EpNo ❑ 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 &S No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes I] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13.
Soil type(s) (_y�Ppa(!�1 �j0u14c�R
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
EP No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
K] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
P No ❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
comtnents'(refer to question #)' Explamtany YES'answers and/or any recamniendations or any outer comments
;Use drawings of facility to better explain s htahons. (usetadditional pages as recess ry r
T
Reviewer/Inspector Name
f Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: O
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ' No ElNA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ElWUP ElChecklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes EffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
rO No
❑ NA
El NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
Q1 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
❑ 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
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
P9 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
91 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit @'Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ? 0 Arrival Time, OD Departure Time: County: w Region: a
Farm Name: A J-16A r lk d Ea 5. Fa..-»ts Owner Email:
OCCwner Name: _ A 12Q L� I11 �/�g7Y• - _ �P�h/one:/ / ' /
"'Mail�g Address: gs—_7 f I�t /�5_ D��— J[ )J�� �e�. _ (sue ctd Sd�� %Ve --gg— f�
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: a+" Title: Phone No:
OnsiteRepresentative: -Sa*z_- - Integrator: x ♦
Certified Operator: S0" a Operator Certificati Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = u = ` 0" Longitude: E] o Q , 0 u
Swine
Design YCarrent Design Current
Capacity; Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
7D O G 3 !7 ❑ Non -Layer
❑ Wean to Fin
Wean to Fee
El Feeder to Finish
El Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder
El Farrow to Finish
El Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
Pullets
LJ Turke Poults
ElOther - -
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?
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Population
[I Dairy Cow
El Dairy Calf
El Dairy Heifer
❑ D Cow
ElNon-Dairy
El Beef Stockei
El Beef Feeder
El Beef Brood Cowl
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (1 f 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 A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
� No
[I NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

- t
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes kNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): ,,:2 L —
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 9 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 [X 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 R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
S. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ yes KNo ❑ 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 2LNo El NA El NE
❑ Yes
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [SNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[]PAN ❑ PAN > l0% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
/��Gu/QS�kr�_/
13. Soil type(s) ('4 yr
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?
ayes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination:
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
R7(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
2�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
use drawtngs iilkcthty to lyetter3espla1n s, low ns: (use odditionailpa
L 9artpl��
ReviewerlInspector NamePhone: �}/���� "f�'i��T-2
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: —­Zyo
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ yes E[No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Desig
n ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather 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?
❑ Yes
2.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
29 .No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
®-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
(KNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
" No
El NA
El NE
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[LNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes P?lNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Adefioual Comtnents and/or�Drawift ,` < x y r s
,yt ..� t r ti� � �z��zsw fir' - �. t-.N ,+x.
12128104

e s
.._s.; -... _'4__'_- - ._s
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ®Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility lumber Date of Visit- � % Time: 3 3
not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered pate Last Operated or Above Threshold
Farm Name: County:-iiyS Ova _ G c -z-)
Owner name: Phone No:
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone No:
Onsite Representative: D&I,n IMt, if.c _ Integrator: (fW-� r-ru it S
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number:
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0` OG Longitude
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Ca acity Population Poultry Ca acity Pa elation Cattle Ca achy Population
® Wean to Feeder Laver I I JE1 Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish JEI Non -Laver ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
❑ Fatrov to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons 1 I IU Subsurface Drains PresenLJILJ Lagoon Area ILJ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any- discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑Yes No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Laeoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the convevance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b_ If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ yes ❑ No
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in salimin?
d_ Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation.' ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Wa a Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? IN Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure l Structure ? Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 Continued

Facility dumber: 4 — g Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? El Yes El No
(if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ❑ No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animai Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20.
is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Q No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit-
-is-2.
er,ta.questiontt� tarn an YES`answeis aadlor an recommendatton2,01
ter cnmmenfsse
drawrags of facility torbetter explaYuahons. {useadd�t�onal pages as nec❑ Field Copy Final Notes
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewerllnspector Signature: c V_ Date: Q
05103101 f Continued

IL
2V
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit *Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility -Number Date of Visit: 1� Time:
?poi O erational Belo• Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditional]%. Certified [3 Remistered Date Last Operated or above Threshold:
.1�& e_ Mc t?a e— 1—ax ha. Count•:? Q
Farm Name: _ �- � _ _
Owner Name: Phone No: (1:24)G
flailing Address: n.� (�Q�C S �pl� Win. �Oora A/C. 2.121ja
Facilit' Contact: _ Dc,14 1J1 Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: I A C Izz,C__ Integrator: C e� r*rrL U �
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number: G67-0
Location of Farm,
M Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 �° 0" Longitude 0 •
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
® Wean to Feeder 6 4-0 1 JE3 Laver JEjDaiy
❑ Feeder to Finish 10 Non -Laver ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps
ILI Subsurface Drains Present
❑ No Linuid Waste Manaoen
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Diseharze oric-inated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Feld ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b_ if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in eal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes. notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): O.
05103101
;pray Field Area
❑ Yes 19No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑Yes
PNo
❑ Yes
W No
❑ Yes
[A No
Structure 5
Continued

Facility Dumber: A — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
O No
seepage, etc.)
6" Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of Questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
❑ Yes
5 No
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do anv of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
$" Does any pan of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
9_ Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
QD No
Waste _Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
W No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
El Yes
E4 No
12. Crop type F e— sr- t,c e
13. Do the receiving crops differ With those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CA ANP)?
❑ Yes
QO No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facilin, is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
13. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
` ] No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
FXI No
Reguired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
`P No
15. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ W`UP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
[4 No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation. freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
W No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
� No
21. Did the facility- fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit'
❑ Yes
No
(iel discharge, freeboard problems. over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewhnspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[ No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
P No
No violations or deficiencies were noted daring this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments"{refer to qe hon:"'Eitplam aiey YES answers amd/arasty mommeadatRons_or am der catnmesits. ;_ ti F._
Use drawingi of facHi y to better explain Situattow& {use adriittorup pages at necessary) ' Field Copy ❑Final Notes -
_--
-
ftr:_�'��:c-:`�i:��:::-`:£�-��_,:<�.c- .:'-;�.:-/=-Q�Ms:.=—;x. � �=-=_��: r..�•�---,.�--...s., w`� �4c-.r_
f
ti,;L,,,er w4 -. 44 ra LaCa-bc- 4vx:ya 13jaZ;r y %
D
Reviewer/inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: l
O5103101 Contirrmed

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

Pacuuy Number.
Division of Environmental Management
Animal Feedlot Operations Site Yssitetion Record
Date: RlaaA_
dW b
rakneraI_Idamation:
Farm Name: _fir k4 p _ S��„ %� . _ far-.vL - County SvLq
Owner Name:_ in. 4.1 ��4 � - MC, ,Phone No: 6 - 33�(
_ On Site Representative: Intcgiator:_ f -
Mailing Address• Iefi l3bK 3� _
Physical Addrewl ocation-
_. Latitude: I _ 1_ - Longjtude:--
Qperation Description: (based on design characterisft)
Type of Swint No. of Animals 7jape of Poi+ltry No. of Animals T jpe of Cattle
No. of Animals
D Sow O Byer 0 Dairy
O Nm y 0 Non-Lym O Beef
O Feeder
0ther7ype of Ilwstock &N+�,r�ber of Animals: �� O
Number of Lagoons: (ir:etu the Drawings and Observations the freeboard of each lagoon)
Facility Impec M
Lagoon
_
Is lagoon(s) freeboard less than 1-foot + 25 year 24 hour storm storage?:
Yes 0
No
Is seepage observed from the. lagoon?:
Yes 0
No
Is erosion observed?:
Yes ❑
No
Is any discharge observed?
Yes ❑
N
Q Man-made ❑ Nor Man --made
Cover Crop
Does the facility need more acreage for spraying?:
Yes 0
NoO
Does the cover crop need imp ovement?:
Yes 0
. No�
(lur the crops which need irrrprovetj ?
Ckop type; �escU2 Acreage:
Setback Criteria '
• Is a dwelling located within 200 feet of waste, application?
Yes 0
No
Is a wen located within 100 feet of waste application?
Yes (3.
No
Is enamel waste stockpiled. within 100 feet of USGS Blue Line Stream?
Yes 0
No
Is animal waste Iand applied of spray irrigated within 25 feu of Blue Line Stream?
Yes 0
No
A01-- Jansar717499b
- -
,

" lrlat�xts�te
Does the facMty maintenance need impivv t? Yes ❑ r
b there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? Yes O b
Does record keeping nerd improvement? Yes 4 D
Did the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan on ate? Yes Q b
Explain any Yes answers;. „ _ _ —• _
z
Signamv. Date:
cc F=airy Anessaww Unk Use Anackmema frNeeded
frawingi or Obscmiops
� tom: .-�� :'F: • - - ... _ � �� +war.+w�. ��w�. �=e� +�� . ����I..�rfT �.r►I'�►Fr���+.��^'�
• �♦i�•' � .. �� . rY.-�•.�.rw,t!r �{`w-�- 'n •1.,� ��:i rt�.'a.+�r ►�.�� �r�rrw
AOI — Januw717,19% ,

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor C N
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C
Andrew McCall, Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
July 17, 1995
Mr. Dale McRae
Dale & Tom McRae Farm
Rt. 2 Box 392
Wadesboro, N.C. 28317
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
Dale & Tom McRae Farm
SR 1649
Anson County
Dear Mr. McRae:
Thank you for assisting in a cursory inspection of your farm on July 14, 1995. Please
find enclosed a copy of our Compliance Inspection Report for your information. It is the opinion
of this office based on the information provided and observations made during the inspection that
the facility is in compliance with 15A NCAC 2H, Part .0217 and the Animal Waste Management
is being properly conducted.
This office requests that you maintain a copy of your certified waste management plan
and waste management records at the farm for future inspections.
If you have questions regarding this inspection, please do not hesitate to contact this office
at [phone].
Sincerely,
C'` CU
Paul E. Rawls
Environmental Specialist
cc: DEM Compliance Group
Wachovia Building. Suite 714. Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043 Telephone [phone] FAX 910-48"707
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH & NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEWNT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
Farm Name/Owner
Inspection Date
Farm No.
Dale & Tom McRae Farm
July 14, 1995
N/A
Mailing Address Facility Telephone Number
Rt. 2 Sox 392, wadesboro, N.C. 28317
All comments will be discussed in Section IV of this report.
SSECTIQN I
Animal Qperation type: SWINE
SECTION II Comments
1. Does the number and type of animal meet or
exceed (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)] X
2. Does this facility meet criteria for Animal
Operation REGISTRATION? X
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained in this
facility for a 12-month period?
4. Does this facility have a CERTIFIED ANIMAL WADE
MAMUMENT PLAN? _X— _#I_
5. Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)? X— _

Admin i stra_t L u and PrograM Management Y Comments
6. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc: _x_
SECTION III
Field i n Y -N Umnts
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of USGS Map
Map Blue Line Stream? X
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream? #2
3. Does the facility have adequate acreage on
which to apply the waste? _x_ —
4. Does the land application site have cover
crop in accordance with the CERTIFICATION FLAN? _ - T#3
5. Is animal waste discharged into waters of the
state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or
other similar man-made devices? X
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices (BMP)
of the approved CERTIFICATION? _x,
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approx. 2.5 ft.) AL y
8. Is the general condition of this animal facility,
including management and operation, satisfactory? _x_
SECTION IV Comments
1. Farm has a certified waste management plan based on comments by Mr. Russell
Sikes with the Anson County Agricultural Extension Service.
2. A detailed inspection of the spray field was not conducted at the time of
the inspection.
3. The certified waste management plan or the spray field was not reviewed at
the time of the inspection.

Inspection notes:
This facility consists of
8 barns, 880 capacity each.
Nursery operation
1 lagoon-+/- 3 acres in size
Lagoon Location
Lat 34 03' 01"
Lon 80 03' 47"
Photo Time 10:52
This lagoon has a spillway design
Suggest a reinspection of this farm within six months.
This farmer grows for Carrols .
+/- .5 miles west of the intersection of SR 1527 and SR 1649