090034_INSPECTIONS_20171231

0M
-S d d & c- c 7 (iE�)
M Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number. 090034 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS090034 ❑ Denied Access
Inmwction Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Dale:
Reason for Visit: Routine
Date of Visa: 11/21/2017 Entry Time: 01:00 pm Exit Time
Faun Name: Layton Johnson Farm
Owner. Layton D Johnson
County: Bladen Region:
1:30 pm Incident g
Owner Email:
Phone:
Fayetteville
91 O-W2-5002
Mailing Address: 800 Peanut Rd F%zabethtown NC 283379112
Physical Address: 95 Layton Johnson Farm Rd Bladenboro NC 28320
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator. Prestage Farms Inc
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34' 34' 03" Longitude: 78° 39' 33"
Hwy. 701 through Elizabethtown south, take a right (west) on 242, Go 4 miles and take a left on 1003, farm is 1 mile on left.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Other Issues
0 Waste Application
Certified Operator: Layton D Johnson Operator Certification Number: 18690
Secondary OIC(s):
OnSite Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Kathy Barker Phone :
On -site representative Kathy Barker Phone :
Primary Inspector: Bill Dunlap Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Calibration Sept 15 Sludge Survey 10-23-2017 0-3.4, P-3.5
page: 1

Permit: AWS090034 Owner - Facility : Layton D Johnson Facility Number. 090034
Inspection Date: 11/21/17 lnpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 4,410 2,100
Total Design Capacity: 4,410
Total SSLW: 595,350
Waste Structures
DWgnated Observed
Typo Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Fresboard
Dry Stack
1
Lagoon
1 B
19.00
45.00
Lagoon
1A
19.00
Lagoon
A
page: 2

Permit: AWS090034 Owner - Facility : Layton D Johnson Facility Number. 090034
Inspection Date: 11/21/17 Inppection Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na He
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
N ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■ ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
01111
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)
❑
0 ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
N ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage A Treatment
Yea
No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
■ ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na_aa
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS090034 Owner - Facility : Layton D Johnson Facility Number: 090034
Inspection Date: 11/21/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yus. Na No
Crop Type 1
Com, wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Rains
Soil Type 2
Goldsboro
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
I& Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
1101111
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
MCI
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

r
Permit: AWS090034
Owner - Facility : Layton D Johnson Facility Number. 090034
Inspection Date: 11/21/17 Inppecton Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yam}. No tM No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
E ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
E ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
E ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
E ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately_
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
E ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31, Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑E
❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

! WU
&- 0c.Y15r�Z
Type of Visit: QJCom Hance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: (dRoutine Q Complaint Q Follow-up O Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ! Departure Timer County: Q(i r5_ kS& Region:
Farm Name: Tow a- 1 Owner Email:
Owner Name: L ;4 a-\ Wil b Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: rv` &V't ✓' _ Title: Phone:
T l �
Onsite Representative: �` Integrator: N�
Certified Operator: t�-F,c�, C� tqv'�_-L _ Certification Number: 46 2 Q
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Desiga •urrent
Design
Current
Design LGOITent
Swine Capacity Pop-
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
IDai
Cow
Wean to Feeder
I
iNon-Layer
IDai
Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dai Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D , P,oul
Ca aci
P,o
Non -Da -
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other.
Turke Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
G-1go
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
[fNA
❑ 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)
[:]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
1� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412014 Continued

Facifi umber: 07- Date of inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [g-Ko 0 NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑1b1A- ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �s
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes &O-ble""'❑ 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
[].� 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 DW R
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
[ 0 NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[a'qo' ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [2'110— ❑ 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): .. - ,!7 — - —
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ kom 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 [�' o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [R'1qo- ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[3-No—
s"o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Tom
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[-]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[-]Yes lam''"" ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑ Other-
2 1. 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 C:fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
24.h)id the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes []3-Na- ❑ NA ❑ NE
25_ Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes F."o ❑ 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 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes FENo ❑ 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.
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 E2'110 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
No _
❑ Yes
[:]Yes
h...l No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommeDdations or any other comments:;
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
t
Reviewer/Inspector Name: (� Phone: —
t� (jam j
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: `U Date: V3� c ` e
Page 3 of 3 21412014

Type of Visit: UCompliance Inspection U Operation Review U Ntructure Evaluation U Iecnnical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Q Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Timer Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: ir.ars/�gv( �{�,�,� Owner Email:
Owner Name: ��3 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Regio
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: KQ,�c-t �j,�-«" _Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: �� Integrator: rtr"4
Certified Operator: _ 6.0 , 0(:24 Certification Number: I 0 G
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
rz,o 6 0190 35
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current Design..0 Ire nt
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capaci't}T Pops
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
airy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish (p
'��' '"'°
D ' Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design Current:
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Dry1P,ou1
Layers
Cam ct PoP.
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Outer
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream ImDBCts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
Q
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[Z.�A
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
[3-IA
❑ 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
eNA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
ETNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Pacili Number: - Date of Inspection:
'Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [�� ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No [�QA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3�b
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes EE3"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 &r o ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify 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? 09 Yes 4R(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 C! No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need [:]Yes rfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes E 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): 0�2 a
13. Soil Type(s): 11 y )C
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[0,ATo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
E A5-o
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
LE],No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
P�TNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
FlAo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reauired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
[:]Yes
Q.-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
[:]Yes
❑'f o
[DNA
❑ 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
E�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
Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
[:]Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
[—]Yes
[yNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes E,Ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes �o ❑ 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 E3-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? [:]Yes F�Ko ❑ 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 [2'1lo r] 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 Q-< ❑ 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
[ o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
P-OrNo
0 NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
C!10'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
[�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to -question # )- Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments:;;
Use drawings of facility to. better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
7- [ -I S 3 Z 'P 3- 7c-4-119 "k-& �"�
.
f
cot 00 WN cf�[ ,
J
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 33 `a W
Date:
. m4A
21412011

f\\‘k. tict
Structure Evaluation Inspection
C4Facility Number:
, Date:
021F-�(b
Time in: lC) `tom Time out: %0 1 SS
Farm Name: L,,t,, U-ekNS�-�
Owner Name: t(
Facility Contact: /4ity actfre"1
Farm 911 address:
Phone
Onsite Representative: Integrator: ft-
Certified Operator:
Slev^ Cert. Number
Is storage capacity Tess than adequate? Yes 1.-
No
If yes is waste level into the structural freeboard? Yes No c/
Was non -compliant level reported to DWR
res
POA received i
Structure: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Identifier:
Spillway?
Designed Freeboard (in.):
Observed Freeboard (in.): 1S
Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures
observed? Yes No
Do any structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? Yes _ No L-
Does any part of the waste management system need repair Yes No
Condition of field's 7 i
v Condition of receiving crop Poo In.
Comments:

4
13D
Type of Visit: t~gCom fiance Inspection U Operation Review V Structure Evaluation V l eclinical Assistance
Reason for Visit: ORoutine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: an County: rldCLt
Farm Name: e- rM�---�- tj Owner Email:
Owner Name:�Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region:
Facility Contact: 0 wFbli Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: 1( A Integrator: - o cc -
Certified Operator:[ Certification Numbers- ; AN 119
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current _
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry
Wean to Finish I ILayer
Design Cnrrent
Capacity Pop.
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
I
I
Design Current
Ca aci P,o
Cow
,.
Wean to Feeder
I
JNon-Layer
Calf
Feeder to Finish 0
Dr. P,oui
airy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turke s
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Boars
Qther
Other
Turke Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
[:]Yes Q'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[fNA
❑ NE
[] Yes
[:]No
[ A
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
[] Yes ETNo
[:]Yes FTNo
[3lA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 2142014 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes to ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No [}N7C_ ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
[20No
❑ 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
[3-go
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
[:]Yes
[20<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
E31G
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Api3lication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[]'1lo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? if yes, check the appropriate box below, ❑ Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus [] Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): S
13. Soil Type(s): _ �gL two: __
-
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
[-]Yes
00-No
❑ NA
[] NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[e 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
[TNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
[:]Yes
[�JNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reauired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
[:]Yes
ffrNo
❑ 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
®rlQb
❑ 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
o
[DNA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[:'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Ins ection:
24'Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
Yes
[�1 0 NA
[] NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
0 Yes
[JX G'� 0 NA
NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
Failure to complete annual sludge survey 0 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?
0 Yes
[ o ❑ NA
NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface file 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 [q'95 0 NA 0 NE
0 Yes [B'Ro ❑ NA 0 NE
[] Yes [�Jo ONA ❑ NE
Yes []g4o_ 0 NA [] NE
Yes
[]'P'o
NA
NE
Yes
[2"No
NA
NE
Yes
eNo
❑ NA
ONE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers,and/or.any additional recommendations or any other comments-
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations_{use additional pages as necessary).",4 I
s4't stwo41 — 6 - Kf 13
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
.1 71- ;L t--- j Z
6- � -7 P '.�f 2
Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 3 of 3
21412014

type of visit: Lpcom ance inspection U operation Review U Structure Evaluation U Iecnnical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit:
rrival Time: r (/
If
Departure Time:
County:
Farm Namet9& :uolt.46''1
Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: LxqL, 73:c--
Facility Contact: ��"1. Title: &AJrVt/ Phone:
Regionf
Onsite Representative: L-O•t_�s gtw��C 60rtr'' Integrator: i
Certified Operator: Ll Certification Number: L
Back-up Operator:, N�ea_LCf19 4✓1 Certification Number: S ��
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design
Current.
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Pop.
Wet. Pointr7
Capacity
Pop:
Cattle Capacity Pup.
Wean to Finish
La er
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
"' m,
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D . P,oul
Ca aci
Pda ,
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Co —
Turkeys
=„
Other
T urkey Points
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
C] Yes
[jjoK'o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
[:]Yes
❑ No
L3nf'
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
E� 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
�1A
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
VN9
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

acili Number: 12- Date of Ins ection: a
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? [:]Yes 2<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):4�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes E ^15o ❑ 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 to ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 2l"o ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ZLJW6' ❑ 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 Io ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 100/. 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): I� , h k
_
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[L]'�10
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[+10
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
U ' O
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
2<0
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
L�Ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes �No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes to
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design [3 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 d N
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Ins ection:13
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste placation equipment as required by the permit? ❑Yes [�;'l�o
25. is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [ErNo
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 [KO
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [:P+ o
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? ❑ Yes [?�'Ro ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes to ❑ 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' commend" }
Use dfawiags'ot' facility to better explain situations (use additional _pages as necessary).
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
[DNA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
&I;%VCf,-", - I -;L - 9-9- 1 �,
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
F
[:]Yes E-14o ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes L31Ro ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes (B No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes U2"go ❑ NA ❑ NE
l �fe
Phon$G "� ,
Date:
21412011

Type of Visit: omphance Inspection Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 42 t omplaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 0 Arrival Time: ; 00 Departure Time: County:
Farm Name:��_�/w� Owner Email:
Owner Name: _ �j�i2�`rs�z✓ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ,� �lS rr'1 Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Region:
Design Currentr� , - Design
Curren#
Current
Design11�1 Da
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry , Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
eeder to Finish
"
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
'De'si
-,
Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Drl?oul ` . s rCa aci
Po
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turke s
_
Other
Turke Poults
Othcr
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)?
❑ Yes &No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[] Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes Jallo D NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

I
Facili Number: -3 1 Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): / Sr
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
Eg 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
ZI 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
[R 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
0 Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
E3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
PI -No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Pending ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu,
Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate
Manure/Sludge
into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside
of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s) �11�i�.•-� �/ r f -�.
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
Q NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
D� 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
gNE
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[R NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard [:]Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 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 ❑ No
❑ NA [K NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA [.NE
[DNA [2�.NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

I
Facili Number: - 3 q I Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [] No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes [:]No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes [23,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes [2�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA 9NE
❑ NA Eg-NE
❑ NA ONE
❑ NA [�NE
❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA [RNE
❑ Yes [g No ❑ NA
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA [RNE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any.YES.answers and/or any additional .recommendations or any other. comments :� U
Use •drawngs of facility to better explain situations {use additional pages as necessary)..
Ai
_yfylry� 131� �/
1i0 Lv�/h'I��r OrdE�s 74 WDD��
Cvw e_:� rp�
v N prrrtcr�- 9�flr Y ' � r�`f
JAo �jo. 1017 91-
Reviewer/inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: VD '(53,3�Mv
Date: 32z%rA/-3
21412011

go13 oo5,r' a y e,,
Complaint Investigation Report
NC Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Air Quality
Regional Investigator:
Regional Co -investigator:
Non-DAQ Investigator:
Date Complaint Received: 03/20/2013
Received By: Joyner, Neil
Date assigned:
Investigation date:
Follow-up date:
Report submit date:
Complaint type: ODOR Animal Rule
Complaint description: Strong hog odor
Situation Dangerous:
Occurring Now: Yes
Signature:
County: Bladen
Region: FRO
Suspect: Layton Johnson Farm
Facility ID#
Record # 14379
Suspect: Layton Johnson Farm
Suspect Contact: Layton Johnson
Physical Location: Twisted Hickory Road -
Elizabethtown
Mailing Address: 800 Peanut Road
City/State/Zip: Elizabethtown, NC 28337
Telephone: [phone]
Alternate Telephone:
Complainant: Francis Adams
Complainant Address: 5725 NC 242 South
City/State/Zip: Elizabethtown NC 28337
Telephone (H). [phone]
Telephone (W): (910) 8764458
Call Back Required? No Response Requested
Referral to DAQ: Previous DAQ contact
Violation documented:
DFR Permit:
Report Date:
Comments/Directions: On 20 March 2013 at approx. 4:45 PM, 1, Neil Joyner received a hog odor complaint
from Ms. Francis Adams of NC 242 South, Elizabethtown, NC that Mr. Layton Johnson's nearby hogfarm off
Twisted Hickory Road has been causing strong hog odor at her home over the last few years but especially
strong over the last year. Mr. Johnson also has chickens on his farm but she believes that she smells hog odor,
not poultry odor. She grew up on a farm and knows the odors. She smells strong odor right now. She smells
the strong odor all the time, day and night. When the wind is blowing from the farm toward her house, the odor
is even worse. She has called my office before and spoken with Steven Vozzo but has not called over the last
year until now. She does not have Mr. Johnson's phone number. She knows of no other nearby hog farms.
There is a wooded area between Mr. Johnson's farm and her home so she doesn't see what's going on at the
farm. She said that hog waste from this farm is going into the woods of Mr. Frank White's land adjacent to the
farm. She said that Mr. White lives in Raleigh but owns this land. She said that Mr. White comes down
sometimes but she does not know his phone number.

lJU ✓ ,-20 —a3o
Type of Visit: E) Uompliance Inspection O Operation Review p Structure Evaluation p Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Q40110utine O Complaint O Follow-up C) Referral C) Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: f Arrival Time: I 1.'pi9
✓ Departure Time: ' County: r�
Farm Name: k cw/ +l_ "Itiv Owner Email:
Owner Name: L, A run ry Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region:
Facility Contact: L[ &W Y Zia .1' - Title: Zr� J`92-e­ Phone:
Onsite Representative: � /��/ /f��n���-t 75_&P_ -integrator: y 7c_�po
Certified Operator: ,r'�I''y 11Un'2�g'�� Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Pouitry Capacity Pop.
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish
D , P.ault , Ca aci Po .,
Dai Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Gilts
Non -Layers
Boars Pullets
f' Turkeys
Other - Turkey Poults
LU
Other Other
Beef Brood Cow
Discharges and Stream Impacts
l . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
54 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
5� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
0 NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

s
Facili Number: - Ds ection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ® No
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Identifier:
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 19,
Observed Freeboard (in): 3 C)
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?
❑ Yes ,allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® 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 C4 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 0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. Yes J 1 o '
❑ NA
❑ NE
Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground
❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ 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 ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes ,a No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes M 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
❑ 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 El Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. �, Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application CR 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

[Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes KNo ❑ 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:
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
2q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes C8 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Yes [] No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA [] NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Ald- C502• 6'"/n en .JDiLS
G�ast�-
452. aI. [./I
r'm.- I`�c0 �rdl f�� �7`�pa •r,� . %� F�r►rr�� i�j. PTO '�� erg% T is
WA..'e- 67t�) e#'t In/ '7 c ffd ii3r> Were- 4-ft 7 U
0L_ Ile
f� Pcu� ter- %eNz�
N b y W 11 b--sr-.*
Reviewer/inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Phone: / / f
Date: ��_ J 2=
21412011
Page 3 of 3

Type of Visit
Compliance Inspection
Q Operation Review O Structure Evaluation
O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
outine O Complaint
O Follow up Q Referral 0 Emergency
O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 01. 3 l7 Departure Time: : �� a County: Region:
Farm Name: U E> o1,5 7s"�--� 60-r e`er Owner Email:
Owner Name•-^u�n�''U `� _ �I� n.S B"'�� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ter` Title: I� �5G- Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: oe�c2�,
Certified Operator: Ih n.Sa-,%- Operator Certification Number: 41Ye2n
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [= o [= g 0 Longitude: 0 0 =1 = "
Designrrent
P�opulahan
f)es�gn: Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Populatiean
to Finish
rawCapty
❑ La er
❑Dai Cow
ean to Feeder
❑Nan -La er
❑Dai Calf
to Finish
D �-
❑ Dai Heifer
rrow to Wean
❑ D Cow
rrow to Feeder
El Non -Dairy
El Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
El Beef Stocker
❑
❑Non -La erg
El Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
ElGilts
Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
�, - --
❑ Turke s
Qther
,�-
-
❑ Turkey Pouets
❑ Other
jF1 Other
Number of Structures: Q
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
P .No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does 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
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
�&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: — l Date of Inspection r
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[& No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): Grp
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
5d 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
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ yes 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 FLNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ULNo ❑ 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) I— n / ?� &
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
R-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ yes
53,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
t
2jNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
S-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
uh-Y
Reviewer/Inspector Name a, r�,�;.:,,' .: Phone:Q
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
rage 6 Of 3 [,vrsssnuea

Facility Number: — Date of Inspecfion
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check ❑ Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design
g El Maps [I Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes r2No ❑ 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
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
J.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
2T
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
F_No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28-
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29_
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ 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
19,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
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
�Lo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawm s `j " "w ' 'g Y " yr " P " PA "
a'_ K ._ . F . `tom .�
Page 3 of 3 12128104

' MS /0-04-z00y
Type of Visit ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Cr outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 7—D9'd Arrival Time: /Z 5� Departure Time: ��. -3✓� County: �� �� Region:
Farm Name: /.ay 40" —Z-01'" Sow Owner Email:
Owner Name: L6tt*76A/ cj t►(_,N aN Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: !�a44! j Du gall Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = 6 = Longitude: 0 ° = 6 = {f
s Des gn Current rDesinCurrentm:' R Design CurrentSwt Capc,tpoalatton Wet Poultryacity Populattont Cattle Capacity Population
�......
❑ Wean to Finish ❑ La er ❑ DairyCow
❑Wean to Feeder ❑Non -La ei ❑ Dai Calf
M Feeder to Finish, ❑ Da' Heifer
. El Farrow to Wean Dry Poultry ❑ D Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ Layers
❑Beef Stocker
❑ Non -Layers Gilts : El Pullets
-i ❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars ❑Beef Brood Co
❑ Turkeys
©ther. '� ❑ Turke PoultsN
Other Other °Number of Structures:
❑ ❑
Dischar es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
ErNZ
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
No
El.
,��
[5 rA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
fvA
❑ 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
❑ I<IA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
B-Zo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
0<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

. Facility Number:
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment ,,��// El4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ElL7
Yes No ❑ NA NE
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ElYes EK ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard {in}:
30 "
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes Bl�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) �,
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes L7No ❑ 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 thr t, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? [:]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes LI 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 ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste ApDlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [3 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? �
IL Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ElYes O No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifi ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) Ca'r N , W L Say tffo le4 niS
Y
13. Soil type(s) L N go
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[:] Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ErNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
0<oo
❑ NA
❑ NE
L- <
❑ NA
❑ NE
ET'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
0o ❑NA El NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other continents.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
ReviewerAnspector Name ; �� S Phone: 910 ,'V.3,3 • 333 V
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: L2 1�ju--� Date: -% —OT—ZOO
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: d 9— Date of Inspection 7'09'd
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20_ Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
D<o
❑ 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?
El yes
El NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
El Yes
,ET,No
LdNo
ElNA
[INE
24_
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
ElYes
[]'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Ej'<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
D,�,/<o
❑ NA
El NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
El Yes
13No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
CTNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ 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
ETNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
���,//
32.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
El Yes
E� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
L. ' o
❑ NA
❑ NE
f�E�dlilOal COIilme 5�andioE ])1aWl�gS 4t xi ;� a k k itv'ok++?
e�
AL
Hw
Page 3 of 3 12128104

pus e^j4,rG a( 7-0i -08
vision of Water Quality
Facility Number Oq 3 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit ® ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up Q Referral 0 Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: / 30 Departure Time: County: 1�l oe!e.v Region: �f�
Farm Name: Loy y/0'e✓ --P4, _T6 Aj I- - Owner Email:
Owner Name: �44s 7�t3^! J D�i.✓Se�C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: K�A D / Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: c Du . a Al S L� ._�o.1I 7Q4A-s..✓ integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 0 n = 6 = i{ Longitude: = ° = d =
Design Currents ' Design Current
Swine . ulatioii':' Wet Poultry
acity'PCapacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
IM Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
Other
P0]
Layer
Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current,:.
Cattle Capacity PopulahouA
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number ofstructures:
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 BI�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
B NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
E3,9A
❑ NE
[31'�A
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
0Mo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
3-NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: QQ —3
Date of Inspection 5-o9-a
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ETNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No MA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: A/
Spillway?: /V d
Designed Freeboard (in):
ri
Observed Freeboard (in): 33
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
L1 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
�
E N_'o
❑ 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
❑'lglo
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
[:]Yes
io
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
[IYes
,
L:J No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
�o
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[--]PAN ❑ PAN > I0% or l0 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) 00 6 - n l
13. Soil type(s)
F
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
8No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[I NA El NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
BIZ
I3 1Z
❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
Bl o
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
E No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
AL
Reviewer/Inspector Name k'L Gy s Phone: 33o7D
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: A-4-� Date:
12128104 Continued

.. _b
Facility Number: Dq — Date of Inspection S e9 0$
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes Lf wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [f No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ W UP ❑ Checklists Design
❑ ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [3-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 to ^ ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No E NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes E No ❑ NA ElNE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ,0� o ❑ NA El NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? El Yes L7 C ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[3 rvA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
a NNo
ElNA
ElNE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
Yes
El,
� tvo
❑ 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
El Yes
,�,�
L� 1vo
❑ 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
E No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
4ir az�m�5 i .� i+h 1,:
Additional Comments and/or Drayings f 't
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit (compliance Inspection Q Operation Review U Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other [3 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ��jis- Departure Time: ' County: Ij��1r� Region: _.C__.L.� _O!
Farm Name: ,'�`' UOArr'51;t.' /�d�L Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:&69Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: -sue Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number: ��6 �li
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [ e 0 g = S, Longitude: = o ❑ 1
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Capacity Population
Wet Poultry
Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
to Finish
❑ Layer
to Feeder
r]Farrow
❑ Non -Layer
r to Finish
/
`y ""
to Wean Dry Poultry
w to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
- ❑Gilts
❑Non -Layers
❑ Boars
❑Pullets
El Turkeys
Other
❑ TurkeyPoults
❑ Other
❑Other
Number of Structures:
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Da' Calf
❑ Da' Heifer
❑ D Cow
❑ Non -Doi
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
JKNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does 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 adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge`?
Page 1 of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number:—,3f-jDate of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?: if
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes L„No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes RNo ❑ 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 f INo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes A 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 JKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ElNE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% 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) CLnn. /lij/�j ✓� i s� X"aW !
13. Soil type(s) La / S"X
T-
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes ERNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes jq No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes 8 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes 9[No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any. recommendations or any other commen°
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/]aspector Dame �Phone: — ,33 33tb
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
rage z of -i !L/L6/U4 tonnnuea

Facility Number: Date of Inspection L
Required 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 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Desig
n El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes RNo ❑ 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
04 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
14 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
E.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
19 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
B No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
RRNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ja No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
9LNo
❑ 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
JK 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
CgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewedlnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

f
i
� 1
Facility Number 3
Date of visit: ^� d Time: t 3S
Not Overational Q Below Threshold
Permitted 01 Certified ©Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: 4 W&& j-A IM-Ydow APj= County: 16A044P
Owner Name: Phone No:
Mailing Address: Facility Contact: - Z6w 11 �--��/ 41ZIO.✓ Title:
Onsite Representative: XIe. 4!x %oUGOd.
Certified Operator: 4. Xa46eA)
Location of Farm: f. i A'C11 Q jT.4 . ja't
Phone No:
Integrator: e
Operator Certification Number: Me �d
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ horse Latitude ' k Longitude '
Cufteni
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
I VIYIV
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
t
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagirons ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ L oon Area ❑ 5 ray Field Area
W.-
-Holdii Ponds'I Solid Traps = ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?IVI ❑Yes LP No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Laaoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If ves, notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If ves, norifil 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 0 No
VA'aste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes CjNo
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
a
Freeboard (inches): e7
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: % — 5/ Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
$. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type .5 d ra 464&WA.r 4 L"e,.f4 1 ed Z" -
13. Do the receiving crops di er with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
e) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required -Records &Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
1$_ Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes T No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes (] No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes Q0 No
❑ Yes [9 No
❑ Yes q,] No
❑ Yes [] No
❑ Yes (] No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes (W No
❑ Yes q No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [j No
❑ Yes W, No
❑ Yes LIJ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes �] No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
„e�, 'IRJ
tlA1 .'Comments,(refer to uestion,# Exlain anyswers and/oror anyi,Use#o
11110314(na
liette�oezplarn situaddthotial pages as nec1es ary _ .y Field Copy ❑ Ftnal Notes
/^ QJJC[sr�t� F'cPat�l�g fd' QWYF �GDdarr� {v c�S,
�- ralkcx a4oe,4 yr
Reviewer/Inspector Name E
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: - liv
05103101 Continued

IType of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation I
lReason for Visit ORoutine OComptaint OFollow up 0 Emergency Notification 00ther 0 Denied Access
Facility Number 34 Date of Visit: Time:E==
0 =Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted M Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold.
Farm Name: Layton Johtwon.Farm ............................................................ County: Bja&iL ...................... . ........... M ----------
Owner Name: 1,RAW_D__ Phone No: fiASAIU
Mailing Address: 8()11.rC&nMj.Rd . .................................................................................... EjMAbCtb1avm-NC ..............................................
Facility Contact- wmex ................................................. Title: Phone No: ......................................
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator. Layim.1% ...........................AAMia .... . ... ............................... .. Operator Certification Number- law.
Location of Farm:
Hwy. 701 through Elizabethtown south, take a right (west) on 242. Go 4 miles and take a left on 1003. farm is I mile on left.
Swine [I Poultry [I Cattle El Horse Latitude - 34_ 33 Longitude 78 F36
Discharges A Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes X No
Discharge originated at: [I Lagoon [] Spray Field [] Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes M No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) . El Yes N No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
0 Yes C& No
[] Yes 0 No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes CK No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway E] Yes 10 No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ........................... .......................... .......................... ........................... ........................... ....... ...................
Freeboard (inches): ....... _-35.
........ ...................... .
...... . . . .................. I � -1-1 .........

W✓ VJ V1
Facility Number: 09-34 Date of Inspection 3-15-2002
5, Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancefimprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes 9 No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes 19 No
❑ Yes 19 No
❑ Yes JR No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18_ Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ieJ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (te/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
21 Did Reviewerl[nspector fail to discuss reviewhnspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes C9 No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes 09 No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes 9 No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
food looking wheat crop.
arm looks good.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 4_71_ X41--y", Date: 3 -�r,' d -L—

J .
�- = u, Q _Dsvis�on of Soil and Wa#er Conservation -" ' .�
Q'Other Agency .�- �-
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other
❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit- Time: � Printed on: 10/26/2000
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
13 Permitted 13 Certified /j] Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated oor/A�bo�vee-Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: ��1^! / County• r�i�,.'-•................:..........................
....
............. Cl x.i....... �"-................. :......
Owner Name: T"/'J.........1.isc1......................................... Phone No��.....,.-.....YV...G...Y.......
/..
Facility Contact: +�o^J Title: .................................. Phone No:
Mailing Address: O x.� L�a..........................
Onsite Representative: . A ..?r ��!.. Integrator: „ ,��...� ............
Certified Operator:........�'7e-/",. ✓/....... ".0c'✓ .... Operator Certification Number: ..........................................
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' 4 44 Longitude ' 6 "
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder JE1 Layer ❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish U O JE1Non-Layer ❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons / J❑ Subsurface Drains Present JjLl Lagoon Area I❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes P No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes Wo
h. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes XNo
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Dees discharge bypass a lagoon system? (I1-yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes [§Io
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'? ❑ Yes gNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes �KNo
Waste Collection & 'I reatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
fleIdenl i fier: ......... ................
❑ Spillway ❑ Yes two
Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure b
Freeboard (inches):
5100 Continued on back

i
Facility Number: p — Date of Inspection Printed on: 10/26/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes ,� No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses as
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes 14 No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes IR No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes 20 No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes 14No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes Wo
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with th&e designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes JqNo
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
OfNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
JXNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
29No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
VNo
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
t* No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes)"No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUIQ, chec lists, des , maeetc.) ✓
❑Yes
No
19.
Loe
DoesAc' ord keeping need improvement? (ie/ irri ion, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
RNo
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
A No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
J@ 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
Io yi espaotnideiitee :Yopii ee lye Rio fthgr4his�isit;. t.:rdefe�s wg
Corra�aut this visit_
Comments {refer to quest<o ii"#): Explatfl'any YES an§wers and/or auy recaaimendatioas or any other comimeats-
.
Use`:di'awu> s of facilityLLto better explain situations' (uk:-additional pages as`necessary) - ,
A.
Reviewertinspector Name
Reviewerlinspector Signature: Date: 5100

Facility Number: p 9 —� Date of Inspection G B Printed on: 1/9/2001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below *Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes Wo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes XNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes RNo
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes No
ALI
5/00

Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency -
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
Date of Visit: rims•: �2i Printed on: 7/2112000
Facility lumber
NNot O Operational 0 Below Threshold
P(Permitted [3 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated jor Abov Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: `Z Ap—J4nS..n-....�`. t ............ County:............!.✓....'p^,:!..-......................-...-........
-..... J ......
Owner Name: _.... j....... .� O w . o ram- ..... Phone No:............�p-T. ^-...�. � I s3
..1.............................................
Facility Contact: Q n r...............................j.�....................1......_...�}-..__.�....."I-itle:....................
....... .............._...L.................. Phone No: ........:.�-..............................
Mailing ,Address: ��.�...... [ �� Y� IAT..__.L�C�1..:....................................... ...,�. `:3.a?.�1.... � ...� �.r.......................... .7
..._.... t"t...
Onsite Representative. --...-•••.------
p. n. e r...._.-. lntcgrator:... �e5- .L ......................
.................. .-....... �/..
Certified Operator: .............
Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' °
Longitude
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Po ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
ffFecder to Finish ( ❑Non -Layer ❑ NonJDairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity I7
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present In Lag—n Area 10 Spray Field area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Dischar _es & Stream impactti
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
[]Yes
�No
Discharge ori-inated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
Cr
a. If discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made:'
❑Yes
eNo
b, if dischar!�e is observed, did it reach Water of the State:' (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
K-N
c. Il dischartTe is observed. what is the esiiinated flow in galhniii'�
d, hoes discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if ves, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
ONo
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 Stale other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
LfNo
Waste Collection & Treatnivni
4. is storage capacity (lrechoard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
❑ Yes
4N0
Struck+rc I Structure 2 Structure Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: ......................... .......................................................................
Freehoard linc:hcs): 31
5100
Continued
on back

r �
Facility Number: 02= 1):Itc of Inspection Z� Db Vrinted on: 7/21/2000
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? � ❑Ycs Ck�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?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings'.' w
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over applica ionn'?I/ ❑ Exce ive Pon`ding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type �pryi wfl P�GL� 7Ral%!JG°L�-1'LS
13. Do the receiving crops diffef with those desiyT ated in the Certified Animal Waste Managemcnt Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Dues the facility need a wettable acre determination'?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination'?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment'?
Required Records & Documents
17. Dail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available'?
18, Does the facility fail to have all components or the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
Oe/ WUP. checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement'? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22- Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/lnspcctor fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency'?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
N,6-, ik atigtas:oi'• deficiencies were noted diWing tbis:visit: - Y:oii will Ir eeeipe tr;6 further'
corresponeitce: abirtit this visit. :: :
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Farm is cue(I Ma: n+a, ►.-ed 4- 6per4ej
9,06) rCC,1Qd S ,
Amod r�rbap5,
❑ Yes 9,1No
❑ Yes srhlo
❑ Yes 9 No
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes 9 No
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes KNO
❑ Yes kNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 0,No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes 4 No
A.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: 510D

I Facility Number: rjq -3 1 I Date of Inspection 2-k-49J
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below 4Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes qNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ONO
32, Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No

`y. 13 Division of Soil and Water Conservation Operation Review w ti
D Division of soil and:Water Conservation:=.Compliance Ii pectron b 7`
®;Division of Water Qreality _Compliance Inspection _
_ ,
�r
_ 'O;Other Agency Operatran Review -
i s x z w
,x�___._
Io Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow -tip of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number 0 Date of inspection ,Z9
Time of Inspection d : 24 hr. (hh:mm)
W Permitted Q Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered JE3 Not Q erational Date Last Operated:
--
Farm ,,/
Name: ..... +X .......... (P.-..^'.......`�..........,r� �!+r.. ........ ^`y�^1 ............
.J �v County: jF/.-
Owner Name:...... .... ....... .. T,f.MS�i✓ ........ Phone No: (h/G ..lv .. �T.� .....................
01
__//`�
Facility Contact: 4� J'"s Title Phone No:.. .................................................
Mailing Address: ......Q,U�.....l..i�!�.✓c. �.J�oiRC? f..... 1. !`..}i�!%!� A ....� �.33.7............................. ..........................
r
Onsiie Representative:.... / %✓...... Q rd .. Integrator: ,4, .. ..�f� , ...................
Certified Operator:....... ....../:;>.. _. ............ Operator Certification Number:_.. ���o..................
Location of Farm:
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
........-. .............................................................................................................................I
Latitude �• �` �� Longitude �• C�' ���
Design Current Design :-: Current :. _ ` " Design Current:
Swine_ r Capacity Ponulation Poultry Cauacity Poniilatioa _ Cattle
Capacity Ponulahoii
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
[) Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts,
❑ Boars
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes �10
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other //
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance rnan-made' ❑ Yes j�(No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ} ❑ Yes 0
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (Il'yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes %KNo
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 KNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes $ No
Structure 1
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): .........
Structure 2 Structure 3 • Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3123/99
...........I .................. 5
❑ Yes [CNo
Continued on back

r,
Y
Facility Number: C —
Date of Inspection 0
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes �No
{If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes )(No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes K No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes W No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes KNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑�Excesslsive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes [;kNo
12. Crop type 0eJ-41
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ANo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes XNo
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? El Yes No
Required Records & Documents
17_ Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
X No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
XNo
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
XNo
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
P�No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
19 No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
)(No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
A No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
XNo
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
)ANo
0: N6-A61htl6risor de>Fcienc�es i�gre h6 ea• during �bis:visit; • Y:ou will•receive do furthOr
.. • corresporidenke, abmif this :visit_ - . .
3/23/99

Facility Number: D — hate of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below xYes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes SQ No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, El Yes %No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ff No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken ran belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes V No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes XNo
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes N No
Addjtional .Uomments and/or,Drawtn
--•- -.. � ate- - - � . - --_ _ . , - _.: _ r .::
A,

s _
y�] Dtv�sion of Sosl and Water'Conservation ='Operation Review -
_`._0 Dtvssion of Soil and;Water Conservatson - Compbance lisspectson
ew
s - ®Dwiston of Water Quality, . Cainpliance Inspection ; & �l
0 OtherA enc O erahon RevEewr
140 Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up of DWQ inspection p Follow-up of DSWC review O Other 1
Facility Number G y Date of Inspections
Time of Inspection lZ : 5O 24 hr. (hh:mm)
®Permitted 13Certified 13 Conditionally Certified © Registered [3 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
FarmNamc: R..... Cossnty:.. .....................................................................
z.............. ............��............. y
Owner Name:...._.... C,'�.. Phone No: 6
7 � -
Facility Contact: .....t.._... Title: I hone No:
E''/'`J................ ' p
Mailing Address:..- 0l3' .�� .................. G��' (!.�u!�..i.r..l�.... ...A .......... ..........................
Onsite Representative.
nn/Lh.¢/f �h..f api�!` +�/ ...i: .fr��✓J I3ntegrator:.......i.r://........................................................
Certified Operator:.....Lh.�� - GOs.x ....... Operator Certification Number: ......... 1.zw�' ,,.
1
Location of Farm:
....................../�.z.-7.......................................................................................................................................................................................................I..................
I&
.........................................----....................................------._......._................................................................._............................................._..
Latitude �' �' ��� Longitude �• �� 0°�
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
E4 Farrow to Wean
2p6
2 Zad
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population. Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer FDaiy
❑ Non -Layer Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSL W
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation (If yes, notify DWQ)? ❑ Yes �No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
h. II' discharge is observed, did it reach: ❑ Surface Waters ❑ Waters of the State
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system?
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any 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?
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches)
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
a
..../11 ... .. .... ............................................... .............................
Structure 4
Structure 5
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes wo
❑ Yes ,8'No
Structure 6
1 /6/99 1 Continued on back

Facility Number: O y — �7 Date of Inspection L�J
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes g-No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes N<No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes 'KNo
8. Does any pact of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes KNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required top of dike, maximum and minimum
liquid level elevation markinus? ❑ Yes )(No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancehinpruvement? ❑ Yes )KNo
I I. Is there evidence of over application'? ❑ Ponding ❑ Nitro -en El Yes KNO
12. Crop type!]rr...................................................................................................................................
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the-Certilied Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes io
14. Does the facility lack wettable acreage for land application? (footprint) ❑ Yes ;] No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes XN 0
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes XNo
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ANo
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ic/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes eiffNo
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
21. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ YesANo
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
13: M)"A lations.or deGciendes.were rioted during this visit:. I'ou w' 11freeeive not further .:.:
corresporideikce;about;thisvisit... . ....•.•.•.•.• • .-.•.•.•.•.•.•.•..•.. ; •.•.•.•.•. .-.-.•.•
Comments (re(er to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any.,recornniendatioas-or any otIfEk comments _�Lr
Ust :drawings; tif.facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as. necessary):`
Reviewer/Inspector Name��
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: ,3 N �p 11/6199

Revised January 22, 1999
JUSTIFICATION & DOCUMENTATION FOR MANDATORY WA DETERMINATION
Facility Number _ay S'
Farm Name:_(3,edjgZ_
On -Site Representative: ,cc G/,mow
Inspector/Reviewer's Name:
Date of site visit: 5%!L9�
Date of most recent WUP: 2.-
Operation is flagged for a wettable
acre determination due to failure of
Part H eligibility items) F1 F2 F3 F4
Operation not required to secure WA
determination at this time based on
exemption E1 E2 E3 E4
Annual farm PAN deficit:
pounds
Irrigation System(s) - circle #: 1. hard -hose traveler, 2. center -pivot system; 3. linear -move system;
4. stationary sprinkler system w/permanent pipe; 5. stationary sprinkler system w/portable pipe;
6. stationary gun system w/permanent pipe; 7. stationary gun system w/portable pipe
PART 1. WA Determination Exemptions (Eligibility failure, Part 11, overrides Part I exemption.)
E1 Adequate irrigation design, including map depicting wettable acres, is complete
and signed by an I or PE.
E2 Adequate D, and D2/D3 irrigation operating parameter sheets, including map
depicting wettable acres, is complete and signed by an I or PE.
E3 Adequate D, irrigation operating parameter sheet, including map depicting
wettable acres, is complete and signed by a WUP.
E4 75% rule exemption as verified in Part Ill. (NOTE: 75 % exemption cannot be
applied to farms that fail the eligibility checklist in Part 11. Complete eligibility
checklist, Part II - F1 F2 F3, before completing computational table in Part II1).
PART 11. 75% Rule Eligibility Checklist and Documentation of WA Determination
Requirements. WA Determination required because operation fails one of the eligibility
requirements listed below:
F1 Lack of acreage which resulted in over application of wastewater (PAN) on spray
field(s) according to farm's last two years of irrigation records.
F2 Unclear, illegible, or lack of information/map.
F3 Obvious field limitations (numerous ditches; failure to deduct required
bufferlsetback acreage; or 25% of total acreage identified in CAWMP includes
small, irregularly shaped fields - fields less than 5 acres for travelers or less than
2 acres for stationary sprinklers).
F4 WA determination required because CAWMP credits field(s)'s acreage in excess
of 75% of the respective field's total acreage as noted in table in Part Ill.
Facility Number -

or . . •
Revised January 22, 1999
Part III. Field by Field Determination of 75% Exemption Rule for WA Determination
TRACT FIELD TYPE OF TOTAL CAWMP FIELD COMMENTS3
NUMBER NUMBER1.2 IRRIGATION ACRES ACRES %
SYSTEM
FIELD NUMBER' - hvdrant. Dull_ zone. or point numbers may be used in elace of field numbers deflendina on CAWMP
and type of irrigation system. If pulls, etc. cross more than one field, inspector/reviewer will have to combine fields to
calculate 75% field by field determination for exemption if possible; otherwise operation will be subject to WA
determination.
FIELD NUMBERZ - must be clearly delineated on map.
COMMENTS3 - back-up fields with CAWMP acreage exceeding 75% of its total acres and having received less than 50%
of its annual PAN as documented in the farm's previous two years' (1997 & 1998) of irrigation records, cannot serve as the
sole basis for requiring a WA Determination. Back-up fields must be noted in the comment section and must be accessible
by irrigation system.

Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency
Division of Water Quality
Facility Number O
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection
Registered M C//ertified// (3 Applied for Permit M.Permitted C
Farm Name: ........ f......... ypi✓ .-...... !. !/ J...C..�.rf.0/ .......
Owner Name: ............4, 7b.J t�. Lw/sDi✓
................................................................................................
Facility Contact:....... p .. !r�.......,,/,?.14✓c JTitle: ......... ................
Mailing Address: ......... 0.... ....... fr¢^/!� _�/. Pl f........Gl/.TA
Onsite Representative:..... ......[ y.�17T�r✓............................................
Certified Operator:....... 61.._..... we....lt� '.....Aj ..............................
1.nrnt inn of Farm-
24 hr. (hh:mm)
rt O erational Date Last Operated: ..........................
County:.../... ��............................�.j.........................
Phone No: .....i�...Y.............
PhoneNo: ..... .................................. . .........
Integrator:......r l�r�S y4�9...._i i /�c-f .......
Operator Certification Number:....6
Latitude 0• =1 0" Longitude =• 01 ="
Deslgn-Current -.h. ^xcDeSlgn ;,('.urrenf Currant,,",-
Swute_;, Capacity,^Population Poultry -,*.'. Capacity Population CattleCapacity Population `'>
❑ Wean to Feeder ". ❑ Layer "• ❑ Dairy
,Feeder to Finish 6 ❑Non -Layer I FJO Non -Dairy
�.. ❑ Farrow to Wean^�-
.
❑Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Destgn Capacity ,
�Z �.
❑tilts i< s n Total ss%w
Number of Lagoons %HoldingiQ IDSubsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area 10 Spray Feld Area
`'���<sYMa �"�'~ ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field , ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the convevance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated Flow in gaVmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any pan of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenanceli mprovement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes *No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes KNo
M�
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes )gNo
❑ Yes )RNo
❑ Yes IgNo
Continued on back

Facility Number: pF — J�K
8.
Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes ' No
Structures (Lagoons j-lolding Ponds, Flush fits, etc.)
9.
Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (ti): .--.....z�'-2..��...
10.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes �No
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes _qNo
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?'
❑ Yes ArNo
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes KNo
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff enterin waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type----.L'Gt�i✓.. ft1,
t
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes RNo
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes 42No
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes Xo
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes XNo
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes A No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes No
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
NYes ❑ No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23.
Does the facility fail'to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes 1KNo
24.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes XNo
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes FNo
No.vio'la-tionsvr d6fteieitcies,were-itotid-duiritig this."visiC- :You'will receive•ito further
:. coere P;Dfidekei about tbis:visit:• ::.::
.2.Z - Me.
�� CJK/L � �°C��OrEs /I�✓A f/s/...%rl,�A�J .
7/25/97
b°
Reviewer/Inspcctor Name
_•�
_21,
Z",
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: .y
Date:
(�

` Ssexy '� tr -o- n. "•`€- ''. "6's°q`"` .�.. -y�:. `� a „ .»,r era 4 ss •` 1 w
❑ DSW&Animai :Feediot Operation Revlew 3 R }
e a Na-' xx xenr `p'°,- .k r,x:aw `""" :.M.�x'S�-;'..�s a°"`x b.,� u�` .r3a` ✓'awn' �:' y`, r z B u d „;�, ,,
a " '�F ',",z^' - re •. •sero€ �'tx "t`z� '^"� � -�• u � -Kw
�. �- a ie� " .� �,,,? ' ,a ,� fir a - 4R. �` 4�" rT,y ram, sr use '3x�t- �•ytn R;
y } �°� � � ®DWQ Anl<Inal Feedlot Operation Site Inspectionx� � ��� � �.� � ��= -��
�,z. ,'rya,,.,? �� xax�. ''s a,�,��"i"a a 'r �^: y„��.�x �r----z ��" ,�`.< ��s, ` � �" �cxt, 3.�ae `'` i,',xE,,$v ^�•.,;'��a
O Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection Facility Number D 3 Time of Inspection J2' 30 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: ❑ Regestered Q Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review 3 1
10 Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection jincludes travel andprocessing)
❑ Not Operational Date
Last Operated:.... _ .._�...._ ..... _ .. _.._ .. �._. ..... l....� .._ .� ...... ..
Farm Name: _a 7�rac/ .... �[�-/fc�.�............ ............. County:..._.... �%!��!� ......._....., _... _ .. .
Land Owner Name:.. �'`' ..V !!hi�Sv:J .. _ .... ........ .._...... Phone No:
FacilityConctact:...�..... �._....._... .. Title: _ ................._..............._....._ Phone N ...._..._............_. ..........._...
_. _....._... ....._ �i._
Mailing Address: ? :. 3 '. .`Z
Onsite Representative:....: Integrator:..._._! .... _..... ..^ W ._ ..
Certified Operator: ...// Operator Certification Number: f C�6.�
Latitude 0 4 Longitude ' 6 0�
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
Rrw�., p�e ' ,�'3°•`'.,< ",y,°�. rrr -°�s„ - r•"^^ah, q*w n?�^?-'Cr
k Dp5lgE1 x Current r#w ar DesignCrreEEt Ass „3 DCSEgn�;Current
Swineii nIation oW 3' �"u All
a achy Po illation r � Cattle d aci -P4 elation#
„ �,...n,
❑ Wean to Feeder PO
D® Feeder to Finish i� Non La er Non Dair
Farrow to Wean mow ",+ri [. fir€ ¢a§
[71Farrow to Feeder y. b ,
Tota�lDesJgnCapacty;
Farrow to Finish
❑Other ' � ,� •, ."'`> �� yyx.<� �� ' , ; t � f�
?'a�`"`:,=.-+HmL '�'an^•,e:. �"'..-rg£..'rv�, �.�m.+.yk �a*,�:-,�.xr.•.. • w:,:.».x•�. •a<r.^z<..;..�`"tn•y�i•. .- .''-p�'�,��, 5��,.., . am-�'..��'k�h"9,sva'V� ��'�f�G<..,.G",
Number ofLagoons / Iiold'eng Poudsff❑Subsurface Drains Present��
a 4 t s Lagoon Area Spra? Field Area
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance runprovement? ❑ Yes N No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes Q9 No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes NNo
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes XNo
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes 0,N0
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes KNo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes J,No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes KNo
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement? Continued on back

Facility Number: ... .Q.? . —.
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes )(No
7.
Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes ❑ No
8.
Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes kNo
Structures
(Lagoons and/or Holding. Ponds1
9.
Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes �No
Freeboard (ft). Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
10.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes XNo
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes J�(No
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
kYes ❑ No
(If any of questions 9-I2 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
'A
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
aff9res kNo
R'aste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes XNo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15_
Crop type
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes kNo
17.
Does the facility have. a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes 4 No
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes XNo
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes )<No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes )<No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes JkNo
For
C_eriified Facilities Onl_v
22.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
�, ,,L
❑ Yes O No
23.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes , o
24.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes A'No
,Comunents"(refer to.'quest2on #} Explain any,YES _answers and/or aayzrecommendations or other comments �#
Use drawings of facility to;better expIa�n situattons (useadditional pages as necessary}:
�. F., t
/Z. Ti[ i.�sid1� S/off %
7A*- I cr�cirl��Jic s�13/_Yar.'C
Reviewer/Inspector Name T, # Q�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: -� , /'ea ._ Date: _ D —1Z
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facilit), Assessment Unit 4/30/97

` State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Heath and Natural Resources
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
May 28, 1997
Mr. Layton Johnson
Rt. 3, Box 206-J
Elizabethtown, NC 28337
SUBJECT: Operation Review Summary
Layton Johnson Farm
Facility No.09-34
Bladen County
Dear Mr. Johnson,
On May 14, an Operation Review was conducted of Layton Johnson Farm. This Review, undertaken in
accordance with G.S. 143-215.10D, is one of two visits scheduled for all registered livestock operations during the
1997 calendar year. The Division of Water Quality will conduct a second site inspection.
It was determined that no corrective actions are necessary as the result of this Review, since waste was
nDA being discharged to the waters of the State, and the animal waste collection, treatment, storage and disposal
systems were maintained and operated under the responsible charge of a certified operator_
Please remember that if you do not have a certified animal waste management plan, you are required to
do so by the end of this year. The plan must be certified by either a designated technical specialist or a
professional engineer. For additional assistance with the plan, please contact your local Soil and Water
Conservation District Office or focal Cooperative Extension Service Office.
The Division of Soil and Water Conservation appreciates your cooperation with this Operation Review.
Please do not hesitate to call me at 9101486-1541 ext. 224 if you have any questions, concerns or need
additional information.
Sincerely,
Audrey Oxenlldiine
Environmental Engineer i
cc: Sam Warren - Bladen Co. NRCS
Ed Buchan - FRO DWQ Environmental Engineer
Prestage Farms
DSWC Regional Files
Wachovia Building, Sulle 714, Fayetteville �A-m FAX [phone]
North Carolinn 28301-5043 N 16 C An Erlual Opportrinlly Afflrnintivrt Action Fmployer
Voice 910-486-1541 50% recycled/ 1(M post -consumer paper

Q DWQ Animal Feedlot Qper-ntion Site Inspection
ff RGUtine O Complaint O Follo«--uD of D%VQ inspection O F 611ow-up of DSWC review: 0 Other
_ Fatiiity Number Date of Inspection -/
�
Time of Inspection Use Z? dr. rime
Farm Status: �"tCG� Total Time (in hours) Spegt onReview �---I
or Inspection (includes travel end processin(2)
F=" M" Name-
Owner `ante:.______
Mai.Eing Address:._
Onsite Representarive:
Certified Operator: All4�
Location of Farm:
Ladrade Longitude
EJ ibtOper onsE Date Last Operated:
Type of Operation and Design Capacay
Phone NO
Integrator: ALAaft — -
Operator CerriFtcation Number-,
Swine Murriber PauEtxv - N er _. Cittie- . =zYu
Q Weser to Fier Laver J - - Q Dairy
e--de; to Finish j = -25LO Eton -Lave: Q Be-_:
Farrow-ro Wean I � ��---ems=::
F,to�+ to Fc
Farmw ro F;riish i Ci Oche- Type of Livesrocr —
�Y[rsabeiroCLa oau^ gal Q.Sabsurfacr-Drains Present
-------------
Q Lagaoit Qsprav FiefdAre
Gerierzl
I. Are there any buticrs that and maiatcaanc-'imprave nczt? [ Yes No
2. Is anv discharge cbsc^red horn any parr of the ape cation? Q Yes No
Y
It discharge is observed, was the convc:•ance tman-=trade"? f � teNo
b. If discharge is obscr�ed, did it rc c6 5urfzc�-- EVarc-? {If ycs. ootif: DAL Q1 [ 'ts Na
c. [f discharet is obser: ed, what is the estimated flow in g--l/min? A
O
c_ Does discharge bypass a Eagoon system? (If yes, motif; DWQ) Q Yes J N
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? Q Yes K do
J. W s the-' irnpacts to the .x Wirers of the State other- than From a discia qt` C Yes No
Duce am' per; of the -aste manage nenr systern (ache: then laeoons'noiding ponds) require ❑Yes '�� o
rrtai n [znanc ��i r%ora� r:-e-: C'
Cunrrrrued urr back

7. Did the facility `aR to have ace-ti[iedoperator in responsible czarg-(if inspection after if 1/97)?
8. Axe- there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be rrvpe-1v c!oseci?
Structures f 1.aaoons and/or lfoldiwj Pnudsl
9. Is structural freeboard less than adeouat^?
Frceboard (ft): Lagoon l L ^oast ? Lagoon 3
66
10. Is sepage-obsc: red ft-OM any of the strucaffa?
1 E _ Is erosion; orarty other -threats to the integrity of any of the structures obse; red?
12- Do any of the smuctures need mainte:tancerttnproveatent?
(If anv of questions 9-12 was answered Yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adrluate market to ide:itify scan and stop pumping levels?
Waste Anolication
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, vorifv DWQ)
15. Crop type
16. Do the active coos dine: with those designated in the Aaimal Waste Management Plan?
17. Does the facility nave a lac..'• of adequate ac-=z-for lmdappliczrion?
18. Dots the cover crop need improvement?
19. Isthere a_lacic.ofava+iable irrigation equipment?
FtiicCe ftec F"acilities'Otdr
20. DSes the facility fail to havca copy of the :animal Waste Management Plan readiiy available?
2l. " Does. the faetfiiy fail to comply with the AnimZl Waste Managetneat P fan in any way?
2Z. Dves-iecvntiseePingae-d unnroveme-O
23:. Doeifaciiity require a follow-up visit by saute agrcy? .
Z4_ Did Reviewer{ nspector fates to dL=w, re:riewfoaspcctierrwith owar. cropemtor is charge?
Q Yen 'KNO
Lagoon 4
ElYes ta-i~io
Yes X NO
Yes )� No
0 Yz4 K N4
Q Y� L o
a Yes jN0
C Yes 1Kyo
Q Yes P(No
E! Yes ;(Vo
0 Yes Q No
Q Yes Gl No
[[ Yes a No
Q Yes c NO
Q Yes 0 iuo
�iiuirriL�(refertgticstiotzr}:,�ip[aazryYE�a»zs ai�lvcaay_recaaxuaas>scasirincit>`:: r . _ -
Lase dr-awFa or121:11 tv to br*ren arn:situattoas= tts�sddfao�a�— a�aSacc v
r �� � /Gd A.t C�-�—� �J/n•[.e0� ��Toz� iL[CdC - V �
Reviewerilrtspector `+arne �1 ?t _ _ „_:;.- .::.
Reviwerlfnspecrnr5+mature: Date;
cC: LrvfS[Ur¢ of rr rrr- (;cr.lrr.. ��:�; (JarctlFr S'rC C'nrr

Facfliry Nambsr: O9. 3 44
Division of Environmental Management
_Animal Feedlot Operations Site Visitation Record
_ Tune:
Senerpl Inf,Qr�natiQn;
FarmNsme� La�-fON +kaLtN�ONcly ��"'J- 1�10.��
Owner Name: Phone No616Q & siS - s3
On Site Representative: +• d wNt.� ���g�pt;-_�rt�S 16a
Mailing Addn=: Rax+r 3 , B�j z oo l"- s
N c -z%337 _
Physical Addres&I ocation: lid.# 70f-e4c'.$ H w E- v .,.�✓ ;�,� h,;y f _!
�„le.s � ON 2 Zr �{•'�e;i/�-S a,ud -E4K� a. /�� o.�! Ste. l003 �a.-.�
t
Qneration Description: (based on design characteristics)
rypt of Swhw No. of Anima& . Type of Podgy No. of Animals 4N of Cattla No. of Animals
0 Saw 0 Layer 0 Dairy
0 NUrmy 0 Non -Layer D Beef
{fieeder Fd► I O
Other7jape gELIvrnock Number of Amoral.
N6mber of Lagoons: 1 (include in the DraKings and Observations the freeboard of each lagoon)
Encility Inotwoe
Lagoon
Is lagoon(s) frocboard less than 1 foot + 25 yea 24 hour storm storage?: 4- -F+)
Yes ❑
No
Is seepage observed from the lagoon?:
Yes 0
No Ur'
Is erosion observed?:
Yes 0
No M
Is any discharge observed?
Yes 0
No L9.-,
0 Man-nmdt Q Not Man -node
Cover Crop '
Does the facility need more acreage far spraying?:
Yes 0
No CY"
Does the cover crop need improvcsneva.
Yes 0
No Q-�'
{ Mr At crops which need ii wroweasew)
OWtypeL Row CVOC-S - -
Setbae* Criteria-
U a dwelling located within 200 feet of waste application? +.-
;
Yes O
No
_
- Is a weII located thin 100 feet of waste application? :: - -
4
Yes C] `-,No
Cr'-
Is animal waste stockpiled within 100 feet of USGS Blue Lane Strom?
Yes C?
No O--'
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 feet of BIue Line Stream?
Yes 0
No Cr

maintenance'
Does the facility maintenance need improvement?
Is them evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
Does record keeping need improvement?
Did the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan on. site?
Yes O No M-'-
Yes Q No M
Yes ❑ No
Yes 3�No 0
F.aCplam any Yes answers: �► i s t�i s �s•c.� o p we--�`� N -Acp, 04:)&; N
GtN a C�tjt a �e«_ _,V- q 1 1 .
SignatEuue: R. �.� Date:
ec Feaby Assessment Unk Use AnacJ mmU (fNeeded
Drawings Qr Qbservati_gM;
8
• .. - / �+t-.._ 1..l...r y . . -- . — - ..: - .t-..MiT1-�►'irw~ wj-b + yn +:ems •fr14" Wiwi-�
- .. ._ •v ��.-. . � 1- ��,�_� {r r� a ..'►.r Jr♦ �+.�r. {
�i r`- � - '. - - � - �� ���� .li�'w �{�i♦ 1�.1 - 7►-, •1� �• �1' • f� w���� I i ��� � �a _•_ • _

_6z�
Type of Visit A@ Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 19 Routine O Complaint O Follow up 0 Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1 b Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: 19 (E e-`�- Region: FRO
Farm Name: o � \\ rrr w` Owner Email:
Owner Name: 10 1> - �LLiKS0-111 _ Phone: Mailing Address: boo -Pe n - _ f,( tZ41641_kca_ KL- US31
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: b6m a�N•-
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator: --StD h n sC?
Location of Farm:
Swine
Phone No:
Integrator: _ �tT R
Operator Certification Number: „ , (Oct _
Back-up Certification Number: 6 `tD
Latitude: = o = 0 Longitude: = o = - = "
Design .Current Design Current
Capacity Population WetToultry Capacity Population
Finish ❑ Layer
Feeder # ❑ Non -Layer
❑ Wean to
❑ Wean to
El Feeder to Finish
10
El Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder
El Farrow to Finish
El Gilts
❑ Boars
I
Other
❑ Other -
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Puttets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure El Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current -
Cattle Capacity Population `
ElDai Cow
❑ DairyCalf
❑ DairyHeifer
❑ D Cow
ElNon-Dai ry
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes.. notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)'?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes. notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
El Yes ® No El NA ❑ NE
El Yes
El No
® NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[K NA
❑ NE
P9 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
El No
❑ Yes
L4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
5INo
❑ NA
El NE
12128104 Continued

Facility -`Number: — Date of Inspection TA'
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes NLNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No 9 NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:�
Designed Freeboard (in): T 1_
Observed Freeboard (in):L'1
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes Q 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 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
[&No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
L.No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu,
Zn, etc.)
[]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable, Csro Window�Eviden of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
Aw-Sv-(IJ♦.Ply,W Omivv) Sq4-Apf
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s) ,
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
§d No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16- Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination'
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
(51No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
91No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Reviewer/inspector Name x rr �{ .f Phone: 41 g —/_"—
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 Continued

� �
�`�,
�' '1
r { �
ro
""
{�
� � �
-�
� � �
�� T�L
Z;
�
�
2 �
G
?c
V,
� '�
"�\
�
/q

Facility Number: 9 — 3Y Date of Inspection D 1
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes &No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WU K ❑ Checklists" ❑ Desig f' ❑ Maps' ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Applicatioe ❑ Weekly Freeboard' ❑ Waste AnalysiB' ❑ Soil Analysis/ ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification/
❑ Rainfalr ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yieler ❑ 120 Minute Inspectione ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Cow .
22,
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes
[KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
117-OA4 ❑ Yes
USNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
01 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
JR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑C Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
Oyes
®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
8 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
19 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2�. �,�
�rec e SS
o�
ob: �� ►tea Sa.t,�,c�i�e� MAX-,r�4--
12129104

IType of Visit O Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit a Routine O Complaint O Follow up Q Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: / G `f Tune:
Facility Number
�. Q NotOperatioxial Q Below Threshold
$j Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date -Last Operated or Above Threshold:
I Farm Name: ��._.h.Rcf.� N .1 t��+ivJo� f tM County: FRO
........,�.��..f���..-.----_-----
Owner Name: _ w , ,� Phone No:
Vladmg Address:
Facffit►• Contact: ...... a ��' - --- - � `�uj tie:. Phone No: .
Onsite Representative; %`� Q ctro.c� -----------------,--------- • Integrator. , _ r -4o �.
Certified Operator: _ i �v aiaT /�_. N� �.0 Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • Du Longitude • �u
Des�ga' ' Current
De gtis Current = ,
Layer
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
e%10
Non -Layer
Farrow to Wean
'
Farrow to Fender
Other
Farrow to Finish
"I
Gilts
BoarsF"
F
Discha es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man -trade?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal./min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
I cW11 `POAulatloII
2
❑ Yes 14 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
!,1/14
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes jD No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes jyj No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 9 - 3 z ' Date of Inspection I IJ7,0 9
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ® No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes Fil No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes Q No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelmtprovement? ❑ Yes No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes j No
❑ Excessive Ponddiing ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type G oz4l 1.1-1A ed -14.
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 4 No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes Q3 No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes E4 No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes R No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes m No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attar below ❑ Yes J No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes No
Air Quality representative immediately.

t I Facility Number: 9 - 3 q
Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewimspection with on -site representative?
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
3I . If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
34. Did the facility fail to calibram waste application equipment?
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After I" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
❑ Yes EO No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes MNo
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
AJ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes m No
❑ Yes m No
❑ Yes IV No
❑ Yes 51 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
12112103

!3-rut5 v. k,-.( 67 9-0- 9-1y-Z-a07
Type of Visit 9-fom liance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
y
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ElDenied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
d8-47-p7 Farm Name: - a if 74nN TSot, It .v J' aeA.. Owner Email:
Owner Name: _�a 4�a.✓_ D. 3aka s a-d Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 'A�44 2>1 Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator: ,PtJc�G�
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Region:
Latitude: = 0 = Longitude: 0°= 0 u
Design Current
Design C*urrent
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dai Cow
to Feeder
❑ Non -La er
❑ Dai Calf
Vean
der to Finish /
❑ Dai Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non-Dai
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
Cilts
Non -La ers
❑ Beef Feeder
PE]Boars
❑ Pullets
Brood Co
❑❑Beef
Turkeys
Other,
❑ Other
❑ Turke Poults
Other
Nttmber 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?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes [A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El NA
El NE
El Yes
MNo
❑ Yes
�M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

S- 7
r Facility Number: 0 9— _307-0
11 tl Date of Inspection - 07_0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
JZ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
OK No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): l 9
Observed Freeboard (in): _ 43 1A
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
RI 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
[ji 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
1A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
14 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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10_ Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
� No
[I NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes P] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable fCrop Window El Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) 0 ^ L_w! / t jx . 7 / SD:, 6Cfi,tl� -
13. Soil type(s) G iv . ROL_
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
lb. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
�No ❑NA El NE
�► No ❑ NA ❑ NE
U§No ❑ NA ❑ NE
V9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
41
'Comments (refer to question #): Explain any�YES°answers and/or any recommendations o j anyiathe�r comments
Use drawings.of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary)R'
AL
T
ReviewerllnspectorName
Phone: 910, 1�33. 300
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
Date:
—ZOO
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Gontinued

Facility Number: D 9 —,35< Date of Inspection FY' 07- d
Reauired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check ❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP El 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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23_
if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
Cl 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
IyNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
1� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
59 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
Q� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
Ep 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
(P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104