090050_INSPECTIONS_20171231

7
M Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
090050
Facility Status: Active
Permit AWS090050 Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit:
Routine
County:
Bladen Region: Fayetteville
Data of Visit:
03131/2017 Entry Time: 12:00 pm Exit Time: 1:00 pm Incident S
Farm Name:
Lisbon Sow Farm #2
Owner Email:
Owner.
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
437 Thomas Broom Rd
Council NC 28434
Facility Status:
Compliant
Not Compliant Integrator.
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
34° 29' 16" Longitude: 78` 32' 15"
From Lisbon take SR
1713 South 1.5 miles, turn right onto SR 1765 (Sheppard Rd) and go 0.5 miles to farm entrance on right.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other Issues
Certified Operator: .lames C Smith Operator Certification Number: 17907
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Michael Ammons Phone :
On -site representative Michael Ammons Phone:
Primary Inspector. Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS090050 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility !Number: 090050
Inspection Date: 03/31/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 3,839
Total Design Capacity: 3,839
Total SSLW: 1,662,287
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00 44.00
Lagoon 2
page: 2

Permit: AWS090050 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 090050
Inspection Date: 03/31/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
110
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
Elm
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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 & Treatment
Yes
No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
01313
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
❑
M ❑
❑
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 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Apolication
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M ❑ ❑
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 manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS090050 Owner- Facility.- Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 090050
Inspection Date: 03/31/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yee No Na No
Crop Type 1
coastal Bermuda Grass wl
Rye Overseed
Crop Type 2
Com, wheat, soybeans
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Autryville loamy sand, 0 to
3% slopes
Soil Type 2
Exum very tine sandy loam,
0 to 3% slope
Soil Type 3
Nahunta very fine sandy
loam
Soil Type 4
Norfolk loamy fine sand, 2
to B% slopes
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ M ❑ ❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No No No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
M ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
Cl
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS090050 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 090050
Inspection Date: 03/31/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
You
No Na Ne
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
E ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑0
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
M ❑
❑
Other issues
YeS
No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
M ❑
❑
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,
❑
M ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(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 / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
page: 5

rt
Lt --It-IK 5ttG-✓
Type of Visit: Qwmpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 01fo-utine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: ® Arrival Time: Departure Time: O County: Region: FeR
Farm Name: �;g ��,,: 50-co ' Owner Email:
Owner Name: %h y 31&y, �— c G Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone:
Onsite Representative:
Integrator:
Certified Operator:
�/ysj,�s ly'lC ` E
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design
Current
Design Current
Design
Current
Swine
Capacity
Pop.
Wet Eoilltry
Capacity Pop. -
Cattle
C►apacity
Pop.
Wean to Finish
F7Jayer
Dairy Cow
can to Feeder
4f0o
oo
Non -Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
0vo
/ Do O
-
-
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D A P,ouI
Ca a i ' 1'0
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Layers
Non -Layers
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
F Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
OtherI
ITurkeyPoults
Other
I
10ther
Discharizes and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
[:]Yes
[gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
❑No
❑NA
❑NE
[:]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes [allo
❑ Yes 2!�No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
I,, Page I of 3
21412011 Continued

Fgcili Number: - S!J jDate of Ins ection: I
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes Z�No DNA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):_
Observed Freeboard (in): v�Z
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes ®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes E�2LNo
❑ 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 g) No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes r'�71 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
L❑
12. Crop TYpe(s)
13. Soil Type(s): 0 * - 4(7f I /y %f >,D B / 4- 14
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 2. 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?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes [S No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes P4No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design D Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [g 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 CS No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes E..No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Pagel of 21412011 Continued

Ficiyty Number: - 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 CAWW?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes F—A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes EqNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes R1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes g[ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
12 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
gC No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #1): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better exnlain situations (use additional oaees as necessarv).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: o
Date:
V412011

j r ,Y 1rs-r]� .`-�" .y. .� y . .ass.-r.nc7*--�.x +r�.� .t.. _ -
..�i`'ft4 `4►ff
.,�
- ivision of Water Quality
Facility NumbeDivision of Svil and Water t%onServati_on
- - � Other Age�n„cy
Type of Visit: Q-Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: , l3elto-utine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: ® Arrival Time:1 Departure Time: : 3 0 County: fj�.... Region: '
Farm Name: `rgtlET+1.._JDLCJ /��rvrj^,�- Owner Email:
Owner Name: f 31''6' 0rt {-- (, C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: Z-7w-5
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: /17U✓Q,(3f�w`t
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
- �� � t Design Current
Desi n Current _ gnu u&
�Desi MCurren�
Swine Capaty Pop Wet,Poultry Ca�pacity�Pop Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish Layer DairyCow
Y- Wean to Feeder
"-(00
oa
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Dai ' Heifer
Feeder to Finish
' Farrow to Wean
3 �"08S'c77Desrgn
Current
Cow
Farrow to Feeder
DP,ou1t Ca- aci l?o,
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Farrow,to Finish
Layers
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
-
Beef Brood Cow
Boars
tgg
Pullets
•
Turkeys
-
l7ther
-- ��
Turkey Poults
-
Other
Other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
' a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ®,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ 'NE'•' ,. .
❑ Yes
®-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
3-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412071 Continued

- - _
I--
,,:
'�
cIfl ; Number: - S�CJ Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure
4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): v;
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
' 6_ Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public
health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® 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 Annl►cation
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 Z[ 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): /G,6lr /G�i r.✓� /r, ��irc�-,, S
13. Soil Type(s): 157T / �K� /y -ff / 2v Q -9 / 14 m,4
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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
allo
❑ 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
E�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[allo
❑ 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
[g. No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather
Code
[:]Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I " Rainfall Inspections
[:]Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[5] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
[:]Yes
R9.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412011 Continued

<•r.� �,trti.'h.Y,i�`: Y.,.--.x.rra'�-e�.�... ;;.�Y.. .. �,•,s�.� e__J.�c, v:,�.. r. 'a:. .,•S:�F. :.'r-.-.. ,.y..v�; �--
Faeili Number: - j—(J 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 0 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
,ti
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes 54 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 g] No ❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
1
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes R] No ❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes 10 No ❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
[:]Yes Ej No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question # ): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or. any other comments ' k
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional; pages as necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name: S%'
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 9i fey rj -3��
Date: a-j �— ry
21412011

r
Type of Visit: &Ciompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: ' t5O County:Tkrdcr-
Farm Name: ��5�� _-!62 / e�t/� Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Or
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region: YO�—,Ly
Facility Contact: Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: �'��y w f%'���f'l% _ Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Fir,
nt Design Current - Design Current
$wine Capacity. y�WetPodltry Capacity P.op t . _ : Cattle C►apacity Pop.
7.0
Wean to Finish Layer Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder Non -Layer Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish _I _,.i Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean' Design Current ` Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder D �l?oult . Ca aci_- P10 Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish La ers Beef Stocker
Gilts Non -Layers 113eef Feeder
Boars Pullets Beef Brood Cow
- ...
Turkeys
Other Turkey Poults
Other Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
[—]Yes 5jNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [:]No
[—]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes Q No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facilif ° Number: - Date of Ins ection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
F 4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes E] 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):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 0 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 MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
❑ NA
0 NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes i�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 25 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 KNo
❑ 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 0 Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): 9-1-071VIa /B�<��r�-er &192 1[--
13. Soil TYpe(s): L�x lT ZAZA
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes ER No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable [:]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes Eg 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 appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps 0 Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes a No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 0 No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ( No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
[:]Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Fatilify Number: jDate of Inspection:
w 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 0 No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [allo
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
24. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Jallo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[—]Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes RA No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Ldcwl
[:]Yes ® No
❑ Yes fR� No
❑ Yes El No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
ems_ /*a7,1 7 ,Z- G�/��-_ �`-�-v%-�vr-�yr.'n -T s,-fe�:�--
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: �
Date: 3 TzQ
21412011

Type o Visitmpli
nce Inspection
oRoutine
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: ��'O County: r%4.-
Farm Name: 4 ! 4071v Si d/. - _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: �!'sr��.ti. ! f Phone:
Mailing Address:
Region.,
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: !f Title: Phone
/No:
Onsite Representative: _Sc� Integrator: Q�
Certified Operator: Xorrs ,FYI aL � Operator Certification Number: 7d .k.e
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =1 o = 1 = Longitude: = ° 0
Design �C*urrent Design Currents
fr'*
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Pouf : C+apacity Population Cattle
Ca act Po ulation
P by P
❑ Wean to Finish
" ❑ La er
❑ Dairy Cow
® Wean to Feeder
10 Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
® Feeder to Finish /0�17 x .i v
❑Dai Heifer
Farrow to Wean 55WDry Poultry F"`�-
❑ D Cow
El
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ La ers
❑Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts ❑Non -La ers
El Beef Feeder
❑ Pullets
❑ Boars
❑ Beef Brood Co
❑ Turkeys
Other ,,._�, Turkey Poultsi
„
Number of Structures:
❑ Other
❑ Other.
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes O-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 5L —
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
J.No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): /
Observed Freeboard (in): 4
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
VLNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
®.No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA FINE
(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
L4 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Anplication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
ElNA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
1 1. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l 0 ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ElApplication Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) &Zea& /Gpi` n ZZ>81� S
�j'2
13. Soil type(s)- ylx x/at
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
KNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
2jNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
0No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ENo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspectar Name ; , Phone: jjYy�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

f�
Facility plumber: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes S-No. ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes J No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists El Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes C-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
E,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
93-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
®.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
ER No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2T
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
J�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
Eq No
❑ 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
[A 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
J4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[SNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
QNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
rt
7 /r
r--� z-_ 1_�
Aoy—s A Pa
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Facility'Number`
Type of Visit (Z�C6mpliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit otrtine Q Complaint Q Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 03 Ek
)eparture Time: :lam ounty: o.i� Region:
Farm Name: �`,,5ltr=" ,,7 G Owner Email:
Owner Name: f" V V194:::;z Phone:
Mailing Address:
PhysicaI Address:
facility Contact: ; 5 Title: Phone. No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
--.,",
Certified Operator. t /""1 /� G _ Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: _ l Back-up Certification Number:
Location cif Farm: Latitude: ❑ o ❑ 1 ❑ n Longitude: ❑o ❑ , ❑ u
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
—� ❑ Layer
ffQ r I JE1 Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ 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?
❑ Yes 6Io ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
glo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: -
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Stnucture l
Identifier:
Spillway-?:
Designed Freehoard (in): / q _
Observed Freeboard (in): / 4-
Stnucture 2 Structure 3 Stnucture 4
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?
09Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
14k Yes [ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes IM No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes J4 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 ®,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes P 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 QNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ®No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift f❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop types) �z�/ n f �l✓clsc ,r n/ �Gt� l LcJh ram ��6t--S
13. Soil type(s) ..,.., YA �j e4
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CA WMP?
❑ Yes
4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
EYkNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination,❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
5i-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):
ReOewer/Inspector Name Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: - j V--,,-z9 11�
1wr51u4 c onanuea

Facility Number: 9- — Date of Inspection 7 D—%U
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 91,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ®,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
Ej No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[HNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[Z 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
4 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
[9 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
14No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
5No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

REC
Murphy -Brown, LLC 4/3/2009 J% t 3 2822 Hwy 24 West
P.O. Box 856
OEM-FAYETfE UfREGI01VA GITICt: Warsaw, NC 28398
NUTRIENT UTILIZATION PLAN
Grower(s):
Farm Name:
Farm
Murphy Farms, Inc.
Lisbon 2 Sow Farm, ac. Na. 9-50
Bladen
Farrow to Wean 3500
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Wean to Feeder 400
Feeder to Finish 1000
Storage Structure: Anaerobic
Storage Period: >180 days
Application Method: Irrigation
RECEIVED / DENR / DWQ
AC¢uifPr ProtQrtion Section
APR 0 6 2009
The waste from your animal facility must be land applied at a specified rate to prevent pollution
of surface water and/or groundwater. The plant nutrients in the animal waste should be used
to reduce the amount of commercial fertilizer required for the crops in the fields where the waste
is to be applied.
This waste utilization plan uses nitrogen as the limiting nutrient. Waste should be analyzed
before each application cycle. Annual soil tests are strongly encouraged so that all plant
nutrients can be balanced for realistic yields of the crop to be grown.
Several factors are important in implementing your waste utilization plan in order to maximize
the fertilizer value of the waste and to ensure that it is applied in an environmentally safe manner:
1. Always apply waste based on the needs of the crop to be grown and the nutrient
content of the waste. Do not apply more nitrogen than the crop can utilize.
2. Soil types are important as they have different infiltration rates, leaching potentials,
cation exchange capacities, and available water holding capacities.
3. Normally waste shall be applied to land eroding at less than 5 tons per acre per
year. Waste may be applied to land eroding at 5 or more tons per acre annually, but
less than 10 tons per acre per year providing that adequate filter strips are established.
4. Do not apply waste on saturated soils, when it is raining, or when the surface is frozen
Either of these conditions may result in runoff to surface waters which is not allowed
under DWQ regulations.
5. Wind conditions should also be considered to avoid drift and downwind odor
problems.
6. To maximize the value of the nutrients for crop production and to reduce the potential
for pollution, the waste should be applied to a growing crop or applied not more than
30 days prior to planting a crop or forages breaking dormancy. Injecting the waste or
disking will conserve nutrients and reduce odor problems.
1 of 11

This plan is based on the waste application method shown above. If you choose to change
methods in the future, you need to revise this plan. Nutrient levels for different application
methods are not the same.
The estimated acres needed to apply the animal waste is based on typical nutrient content
for this type of facility. In some cases you may want to have plant analysis made, which could
allow additional waste to be applied. Provisions shall be made for the area receiving waste to
be flexible so as to accommodate changing waste analysis content and crop type. Lime must
be applied to maintain pH in the optimum range for specific crop production.
This waste utilization plan, if carried out, meets the requirements for compliance with 15A NCAC
2H .0217 adopted by the Environmental Management Commission.
AMOUNT OF WASTE PRODUCED PER YEAR ( gallons, ft3, tons, etc.):
Capacity Type Waste Produced per Animal Total
3500
Farrow to Wean
3212 gaUyr
11,242,000 gal/yr
Farrow to Feeder
4015 gaUyr
gal/yr
Farrow to Finish
10585 gaUyr
gal/yr
400
Wean to Feeder
223 gaUyr
89,200 gal/yr
1000
Feeder to Finish
986 gaUyr
986,000 gaUyr
Total 12,317,200 gal/yr
AMOUNT OF PLANT AVAILABLE NITROGEN PRODUCED PER YEAR (Ibs):
Capacity Type Nitrogen Produced eer Animal Total
3500
Farrow to Wean
5A Ibs/yr
18,900 Ibs/yr
Farrow to Feeder
6.5 Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
Farrow to Finish
26 Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
400
Wean to Feeder
0.48 Ibs/yr
192 Ibs/yr
1000
Feeder to Finish
2.3 Ibs/yr
2,300 lbs/yr
Total 21,392 Ibs/yr
Applying the above amount of waste is a big job. You should plan time and have appropriate
equipment to apply the waste in a timely manner.
LAND UTILIZATION SUMMARY
The following table describes the nutrient balance and land utilization rate for this facility
Note that the Nitrogen Balance for Crops indicates the ratio of the amount of nitrogen produced
on this facility to the amount of nitrogen that the crops under irrigation may uptake and utilize
in the normal growing season.
Total Irrigated Acreage: 119.54
Total N Required 1st Year: 37574.87
Total N Required 2nd Year: 27004.83
Average Annual Nitrogen Requirement of Crops: 32,289.85
Total Nitrogen Produced by Farm: 21,392.00
Nitrogen Balance for Crops: (10,897.85)
The following table describes the specifications of the hydrants and fields that contain the crops
designated for utilization of the nitrogen produced on this facility. This chart describes the size,
soil characteristics, and uptake rate for each crop in the specified crop rotation schedule for this
facility.
2of11

Lisbon 2 Sow Farm
4/312009
Reception Area Specifications Year 1 of a z year crop rotaiion
Tract Field Irrigated Soil 1st Crop Time to 15tCrop IstCrop LbsN/Ac, Lbs N Total lbs N'
Acreage Type Apply Yield lbs N/Unit Residual Mc Utilized
-Code
-------------------
-
901M

Lisbon 2 Saw Farm
413/2009
Reception Area Specifications Year 2 of a 2 year crop rotation
Tract Field ad Soil 1st Crop Time to 1stCrop stCrop LbsN/Ac Lbs IN Total Ibs N
Acreage Type -Code Apply Yield Ibs, N/Unit Residual IAc Utilized
IVI-T-RKT- - i T`.Mltr.�r. r. I W - - A-M
-------------------
-
27004.83
3(b) of 11

This plan does not include commercial fertilizer. The farm should produce adequate plant
available nitrogen to satisfy the requirements of the crops listed above.
The applicator is cautioned that P and K may be over applied while meeting the N requirements.
In the future, regulations may require farmers in some parts of North Carolina to have a nutrient
management plan that addresses all nutrients. This plan only addresses nitrogen.
In interplanted fields ( i.e. small grain, etc, interseeded in bermuda), forage must be removed
through grazing, hay, and/or silage. Where grazing, plants should be grazed when they
reach a height of six to nine inches. Cattle should be removed when plants are grazed to a
height of four inches. In fields where small grain, etc, is to be removed for hay or silage, care
should be exercised not to let small grain reach maturity, especially late in the season (i.e.
April or May). Shading may result if small grain gets too high and this will definately interfere
with stand of bermudagrass. This loss of stand will result in reduced yields and less nitrogen
being utilized. Rather than cutting small grain for hay or silage just before heading as is
the normal situation, you are encouraged to cut the small grain earlier. You may want to
consider harvesting hay or silage two to three times during the season, depending on the
time small grain is planted in the fall.
The ideal time to interplant small grain, etc, is late September or early October. Drilling is
recommended over broadcasting. Bermudagrass should be grazed or cut to a height of
about two inches before drilling for best results.
CROP CODE LEGEND
Crop Code Crop
A Barley
B Hybrid Bermudagrass - Grazed
C Hybrid Bermudagrass - Hay
D Corn - Grain
E Corn - Silage
F Cotton
G Fescue- Grazed
H Fescue- Hay
I Oats
J Rye
K Small Grain - Grazed
L Small Grain - Hay
M Grain Sorghum
N Wheat
O Soybean
P Pine Trees
Lbs N utilized / unit yield
1.6 lbs N / bushel
50 lbs N I ton
50 lbs N / ton
1.25 lbs N / bushel
12 lbs N / ton
0.12 lbs N / lbs lint
50 lbs N ! ton
50 lbs N ! ton
1.3 lbs N / bushel
2.4 lbs N ! bushel
50 lbs N / acre
50 lbs N I acre
2.5 lbs N 1 cwt
2.4 lbs N I bushel
4.0 lbs N / bushel
40 lbs N ! acre / yr
Acres shown in the preceding table are considered to be the usable acres excluding
required buffers, filter strips along ditches, odd areas unable to be irrigated, and perimeter areas
not receiving full application rates due to equipment limitations. Actual total acres in the fields
listed may, and most likely will be, more than the acres shown in the tables.
See attached map showing the fields to be used for the utilization of animal waste.
4of11

SLUDGE APPLICATION:
The following table describes the annual nitrogen accumulation rate per animal
in the lagoon sludge
Farm Specifications
PAN/ /animal
Farm Total/yr
3500 Farrow to Wean
0.84
2940
Farrow to Feeder
1
Farrow to Finish
4.1
400 Wean to Feeder
0.072
28.8
1000 Feeder to Finish
0.36
360
The waste utilization plan must contain provisions for periodic land application of sludge at
agronomic rates. The sludge will be nutrient rich and will require precautionary measures to
prevent over application of nutrients or other elements. Your production facility will produce
approximately 3328.8 pounds of plant available nitrogen per year will accumulate in the lagoon
sludge based on the rates of accumulation listed above.
If you remove the sludge every 5 years, you will have approximately 16644 pounds of plant
available nitrogen to utilize. Assuming you apply this PAN to hybrid bermuda grass hayland at the
rate of 300 pounds of nitrogen per acre, you will need 55 acreas of land. If you apply the sludge
to corn at a rate of 125 pounds per acre, you will need 133.152 acres of land. Please note that these
are only estimates of the PAN produced and the land required to utilize that PAN. Actual values
may only be determined by sampling the sludge for plant available nitrogen content prior to application
Actual utilization rates will vary with soil type, crop, and realistic yield expectations for the specific
application fields designated for sludge application at time of removal.
APPLICATION OF WASTE BY IRRIGATION:
The irrigation application rate should not exceed the intake rate of the soil at the time of irrigation
such that runoff or ponding occurs. This rate is limited by initial soil moisture content, soil
structure, soil texture, water droplet size, and organic solids. The application amount should not
exceed the available water holding capacity of the soil at the time of irrigation nor should the
plant available nitrogen applied exceed the nitrogen needs of the crop.
If surface irrigation is the method of land application for this plan, it is the responsibility of the
producer and irrigation designer to ensure that an irrigation system is installed to properly
irrigate the acres shown in the preceding table. Failure to apply the recommended rates and
amounts of nitrogen shown in the tables may make this plan invalid.
'This is the maximum application amount allowed for the soil assuming the amount
of nitrogen allowed for the crop is not over applied. In many situations, the application
amount shown cannot be applied because of the nitrogen limitation. The maximum
application amount shown can be applied under optimum soil conditions.
Your facility is designed for >180 days of temporary storage and the temporary storage must
be removed on the average of once every 6 months. In no instance should the volume of the
waste stored in your structure be within the 25 year 24 hour storm storage or one foot of
freeboard except in the event of the 25 year 24 hour storm.
It is the responsibility of the producer and waste applicator to ensure that the spreader equipment
is operated properly to apply the correct rates to the acres shown in the tables. Failure to apply
the recommended rates and amounts of nitrogen shown in the tables may make this plan invalid.
Call your technical specialist after you receive the waste analysis report for assistance in
determining the amount of waste per acre and the proper application prior to applying the waste.
5of11

Application Rate Guide
The following is provided as a guide for establishing application rates and amounts.
Soil
Application Rate
Application Amount
Tract
Hydrant
Type
Crop
inlhr
* inches
T3230
1
AyB
C
0.35
1
T3230
2
ExA
D
0.35
1
T3230
3
ExA
D
0.35
1
T3230
4
Na
D
0.4
1
T3230
5
ExA
D
0.35
1
T3230
Sub1
AyB
C
0.35
1
T3230
Sub2
ExA
D
0.35
1
T3230
Sub3
ExA
D
0.35
1
T3230
Sub4
Na
D
0.4
1
T3230
6
AyB
C
0.35
1
T3230
Sub6
AyB
C
0.35
1
6 of 11

Additional Comments:
This plan revised to show the addition of field #6 and a recalculation of the
acres for hydrants #1-3 in field #1.
All fields may be planted in a winter cover crop if desired. The cover crop can
receive a maximum of 35 Ibs N/ac. from Sept -March and the appled amount
of PAN must be subtracted from the following crops' PAN rate, unless the
cover crop is harvested, then a maximum of 100 Ibs. N/ac. may be applied
from Sept -April and there will be no reduction in the following crops' PAN rate.
Field #1 will be planted in Bermuda hay with a small grain overseed. The small
grain overseed is optional.
Field #5 and the sub fields are areas not covered by the pivots or reels, but
will be covered by use of an Aerway machine.
7 of 11

NUTRIENT UTILIZATION PLAN CERTIFICATION
Name of Farm:
Owner:
Manager:
Owner/Manager Agreement:
Lisbon 2 Sow Farm, Fac. No. 9-50
Murphy Farms, Inc.
I/we understand and will follow and implement the specifications and the operation and
maintenance procedures established in the approved animal waste nutrient management
plan for the farm named above. I/we know that any expansion to the existing design capacity
of the waste treatment and/or storage system, or construction of new facilities, will require a
new nutrient management plan and a new certification to be submitted to DWQ before the new
animals are stocked.
I/we understand that I must own or have access to equipment, primarily irrigation equipment,
to land apply the animal waste described in this nutrient management plan. This equipment
must be available at the appropriate pumping time such that no discharge occurs from the lagoon
in the event of a 25 year 24 hour storm. I also certify that the waste will be applied on the land
according to this plan at the appropriate times and at rates which produce no runoff.
This plan will be filed on site at the farm office and at the office of the local Soil and Water
Conservation District and will be available for review by NCDWQ upon request.
Name of Facility Owner: Murphy Farms, Inc.
Signature:
Name of Manager (if different from owner):
Signature:
Name of Technical Specialist:
Affiliation:
Address
Telephone
Signature:
M. Kevin Weston
Murphy -Brown, LLC.
2822 Hwy 24 West, PO Drawer 856
Warsaw. NC 28398
0) 293-3434
Date
Date
Date
8 of 11

NUTRIENT UTILIZATION PLAN
REQUIRED SPECIFICATIONS
Animal waste shall not reach surface waters of the state by runoff, drift, manmade
conveyances, direct application, or direct discharge during operation or land application.
Any discharge of waste which reaches surface water is prohibited.
2 There must be documentation in the design folder that the producer either owns or has an
agreement for use of adequate land on which to properly apply the waste. If the producer
does not own adequate land to properly dispose of the waste, he/she shall provide
evidence of an agreement with a landowner, who is within a reasonable proximity,
allowing him/her the use of the land for waste application. It is the responsibility of the
owner of the waste production facility to secure an update of the Nutrient Utilization Plan
when there is a change in the operation, increase in the number of animals, method of
application, recievinq crop type, or available land.
3 Animal waste shall be applied to meet, but not exceed, the nitrogen needs for realistic crop
yields based upon soil type, available moisture, historical data, climatic conditions, and
level of management, unless there are regulations that restrict the rate of applications for
other nutrients.
4 Animal waste shall be applied to land eroding less than 5 tons per acre per year. Waste
may be applied to land eroding at more than 5 tons per acre per year but less than 10 tons
per acre per year provided grass filter strips are installed where runoff leaves the field (See
USDA, NRCS Field Office Technical Guide Standard 393 - Filter Strips).
5 Odors can be reduced by injecting the waste or disking after waste application. Waste
should not be applied when there is danger of drift from the land application field.
6 When animal waste is to be applied on acres subject to flooding, waste will be soil
incorporated on conventionally tilled cropland. When waste is applied to conservation tilled
crops or grassland, the waste may be broadcast provided the application does not occur
during a season prone to flooding (See "Weather and Climate in North Carolina" for
guidance).
7 Liquid waste shall be applied at rates not to exceed the soil infiltration rate such that runoff
does not occur offsite or to surface waters and in a method which does not cause drift
from the site during application. No ponding should occur in order to control odor and flies.
8 Animal waste shall not be applied to saturated soils, during rainfall events, or when the
surface is frozen-
9 of 11

NUTRIENT UTILIZATION PLAN
REQUIRED SPECIFICATIONS
(continued)
9 Animal waste shall be applied on actively growing crops in such a manner that the crop is
not covered with waste to a depth that would inhibit growth. The potential for salt damage
from animal waste should also be considered.
10 Nutrients from waste shall not be applied in fall or winter for spring planted crops on soils
with a high potential for leaching. Waste/nutrient loading rates on these soils should be
held to a minimum and a suitable winter cover crop planted to take up released nutrients.
Waste shall not be applied more than 30 days prior to planting of the crop or forages
breaking dormancy.
11 Any new swine facility sited on or after October 1, 1995 shall comply with the following:
The outer perimeter of the land area onto which waste is applied from a lagoon that is a
component of a swine farm shall be at least 50 feet from any residential property boundary
and canal. Animal waste, other than swine waste from facilities sited on or after October 1,
1995, shall not be applied closer than 25 feet to perennial waters.
12 Animal waste shall not be applied closer than 100 feet to wells.
13 Animal waste shall not be applied closer than 200 feet of dwellings other than those
owned by the landowner.
14 Waste shall be applied in a manner not to reach other property and public right-of-ways.
15 Animal waste shall not be discharged into surface waters, drainageways, or wetlands by
discharge or by over -spraying. Animal waste may be applied to prior converted cropland
provided the fields have been approved as a land application site by a "technical
specialist'. Animal waste shall not be applied on grassed waterways that discharge
directly into water courses, and on other grassed waterways, waste shall be applied at
agronomic rates in a manner that causes no runoff or drift from the site.
16 Domestic and industrial waste from washdown facilities, showers, toilets, sinks, etc., shall
not be discharged into the animal waste management system.
10 of 11

O Division of Water Quality
a Facility Number `r' 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation ` 'v
0 Other Agency
IType of Visit compliance Inspection O Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: / Arrival Time: Departure Time: r of) County:
Farm Name: 8D w / Owner Email:
Owner Name: ��� 2-? ra L Phone: _
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region:
Facility Contact: Title: a�G x ne No.,
Onsite Representative: /Z 1� `��I �i integrator:
Y f
Certified Operator: G Operator Certification Number:%!J
Back-up Operator: n Back-up Certification Number: 1 7 /y`
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
& : Wean to Feeder O
Feeder to Finish EEO
Farrow to Wean 3,00
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Latitude: [= o = Longitude: [� ° = 0
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
Non-L
Pullets
Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
Dfiignk Cur,6ii �,
Cattle,Capacity Populatro.p
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heife3
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes [RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [& No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

f
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 9-
Waste Collection & Treatment ✓
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ,LNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
jo—
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
®,No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
lt�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
[& No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
53,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
allo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
IL _ Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 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) ! cor/iL 4_ IVCUeo%S-�d C-0r r1 Y,
13. Soil type(s)
. 1
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
CR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[]
Yes
J�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
JQ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
L-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: -T
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 Continued

i
Facility Number: Date of Inspection —
Reauired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes E[-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes DkNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ELNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crap Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 2No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes P.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
11 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
&,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
,RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
;R.Vo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
[9,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
fqNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

0
I
Type of Visit <E"Iompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: —` Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: G %4?�-v� ��1�� __ Owner Email:
Owner Name: jwL�w�'�- �— Phone: _
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region: F)_�ZD
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:n ,
Certified Operator: �!/ �L- Operator Certification Number: L� S
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ="❑' = Longitude: =° =t =
Swine
Design
Capacity
Current ..
Populatit WetVPoultry
Design Current Design Current
Gapaeity Population' Cattle C►apacity Population
❑ Wean to:Feeder
❑ Layer ' ❑Dai Cow
Wean to
'DD•-
'D� ❑Non La er
+ ❑Dai CalfEA
Feeder t
�Q%
QQQ�
`�' ❑ Dai Heifer
® Farrow
-,.Dry:P❑
D Cow
❑ Farrow r
❑ Non-Dai❑
Farrow
❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
If El Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
) ❑Pullets
'` ❑Beef Brood Cow
;,� ❑ Turke s
Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
JE1 Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes. notify DWQ)
El Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
E] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12128104
Continued

t .1
Facility Number: — Date 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 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): Or
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 Ud No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
El Yes toNo El NA ❑NE
❑ Yes [9 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 ® 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 1�71 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu. Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) t[ j�lYy1►�O'!r / 60j-t t � z�cr��� l•4`y! 5 � zrd'S'P r-
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
J" No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
rM No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
rNo
El NA
El NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recom ndations or any.other comments" -
Use drawings of facility to better ex lain situations. (use additional a es as� nes.sarS)� �
Re-viewer/Inspector Name Phone:j�"y������
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:
n_.._ _e
­6 - - r

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Rgguired_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 ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps [I Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and l" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
El Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
J9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes IC41No ElNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 1A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes � No El NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

Type of Visit (§(Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: w % Arrival Time: I dl_l y�_ I Departure Time: P. O C County: Region:
Farm Name: D� _5�`OZt�__ _r /ten, Owner Email:
Owner Name: 0W",f S212 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: J//05 Title:
Onsite Representative:o�,
Certified Operator: Z=
Back-up Operator-
. 1/0 �/�� 0g �-
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: �
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ❑ o = { = 11
Longitude: = ° = , = «
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
p Dip ❑ Non -La et
❑ Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finishbbool-1000
Farrow to Wean
$00!]
ElFarrow to Feeder
ElFarrow to Finish
[IGilts
El Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
ElPullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
ElOther
Discharges & Stream impacts
l . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ElStructure ❑ Application Field ElOther
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Curl
Cattle Capacity Popul
❑ Dairy Cow
El Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
ElNon-Dairy
ElBeef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
ElBeef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes. notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
IN No
ElNA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility�Tumber: — `j Date 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?:
Designed Freeboard (in): fl
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 ®No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes []No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes t4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes M 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 ®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 91 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes U& No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus [:]Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window [:]Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
®,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
EL No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question#): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name v-� �'�- Phone: 2262—U33-330o
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 42 — 2 —,::;'b 0 (-
Page 2 of 3 112128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection '(�rt�
Required Records & Documents
19_ Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WDP ❑ Checklists ❑ Desig
n ❑Maps ❑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 [:1 Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I " Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
R] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
(9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
Dd No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus toss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
IN No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
JO No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
H 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
;4 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
IM No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit V60utine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ®j% Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: ti Region:
Farm Name: rJh 9Y\- uJ �Gr✓rn. Owner Email:
Owner Name: e . Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: rLs Title:
Onsite Representative: �� ►�^�
Certified Operator: G' 4 4�
or
Back-up Operator:
Phone
//No: 4221 D9 3w-
Integrator• f�
Operator Certification Number: 2EiEzi-b
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: =1 o [--] 1 = u Longitude: 0 o a { = ti
Design Current
_ . Design Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Population
Wet Poultry, Capacity Population
Cattle C«apacity Population
❑ an to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dairy Cow
(� an to Feeder
0Q p0
❑Non -La er
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
DO t7:�
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean O
Dry Poultry�e�
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non
El Farrow to Feeder
;z�_.
-Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ 1 a ers
❑ Gilts
❑Non-s ers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
El Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Conj
❑ Turkeys
n
O#her -
❑Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑Other
Number of Structures:IT
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 I of 3
❑ Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[5No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
CgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
V,No
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

F'a&ity N= er: 9� —L,5--() Date of Inspection �7�0
r
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 42 1C> - -_
Observed Freeboard (in): 3�_'�
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Eallo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
9 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? EK Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
2Q 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
EgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
]I. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
[Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 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) Coat S%&'t4W i Li-AlId zi" z In r!q �ra:w f ��r�s•.s �Sin�fL�rn-,,
�G{/�rb•7�
13.
Soil type(s) _ 4 y /3 14EX,4 Z A) a=
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
2LNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
[kYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
®, No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
,2§-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):
C8�7'-t 14 WD rk , �o'21 L 0,M'25 �., 5 1�� terra- .
O
Reviewer/Inspector Name—�y---,5 Phone: g/JAL/-333�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: _ 7 ��
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection S r8
r 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 [kNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below_ O�Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application V1 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
,®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
24No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
LP No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
f 8No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
QjNo
❑ 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
29 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
UdNo
❑ 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
fZ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
CgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:::
Page 3 of 3 12128104

,r
IType of Visit �mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑Denied Access
Date of Visit: I j Arrival Time: L� Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: /�6 ort maw mar m Owner Email:
Owner Name: / tur-- Phone:,
Mailing Address: D. T� sic 7Sf�4 n�_f7`: �Z A4/ ,
Physical Address: 1?23 . / ;2 _ 6O
Facility Contact: lz2aZL Xu.-nTitle:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: t2Fs'y�.- _41 M lrx-
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator: �rV4.ai�a1._
Operator Certification Number: _&19
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = i = « Longitude: = ° = 6 = {I
Design
Current
Design C*orient r'' Design Current
opulation W,et Poultry
Capacity PopulationCtittle Capacity Population
"QWeanto Finish
❑ Layer
;,, ❑ DairyCow
eanto Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
` ❑Dai Calf
®`Feeder to Finish
Uo
�t4x�
5'. ❑ Dairy Heifer
IRTarrow to Wean
SDa
D f Piitl"t
❑ D Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Beef Stocket
Gilts
= ❑ Beef Feeder
POBoars
s
El Beef Brood Co
*"
{
Other
3`' I
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
❑ La ers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
❑ Yes
4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
[R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
[]Yes
AJ 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
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
,ram No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
qNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection I&Gq�Jr
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes [gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): y
19
Observed Freeboard (in): A f
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes XXNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes allo ❑ 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 NNO ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
i
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ZINo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination,
El Yes
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
D&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
M No
LIML
❑ NA
❑ NE
ro (W� 1, �s 0 Cyr-r -- `
Reviewer/Inspector Name �,v Phone: �x
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 Continued

Facility' Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropiate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes D4No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes (Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit'?
❑ Yes
14 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
9) No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
UQNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
(4 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
[RNo
❑ 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
(g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit • Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number SD Date
of visit: Time: /a; o
., _ O Not Operational O Bellow Threshold
❑ Permitted ❑ Certified © Conditionally Certified Q Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: —.
Farm Name: _L's ea_� _ _F dL ._ _ County: 4L-v e'0._._
Owner Name: __ _ _C'_1 _vt#_ ,_F no"S _ _ w„ ' Phone No:
Mailing Address:. P� � . Q ? fig ........, ,. ,.f—IV_C- .2if LLE-9 .. » ...... .
Facility Contact: __151alt . __ _ Ate,,h 3ey ---Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: _ _ , ? "C Le 14 Vrn
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator -
Operator Certification Number: 2 `>/i fj _.
U39wine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' " Longitude • 4
Discharees - Stream
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ©K
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Feld ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑<o
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
12112103
❑ Yes MI
❑ Yes PNa
❑ Yes EMO
❑ Yes EM
❑ Yes 2No
Structure 6
Continued

Faculty Number: — Date of Inspection - -o
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes 0,16
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes [RNo
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✓i nprovement? ❑ Yes OSo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance!unprovement? ❑ Yes OT40
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes
ER So
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
3'&o
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate boa below.
❑ Yes
Mlq0
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
ISM f3o � 71f 110 -C.
Crop S
12. type drAa-a- , w e.,f--
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
Q.o
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
To
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
EWo
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
fl'1c
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift dining land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
3-96
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
B140
Air Quality representative immediately.
C4IDID�iS (r�lr t0` � � il''.S �P!=5 9�OI' aay. oT BQf; Ot�er aotamegts. �����"
use' 'o#' �_ _ to 1r-_--�sYtaat�. tayse i as nec�y3'� eld copy Final Notes �.-��,-�= _--r.�_.'";�:, ...-�����: � ;r. _,�,...--'s��=.� - =rs- 3;V"".�+...,'.,-'��'k �a-. :�-c..-:�ra...�e........ �-�•=.�c6 � _ :."":�_'._..""�".�""._?'c . e
_ -�: "..:.'ti1- -._'" ,r. 3:..i q.. .z
Reviewer/Inspector Name /► jPm QQ JJ ��
`� '1C3f'4wTIN ,r.Wris,..._" ._ 'M.Ys�. 4_ �...a.�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ., ^Date: 1
1 f✓1ir/V.J wlw+«��

F ccility Nlimber: q —SO Date of Inspection
Reauired Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
©-No
22. Does the fac' 'ty fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ , chec deogn; �s, etc.)
❑ Yes
IgNo
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ Waste Application ❑ a
UP3 -> V•3 '7-/01 ->?. F G->>> 7.2 s•7 -) 2-l?
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria to effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
UNo
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
O-go
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/mspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
Gallo
29. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
&?No
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
RNo
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35) GKes ❑ No
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑-No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes B-I To
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? ❑ Yes 0Wo
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes 2NO
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Qwo
❑ 1736NfinuU4&qwG6ons ❑
12112103

Type of Visit (3) Compliance Inspection Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit (D Routine C) Complaint O Follow up Q Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facilit\- lumber U`� .SO
I Date of Visit: S � 3 03 Time: 9 � /$r
Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
0 Permitted 0 Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm ?game: ls%Q,cJ SvLu �a r.o, County:
Owner Name: /?%u /9A ti !• 4rrYr t Phone No:
Mailing Address: 1c -Af/71 R _
Facility Contact: /i�.n t�. Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: RC�U J41Gc F mnr.
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
-?N 0C)
0 Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude �' �• ��
Design Current
Swine ('anneite Ponniatinn
0 Wean to Feeder
Gov
0 Feeder to Finish
0 Farrow to Wean
') o Du
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Ca adty Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Laver 1 1 ❑ Da'
❑ Non -Laver ED Non -Dairy
Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area IEJ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps E== JE1 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a- If discharge is obsen-ed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in eat/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection B Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): D
05IV3101
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes El No
❑ Yes No
P 1A
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
1!
® No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: Q9 — s"'t> Date of inspection , I v
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ( No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes I No
tQ
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes V] No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes [� No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? - ❑ Yes (h No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes t No
12. Crop type H c5t_I CV a 03 / Co
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
11VNo
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
[ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
(#No
Required
Records &_Documents
17,
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[�No
19.
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
[$No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
114 No
21,
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[ANo
22,
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
UNo
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23,
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
1� No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
qNo
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
[] No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer�+t,o;;"que tioni"#I
tEp�'ettlata sitoahoas(nsearliLteonal`pages as necessary)4 Field Copv ❑ Final Notes
�- `' 1 I.. t e C� � p ►� '�-�_ t J } G Y Nn vV as
o� t�..�Sbt. Fe-v- 1 t�
-)a r rN
Reviewer/Inspector Name` ,'
. ,,� _ = r
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: — _ . Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt.
roads, buildine structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were anv major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s)_ inoperable shutters. etc.)
51. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanentitemporary cover?
Comments and/or
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes I❑i No
x
❑ Yes ®No
s
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes R'No
i
05103101

`" 1
Type of Visit W Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit V Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other El
❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: .� �5-0-3 Time: I 7 • !
Facility Number SO
- —ro Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
[� Permitted Certified 0 Conditionalllly--Certified �7 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold
dl Sa
Farm Name: LADtaJ Fa'-'M 7"o! County: 9iaafe✓
Owner Name: /774rD%i •. forlyrJ Phone No:
Mailing address:
Jz.iC_
Facilitv Contact: Lil fzl &rnIEW Title:
Onsite Representative: li�ja 14- 13 ur Iff"
Certified Operator: R;c_ CL4
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
ASwine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ° 0" Longitude �' �• OK
Design Current
Swine Canarity Pnnnlatinn
Wean to Feeder
o0
® Feeder to Finish
p1000
Farrow to Wean
00
❑ Farrov.- to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacitv PopulationCattle Ca acihPo ulation
❑ Laver I FEI
Dairy
❑ Non -Laver Non -Dairy°
❑ other I I I
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons �7 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 S ray 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?
Discharge orininated ar: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is obsen-ed, was the conveyance man-made?
b_ If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): 020 w
05103101
❑ Yes 4 No
❑ Yes [] No
❑ Yes No
N !A
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
Structure 6
Condnued

Facility Number: Q% — SC>
Date of Inspection -U
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
No
12.
Crop type p et_j Cf0 p} -1 Corti
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
ElYes
( No
14,
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
ElYes
No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
[P No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
(1No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
OfNo
Renuired Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
Of 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
[KNo
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
No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
[(No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
24•
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[(No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
IV No
114 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to qu*estevii,#�E j=1ayn' any 'YES answers anii/ryrecommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of<factli to better el n situations nse adddtdonal pages as necessary): F; final Notes +eld Copy ❑ F
i-itQ kt�.t oT �u�peL�loh -���J �cvw, v�3aS idlcy.�+�ICdC a-5
PQ.-k c t, � is batJ saw I Fav- ,
Reviewer/Ins ector Name m i
P t.e 'Y .33.?-g,J'=k r ._ ' ;u?. b , . u• T, Y d "�� a E., .,. ruck. .- a"y a:�� ,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: /f 103
05103101 Continued

Z
Facilih• Number: 0 9 — Sp I Date of Inspection -
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation. asphalt.
roads, building structure. and/or public propem)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. 'Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s)_ inoperable shutters. etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submersed fill pipe or a permanentitemporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes Wo
❑ Yes PNo
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes qNo
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes PON0
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
A,
O5103101

Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit: 3/27?2002 'Time-
9 50
Q Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold_
FarmName: ............................................................. County: Ufa.&D....................................--
Owner Name: --------------------____-- Murphy_EarmslusPhone No: 41Q 2$9_-?111------------------------------
MailingAddress: Q.Boy.I52............................................................................................ RasteM.N.0............ .................. ....._.................. ... MOB ..............
Facility, Contact: ...........................................................Title: .... -------....... Phone No:
..............................................................
Onsite Representative: WAlkUjLmy_------_--------------�_---------___-_- Integrator:
Certified Operator: ftky...................................... fflackbitiIA....................................... Operator Certification Number: ZAJIQ ............................
Location of Farm:
From Lisbon take SR 1713 South 1.5 miles, turn right onto SR 1765 (Sheppard Rd) and go 0.5 miles to farm entrance on right. +
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 34 ' 29 S0 « Longitude 78 • 32 r 29
Design Current Design Current Design "
Swine Ca' acit� Po elation.: Poultry" Ca acity Po `elation . Cattte Clio ]
h
® Wean to Feeder
400
® Feeder to Finish
1000
® Farrow to Wean
3500
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer ❑Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design .Capacity C
Total SSLW 1
4,900
trrent
ulation
Number of Lagoons 1 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area 3
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-rna&9
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. 11-discharge is observed, what is the estimated floe• in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (Il-yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 6
Identifier: ...........................
Freeboard (inches): _..- -...._.._.._...................... -
05/03/01 Continued

"Facility Number: 9-50
Date of Inspection 3/27/2002
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 maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any butlers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ❑ No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16.
Is there a tack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
"" YES answers,and/or Comments (refer to question;#) Eaeplatrt any, any recommendations or any other comments �.
Use drawings of fac�hty to better expjlain situations. (use additional pages as necessary) r '
- ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
See Lisbon #1 09-48 report for all infonnation.
ReviewerAnspector Name P uUShe'rm'a
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

(IS�U_t(UI. Continued
Facility Number: 9-50 Date of Inspection 3/27/2002
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below
[:]Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
❑ No
28,
is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
❑ No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29,
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
❑ No
30,
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e, broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
Cl Yes
❑ No

[3Division of Soil and Water Conservation 0 Other Agency
a Division of Water Quality
Ia Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of D'i'4'Q inspection O Follow-up of 1)SWC review O Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number Time of Inspection / : 3T 24 hr. (hh:rnm)
[3 Registered � Cer
tified rtified © Applied for Permit 3 Permitted 10 Not Opera Date Last Operated: Farm Name . /_r4 Sr?,f✓...R�t' "._� 2—County:..............h.� ....- .....................................
.... .... ..... ............................. p y A q
Owner Name:.......... ..... R�.r�^...... ....... Phone N l ���...fSJ..L...'.Zg � ..........................
......
Facility Contact:.... r..r..� ,rva.. � .... Title. ................... ............... Phone No:
Mailing Address:
Onsite Representative:...,,..) ._.�/t�r.................
Certified Operator,...... ......
!. 7; .........................................
Location of. Farm:
/
...............................................................................................................
Integrator:........., �l..Y...tri.`x I ...................
Operator Certification Number, ..... zi%xj' 7. .........
Latitude �' �� �« Longitude �• ��
{ 'Destgn ,; Current .1 Design ':Current r-"Destgn Current
r
�-
Swute� Capac}ty= Population ' , Potiltiry„ F Capact#y-,.Population Cattle .. �Capactty ,Population µ 4
Feeder
❑[FeedeErto
;:' ❑Layer " ❑Dairy
❑ Finish
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
cr ❑ Farrow to Wean7
"} �>.n<Nk,
❑Other
El Farrow to Feeder
s
Farrow to Finish y'!aTotal
DeStgn Capacity 3 _
❑Gilts
A r
❑ Boars
r� Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons / Holding Pon& ii
//�� ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
y F ° ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
>:. _, . .. max'% ., . .�,..>: .:�_. . b v . ,s .✓.:. �,<.,._..
_. �,e'r-..:::
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes &jNo
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes KNo
c. If discharge is observed, what'is the estimated flow in gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) El Yes ®No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes allo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes JO No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes K[ No
maintenance/improvement?
6. is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes U'No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes KNo
7/25/97 Continued on back

acilityNumber: p —
sol
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed`!
Structures (Lagoons,liolding Ponds, Plush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Identifier:
Freeboard (ft):
Structure 1
........................ .....
/'> f
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Apotication
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes R No
[R'Yes ❑ No
Structure 5 Structure 6
15. Crop type 17. _...Ile A,--------------- ----- ................... ........... I...............
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes 10 No
❑ Yes V No
PkYes ❑ No
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes R•No
❑ Yes
19No
❑ Yes
J'No
®'Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
VQNo
JqYes
❑ No
❑ Yes
14 No
❑ Yes
JR-No
Ayes
❑ Yes
CWNo
❑ Yes
JRt No
Q No.violatloils•or defiden' des. were -noted -during thiS.visiL- You.N'ili i&eive-no'fiirfher':'
:-ctirrespondepce.ab:oatthis;visit:�'�::�:-;�:- •:• •:�; : ;�;•; :•:�.�:�:�:�: :� :• ;�; ;-�•:�:�:�:�
Atr _r�,aJ'
AIr
9-�ivYi� ,dir clo,C/i ��i`R �•✓�jsr✓� 7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
0054 1AFgF11e._1X 94ilfs' 1794 -
!n % `1 r04,r /"QGIiS. O fO­ _
Date:

E '
3
0 DSWC A ftfia' NFeedlot Operatton Review
F
...:
.
®DWQ` Animal Feedlot OperatlontSlte Iaspectt6hvi�x
�s k
Slyrvr.
e Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection //
Facility Number OG'
Time of Inspection ; SD 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: ❑ Registered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:i 25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review^�
.Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection includes travel and processing)
❑ Not /Operational Date Last Operated: _ _ .... _.. .... ..../.. _..... _ ......... _ ....................
Farm Name: ..»—.._.._....... County:
Land Owner Name:.. .1%JJ''!»l�._, -..»_...... Phone No:
Facility Conctact:. l ..._Alele�. .... ._..... _ ... Title: PhoneNo:
Mailing Address: d' Os� 4i4 .2��� .... _.... _ .... _....__ .. _.... ——..... ._......
Onsite Representative:.... L%.:'! ..�!se�L s.�....—..---.... ...». _..__ Integrator:
Certified Operator: /« y�' rs Operator Certification Number: —...._ ... —.
Location of Farm:
Latitude �•�' �" Longitude �• ��°
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
r
Current Design { COCreIIt £ �DeSignCgX re11t
.Swine,,. . su.Ponl.ps� ,.. trSttle
..hF:,• Ca aci .. Po ulahon. ._v.�A.>.'',.,. f Ca ac[ Potilatron_: �.r.Ca aci Po ulahon�
x
❑Wean to Feeder Layer Dairy
f ❑ Non -Dairy Feeder to Finish ❑Non -La er �:
Farrow to Wean
El
Farrow to Feeder £ Total Design��apacrt_ 01-
dr]F to F[n[sh n H $ a`�w f3
otal L �j
T 1J1J
❑ Other ,,.,. r_A -. ✓-_x,<y>�� s"nF' y'' a 4s ,� �- x3 .'. .
,Numberof Lagoons I Haldmg Ponds ❑ Subsurface Drams Present x
3 g�� .Y= ❑ Lagoon Areas Spray Field Area
.r... ,On �.:><f,..,,.,,.x�' �`° ..�. ,ram: .a�.<x.........F...w. �... . �w��r
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? [:]Yes ,� No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes 0No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) [] Yes ® No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes W No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes NINo
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes 19 No
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement? Continued on back

Facility Number:. 9 _ :.-.50
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes 1 No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): SrZ7 Structure 2 Structure 3
Structure 4
❑ Yes ELNo
❑ Yes .10 No
❑ Yes R] No
Structure 5 Structure 6
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes BNo
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? Yes ❑ No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
Od No
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
I No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type --....{,?.. ,!F _..—.... _ ........-.......__....� ...� .... �. —....Y .... �.
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
IR No
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
18
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
Yes
❑ No
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
WNo
For
Certified Facilities Only
22.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
19 No
23.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
IgNo
24.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
(9No
Comments (refer to question #iJ Explain any YES answeisand/or any recommendations or any other comments:
Use drawinies'offacilitv.to=liettei:ez lainsitoatton0use°additional°naees:as necessarv}.
i 2 . ���0" ,Fo �o �v,/ 9,2,a �.f P�d.�2 D � ,6A-,� -�a >�.s ®✓ %a�j ac.v
Reviewer/Inspector Name iC .. ; - � u .� :t _ .Y _ ; f . �l �m
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:.,Date:
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

Site Requires Immediate Attention: _
Facility No. p q - sp,
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: Lag& L R , 1995
Time: 101.A
Mailing A
County:_
Integrator:
On Site RE
Physical A
MEOWIX-0m,
Phone: (a 1 <sy - 4au�
Type of Operation: Swine —z— Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: is -co e.�s um r o ni sae ss� s —40o iJoe w.t —�eeo !,.,:sl J,�
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: 1A 0 dF1 ' _LL" Longitude: 29 ° -;X '�1"
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately I Foot + 7 in, or No Actual Freeboard:-_ -Ft. - Inches
Was any seepage observed from the agoon(s)? Yes or l�o Was any erosion observed? Yes or Tio Seepage was
Is adequate land available for spray? Yes or No Is the cover crop adequate? Yes or No Not Evaluated)
Crop(s) being utilized: (spray Field or cover crop was not evaluated
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellin s') es r No
100 Feet from Wells? or No
* Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or, 1�*
* Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line: Yes or No
Is animal waste discharged into water of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or-0ther
similar man-made devices? Yes on If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? Yes or No(Waste management records were not
Additional Comments: reviewed)
_ This was a very brief inspection, a more thorough inspection will be conducted in the future.
Please contact-­DEM should any condition arise that poses a danger to surface waters.
* This farm was not located on a USGS TOPO map to determine ?Blue Line" status.
If you have questions concerning this report please do not hesitate tocontactthe inspector
at [phone]. Please contact the inspector if the above information is incorrect.
Inspector Name
Signature
cc. Facility Assessment Unit
16:S4' la:5sl
Use Attachments if Needed.

Site Requires Immediate Attention:
Facility No, oq- S-r,
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: [ , 1995
Time: 101.54
Farm NamelOwner: m,3�,
Wailing Address:• 3? �
County:... Q(C a 4%
Integrator: M_%e&4 ry'P/
On Site Repres=titive:_-6
Physical Address/Location:
AW. C'1i�+1 7oQ "7�Kle
Phone: -
Type of Operation: Swine g_ Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: .3 s-ct� v'_16 NumbEr o m XQQ _%wo_% -460 tjjn&a
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: o 1 ' _&" Longitude: '1S ° X "
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon pagoon(s)?
sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately I Foot + 7 inches)or No A teal Freeboard:_& -Ft. _Inches
Was any seepage observed from the Yes or 1;Was any erosion observed? Yes or 1Qo seepage was
Is adequate land available for spray? Yes or No Is the cover crop adequate? Yes or No Not Evaluated;
Crop(s) being utilized: (spray Field or cover crop was not evaluated
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings') r No
100 Feet from Wells? or No
* Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or&
* Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line: Yes or No
Is animal waste discharged into water o e state by man-made ditch, flushing system, ordther
similar man-made devices? Yes If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? Yes or No(Waste management records were not
Additional Comments: reviewed)
This was a very brief inspection. a more thorough inspection will be conducted in thef=ure.
_ Please_ contact.-.DEM should any condition arise that poses a danger to surface waters.
* This farm was not located on a USGS TOPO map to determine ?Blue Line" status.
_ If you have questions concerning this report please do not hesitate to -.contact the inspector
at [phone]. Please contact the inspector if the above information is incorrect.
Inspector Name
cc: Facility Assessment Unit
a3 2. �
Signature
Use Attachments if Needed.
1e:5'41 ro:ss~l

Site Requires Immediate Attention: _
Facility No. oq- 5n
DMSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANII►+IAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: 1 , 1995
NJ
Time: 101.54
Farm Name/Owner:
Wailing Addr u:_
County: UICAP'n
Integrator: M y _gar,
On Site Representative:
Physical Address/Lneation:
L•7i1:t:C
Phone:_ (g , c,j _ -_42g.c
L n&s-.2 .. 1,, t�era
Type of Operation: Swine x Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: _'a Ear S.Za s -•Qoe Nip y _,egse
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: 1A ° Z ' _2L' Longitude: 29- ° 3a'_a'
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon ha sufficient freeboard of l Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately l Foot + 7 inches) or No A tual Freeboard: �Ft. _L—Inches
Was any seepage observed from the agoon(s)? Yes or 1Was any erosion observed? Yes or lQo Seepage was
Is adequate land available for spray? Yes or No Is the cover crop adequate? Yes or No Not Evaluated'
Crops) being utilized: Spray Field or cover crop was not evaluated
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from DwelliLOT
r No
100 Feet from Wells? No
* Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or.@*
* Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line: Yes or No
Is animal waste discharged into water o e state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or•bther
similar man-made devices? Yes okWIf Yes, Plcase Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? Yes or No(waste management records were not
Additional Comments: reviewed)
This was a very brief inspection. a more thorough inspection will be conducted in the —future.
Please contact�-_DEM should any condition arise that poses a danger to surface waters.
* This farm was not located on a USGS TOPO maD to determine ?Blue Line" status.
—If you have questions concerning this report please do not hesitate to -.contact the inspector
at [phone]. Please contact the inspector if the above information is incorrect.
Inspector Name
cc: Facility Assessment Unit
_ a0��s
Signature
Use Attachments if Needed.
/e:541 ,o:14

Site Requires Immediate Attention: _
Facility No. _ 04— s-r,
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERA71ONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: L. R , 1995
Time: tv-sIIIIII(
Farm N4-
Wailing
county:
Integrator: M .4 ran" Phone: al i o
On Site Representative: T�0b.b- Mli�, �r,r.. PhoIJ('s 1� _ cT - �4a)FA _
Physical Address/L.ocation: err b 1,766 Ai Mkr&,L-. e, vu% i-17i.s im%AC., .2 #w+ 46 Cr•r,
Type of Operation: Swine , x Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: um o 7see .Sea s -460 ►.1a see, -/ea- Q:Awl-j
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: ° Z Longitude: M;5 °
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon hPaggoon(s)?
sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches)or No A Freeboard:_�Ft. _Inches
Was any seepage observed from the Yes orWas any erosion observed? Yes or 1Qo Seepage Was
Is adequate land available for spray? Yes or No Is the cover crop adequate? Yes or No Not Evaluated;
Crop(s) being utilized: (Spray Field or cover crop was not evaluated
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellin s? No
100 Feet from Wells? or No
* Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Lane Stream? Yes or &
* Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line: Yes or No
Is animal waste discharged into water o e state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or-0ther
similar man-made devices? Yes If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? Yes or No(Waste management records were not
Additional Comments: _ reviewed)
This was a very brief inspection. a more thorough inspection will be conducted in the future.
Please contact-_DEM should any condition arise that poses a danger to surface waters.
* This farm was not located on a USGS TOPO map to determine ?Blue Line" status.
If you have questions concerning this report please do not hesitate to --contact the inspector
at [phone]. Please contact the inspector if the above information is incorrect.
Inspector Name
cc: Facility Assessment Unit
Plk 0
Signature
Use Attachments if Needed.
/s:s4/ ro:ssf