090167_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NUH I H UAHULINA
Department of Environmental Qua

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
090167 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS090167
❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Dale:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Bladen Region:
Fayetteville
Data of Visit:
03/23/2017 Entry Time: 08:00 am
Exit Time: 8:30 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Bladen Boar Stud
Owner Email,,
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
Sr 1349 721 Big Is Rd
White Oak NC 28399
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 34' 50' 53" Longitude:
78' 47' 11"
HWY 53 to White Oak, turn right and farm is on the right apprx. 10 miles.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator Ronald James Taylor Operator Certification Number: 27466
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Ammons Phone
On -site representative Mike Ammons Phone
Primary Inspector. Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s): -
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit AWS090167 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 090167
Inspection Date: 03/23/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - BoarlStud 400
Total Design Capacity: 400
Total SBLW: 160,000
Waste Structures Observed
Dlsignated
Typo Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00 38.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS090167 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090167
Inspection Date: 03/23/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Imnacts
Yes_ft
No 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?
❑
❑ M
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d, Does discharge. bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
110
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
E ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No No No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
� ❑
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
aste Annlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

r
Permit: AWS090167 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 090167
Inspection Date: 03/23/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Appli2pJ199 Yes No Ng No
Crop Type 1 Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2 Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1 Lakeland sand, 1 to 7%
slopes
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
- 14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
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
❑
■ ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
❑
❑
16. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
❑
❑
Records and Documents
rigs
No Na He
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fall to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
01111
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below,
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS090167 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
090167
Inspection Date: 03/23/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
ft2L49 and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
E]
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did.the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
❑
Otherlssues
Yes
No Na No
26. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately,
3b. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
(Le., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field ❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond ❑
Other ❑
If Other, please specify
32, Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or ❑ ❑ ❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ ❑ ❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
page: 5

4
Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
El Other Agency
Facility Number:
090167 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS090167
E] Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Bladen Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
09123/2016 Entry Time: 02:00 pm
Exit Time: 3:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Bladen Boar Stud
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1600
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
Sr 1349 721 Big Is Rd
White Oak NC 28399
Facility Status:
Compliant El Not Compliant
Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 34° 50' 53" Longitude:
78° 47' 11"
HWY 53 to While Oak, turn right and farm is on the right apprx. 10 miles.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Other Issues
Certified Operator: Michael Ray Griffin Operator Certification Number: 26541
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(a): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Michael Norris Phone
On -site representative Michael Norris Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS090167 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090167
Inspection Date: 09/23/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
r7 Swine - Boar/Stud 400
Total Design Capacity: 400
Total SSLW: 160,000
Waste Strurjur2y
Dlsignated Observed
Typo Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00 47.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS090167 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090167
Inspection Date: 09/23/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Dischargess & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ ■
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
1:10
❑
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
UL-No Mp No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there ahy immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le,/ large
❑
m ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
MEI
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste_ Application
Yes No No No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
0 0 ❑ 0
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Pond'ing?
�]
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?
Q
Application outside of application area?
❑
page. 3

Permit: AWS090167 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090167
Inspection Date: 09/23/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Ovarseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Lakeland sand, 1 to 7%
slopes
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
E ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Y21 No No Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
❑ []
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboafd?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS090167 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090167
Inspection Date: 09/23/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
[]
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
[]
No
❑
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?
�]
❑
❑
V. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
[]
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No No Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e„ discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
ri
If yes, check the appropriate box below,
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
■ ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviews rllnspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 090167 Facility status: Active Permit: AWS090167
Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Bladen Region:
Date of Visit: 11/09/2015 Entry Timo: 10:00 am Exit Time: 11:00 am Incident #
Farm Name: Bladen Boar Stud Owner Emall:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC Phone:
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: Sr 1349 721 Big Is Rd White Oak NC 28399
Facility Status: ■ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34° 50' 53" Longitude: 78" 47' 11"
HWY 53 to White Oak, turn right and farm Is on the right apprx. 10 miles.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
❑ Denied Access
Fayetteville
910-296-1800
Certified Operator: Michael Ray Griffin Operator Certification Number: 26541
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Ropresentative(s): Name Tide Phone
24 hour contact name Michael Norris Phone:
On -site representative Michael Norris Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS090167 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090167
Inspection [Date: 11/09/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
❑ Swine - Boar/Stud 400
Total Design Capacity: 400
Total SSLW: 160,000
Waste Structures
Disignaled Observed
Type Identifier Closed Dale Start Dale Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00 32,00
page: 2

Permit: AWS090167 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090167
Inspection Date: 11/09/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharsles & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
M ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d• Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■ ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yet
U2 Ng No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.eJ large
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
B. 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
❑
❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yee No Na No
10, Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
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 manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS090167 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090167
Inspection Date: 11/09/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No Na Ns
Crop Type 1 Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2 Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1 Lakeland sand, 1 to 7%
slopes
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0
Cl
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na 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.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS090167 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number;
090167
Inspection Date: 11/09/15 inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
[�
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
■ ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and dale 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?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes„ No Na _g
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,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
m ❑
❑
(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
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
■ ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■ ❑
❑
page, 5

0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
090167 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS090167
❑ Denied Access
Inppection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit:
Routine
County: Bladen Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
12/1512014 Entry Time: 10:30 am
Exit T€me: 12:00 pm Incident N
Farm Name:
Bladen Boar Stud
Owner Emait:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
Sr 1349 721 Big is Rd
White Oak NC 28399
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 34° 50' 53" Longitude:
78° 47' 11"
HWY 53 to White Oak, turn right and farm is on the right apprx. 10 miles.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Michael Ray Griffin Operator Certification Number: 26541
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour Contact name Michael Norris Phone ;
On -site representative Michael Norris Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS090167 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090167
Inspection Date: 12/15/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
�] Swine - Boar/Stud 400
Total Design Capacity: 400
Total SSLW: 160,000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19,00 38.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS090167 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090167
Inspection Date: 12/15/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yea No Na No
1, Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
No
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ N
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ N
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
Slate other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No, Na N
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
if yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
N ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
X ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
■ ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑ .
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No No No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application, area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS090167 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090167
Inspection Date: 12/15/14 Inssection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No No Ng
Crop Type 1
Coastal 80rmuds Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Lakeland sand, 1 to 7%
slopes
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
Cl
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Xg§ 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.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS090167 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number; ' 090167
Inspection Date: 12/15/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yoe -No No No
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
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
N ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below: ,
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
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 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
N ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
090167 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS090167
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Bladen Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
12/09/2013 Entry Time: 09:00 am
Exit Time: 10:00 am Incident #
Form Name:
Bladen Boar Stud
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: Sr 1349 721 Big Is Rd White Oak NC 28399 .
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34' 50' 53" Longitude: 78° 47' 11"
HWY 53 to White Oak, turn right and farm is on the right apprx. 10 miles.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Star, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
Phone:
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s}:
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit AWS090167 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090167
Inspection Date: 12/09/13 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
Dlsignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.0D
page: 2

;r N
Permit: AWS090167 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090167
Inspection Date: 12/09/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No No 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?
❑
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■ ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
■ ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Y25 MR No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
6. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Led large
❑
N ❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
MEI
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No No No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
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 manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS090167 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090167
Inspection Date: 12/09/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit; Routine
Waste Application Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1 Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hey) 1
Crop Type 2 Small Grain Oversead
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1 Lakeland sand, 1 to 7%
elopes
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
N ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Na
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
0 ❑
0
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
LINE]
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
,If yes, check the appropriate box below,
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS090167 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
090157
Inspection Date: 12/09/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yea No No No
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
❑0
❑
❑
(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?
E]
0 El
❑
27, Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
N ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes N2 No Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
■ ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29, At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
013
❑
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?
❑
■ ❑
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
[--]No[]
page: 5

• Division of Water Quality
Facility Number ® - © 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of visit: 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: C jb Z Arrival Time: r Departure Time: O • County: Region:
Farm Name: 131aden 54- m Owner Email:
Owner Name: U_A1,QAA — �YOWy]r �C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: , r.. Title:
Onsite Representative:
�i
Certified Operator: N6re
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Other
Other
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: 41141=k9illOK
Certification Number: 2-02.SZ
Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -La er
ury rouury
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Design Current
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?
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non-Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes Qq No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes { No
NA ❑ NE
FNA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

f
Ile
Division of Water Quality
Facility Number m. '; 7 O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
type of visit: (D Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: © Routine O Complaint O Follow-up 0 Referral O Emergency O Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: 0 (, Arrival Time: i Departure Time: Q : County: Region:
Farm Name: Slade" I'XaX =SLd Owner Email:
Owner Name: jrQ ,{,r — I�Yd l�J►� : LC. Phone:
u
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: '
Facility Contact: lYi 14 /1)Bt/'iri, Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: tl integrator: Uy
_ k,
Certified. Operator: f V +opy—e
1�
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number: 2-02-52—
Certification Number: R ,,
Longitude:
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to�Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
�l
La er
Non -La er
Pullets
Other
Poults
Design Current
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
DEZCow
Non-Dai
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Discharges and Stream Impacts "
i, Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
[]No
NA
❑ NE
. c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
Lri NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
[-] NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: C
Z
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard`?
❑ Yes
❑ No
e 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
13 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
[3NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes r-7 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes T,o� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks) `P
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes [Ij No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Annlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes, f�j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload [] Frozen Ground ❑ Hcavy 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):
i
13. Soil Type(s): Iq Waj — L J�
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 ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
E5J No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[n No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
EP 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 M No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis [:]Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections []Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

acilit Number: 19 - pirii
Date ofIns ection: Z.
.,
Waste Collection & Treatment i,* 41 e"i a ,yt
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate'? ❑ Yes 0 No
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes iiii"'❑No
Structure 1 Structure 2
Identifier:
'❑t,A ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
5
Designed Freeboard (in): _
Observed Freeboard (in): 1�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
❑Yes EflNo ❑NA [3 NE
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 an of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate ublic health or environmental
Y 9 P
threat,
notify DWQ
Y
any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? r+
'`7`Do11
❑ Yes
nm No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do a y'of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No No
1j
❑ NA
❑ NE
''"(n� t 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
tb No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes, fR No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below, ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside ofAcceptable Crop Window ) ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area v `v
12. Crop Type(s): rvll' uW cng�c oUl_Seal yj
13. Soil Type(s):. 6Lajj — ..
14. Do the receiving crops differ fromfthose designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes [4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE ;
15rpoes the receivingrcropiatid/or Iand 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 [B No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does thelfacility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20.. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
Yes ® No
r
❑ Yes EE� No
❑ Yes On No
❑ Yes ® No
❑Other:
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
r,
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking [] Crop Yield El120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge'?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
Page 2 of 3
❑Yes ®No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes n No ❑ NA ❑ NE
21412011 Continued' , � }

Facility Number: 7 - 107 Date of Inspection: C
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? I£ yes, check
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
TT
❑ 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
P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT") certification?
❑ Yes
Kn No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to property dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
® No
[] NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes n No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes bkLNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments.(refer to question #1•):.Explain any YES answers and/or,,any. additional:r.ecoininendations.or anyother co'Mments j
.jJse,drawings of facility to better'ex'plain situations, (use additional;pages as necessary)
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 710 I %'3'�33Eb
a / Date: /"f 1 Z
21412011

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection: o
n, rtx, t t
{
{tr
'❑
' 24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waslwapplication equipment as required by the permit?
410MVes
No
NA ❑ NE
"25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
T
❑;Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
r
_
4!
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
LP
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues ! 1
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
[] Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately,
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
T
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA ❑ NE
t: .
n'Application field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
T T� �❑ N�AA---❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA' ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or;'any. t er"lcoxinittttts. . . r
'
UseArawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
1
:
Phone: 91D"�33 33Cb
Date: MI w, Z
21412011

4
ID Division of Water Quality
Facility Number ® - ® 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: J y Arrival Time: �on Departure Time: County: & Region: /4:;Z{0
Farm Name: r Cal 10030 Owner Email:
Owner Name: LL Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: Facility Contact: 14 i l
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
$oars pp
Other
Other
Title:
Phone:
Integrator: ,�,,� 1 __iL t,
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
0
Design Current
ury rounry
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at:. ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify 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?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non-Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes {may No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [-]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[-]Yes [—]No
❑ Yes q No
[:]Yes � No
NA ❑ NE
®NA ❑NE
" NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Condnued

e Division of Water Quality -
Facility Number 4" O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
type of Visit: w Compliance Inspection,,. 0 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
[season for Visit: ® Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: y Dp� Departure Time: � County: L��,r✓ Region:
Farm Name:• GI'�s�_ O( — r729930 Owner Email:
Owner Name: / - A L�r Phone: f
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: fad r e q pTitle:
Onsite Representative: [i
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Phone:
Integrator: �%.,,p /,�,.
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
]Layer
h Non —Layer
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to- Weari
,
Farrow to Feeder
J
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
ti
Boars
1400
Other
Other r
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pon.
La ers
Non -Layer
Pullets
Turkeys
1
d
Turkey Poults
t
Other
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Discharges and Stream Impacts
i. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
-� .s
Discharge originated.at: ❑ Structure", ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?, ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ONE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No © NA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
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
0 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued
. .�. .. .. .u, .�. �....h•.. � i��-.� .. -.I„ 4 y. '.} ir.. �l .. F',..,. �. '1 � �5., i�... ..., ..,..... .. a... a�. •'�. ���I'�n r ;__. S'.:6 ♦ i �Y�. ''r....� .. .... l.nw._. ..,� .. . ..i ..,.

Facili Number: - Date of inspection: /
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Struc7re 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier; I
0No ❑NA ONE
❑ No `P NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes $ No
0 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 M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
S. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 17-1 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 P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidenqe of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): �'MI _ EE?Z -tT ���i_S�t , (pl�2 k VlAe-f
.... _
13. SoilType(s): __ZQ9
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes [�D No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ 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 No
❑ Yes ® No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements [—]Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [:]Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis [] Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
31No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

r . . .- r:.:fi..{S :.�. •. r; .+1. z; ,e.. ..4:.t?,r-tiEs..eV,i,.e Y'•i
1 E-
Facili Number: - ` Date of inspection: /
Waste Collection & Treatment _
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: I
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): _
Observed Freeboard (in): _
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
}
No ❑NA ❑NE
❑No 4NA ❑NE
Structure 6
A
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
[] NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate puhlic health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? [] Yes [P No ❑ NA" ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA [] NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks) T
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? T
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN . ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs - ❑ Totil Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window�� �[]yEviden e of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): tZ�n"1 G? V �G�ry �i J� . (9f2►� s�l�Q
13. Soil Type(s):
t4. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes P 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? = ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
}
f ] No
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP [:]Checklists ❑ Design [] Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
[!]Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
[] Waste Transfers
[] Weather Code
❑ Rainfall [3Stocking [] Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
[] NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412011 Continued

Facility Number: 01 - Date of Inspection: 9
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. TO
❑ 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 fp No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes F�j No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document [] Yes No
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes No
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes No
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
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes] No
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes No
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA [] NE
❑ 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 naves as necessarv).
ID [Z-1a113
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: q �0� 5 Da
Date:
21412011

. .. Y +•' .'S h- ,. :' [ .. [,e `j-` t. 4 ".J.. 'f' 1 - -'rJ. J4 ,' "1. ! • .. - n. J h�_
_ lyf r';" f'_r"- ' ' A -
Y
'Number:
Fac€li Gy (017 jDate of Inspection:
9 Y
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate AgVe application equipment as required by the permit?
r1 ° ,Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [] Failure to develop a POA for sludge
levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
`'#' No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27, Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE `
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
❑ Yes
4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[\(� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
No
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
�0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
©No
DNA
❑NE
Phone: % 10 (1 aQ
Date: I
;« Z/4/2011
3

Type of Visit: 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ! r►ti Departure Time: p 0 County: Region: b
Farm Name: t �,11IQ�{/ �-�"t�lpl — 70 O3y Owner Email:
Owner Name:—j`lww n [ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: MI '�M►'�1pNS Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: �,(yp�,�...� xjoc
Certified Operator: lJ OCertification Number:' VIWA6�?
Back-up Operator: 1 ` t1 Ar-Aw'OrA$ Certification Number: qea / 7g
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design
C►urrent
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
C►attic Capacity Pop.
to Finish
Layer
DairyCow
NWean
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D P,nultr,
C•.a aCit
Pao
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
�6113oars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
TurkeyPoults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
❑ Yes F No [DNA ❑ NE
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)?. T
d. Does the discharge Bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

!racill umber: Z7- DateofInspection: 1
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No RNA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
W 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 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 [P 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 ❑ Ev' nce of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): CtOSly i
13. Soil Type(s): / _
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes rp No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes IM 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 No
❑ Yes No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the 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 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 [P No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:]Yes T® No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Weather Code
[:]Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili umber: - 7 6=1 Date of inspection: 13111
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes P) No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes frn � No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ® No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
Comments {refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommenuanons.or;any otner comments.:
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
S; ` e 0iS4 ConA u C_4ed -S- (b
Rec"s revi'"ed 1/131a,
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
O Yes
Cp No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
0 NE
❑ Yes
EP No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
5 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Phone: gt0__{33~?46D
Date: q'I 3,i /
21412011

E
Facility -Number
Division of Water Quality
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation -
- -- 0. Other Agency
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ld Arrival Time: F Departure Time: County: 9W&V Region:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: r ' ' �W Y �' Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
ti
Facility Contact: f l Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: N Integrator: ''44L,-jr'j tljC
Certified Operator; A� ' Operator Certification Number: --g2a 2. qJ+
Back-up Operator: 7,17n � pti S Back-up Certification Number: ?9r
Location of Farm:
Latitude: ° Longitude: °
De"sign Current Design Current
'Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
Nan-L
Pullets
Poults
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 C
Cattle Capacity Pop
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non-DaiEX
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef 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? ([f yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes r No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No (PNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes o [INA ❑ NE
ElYes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

ea . L
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection la
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes P)No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
St cture 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: I
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): u
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
�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)
F
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
EIo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
I. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
""o [:INA ElNE
❑ Excessive Ponding ElHydraulic Overload ElFrozen Ground ElHeavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
{{
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop indow ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
j SM
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
Rg No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
�Q] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
h9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
W 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):
IJ
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

n
Facility Number: Date of Inspection T—►�
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes r
No [:I NA El NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP El Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and F
Rain Inspections ❑
Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
ElNA
ElNE
26.. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
ElYes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes P
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
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
® 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
[PNo
❑ 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
y No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
El No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

1
Y/o 31ZQC) 9
r
.DAIS G1v ft-t1e_c
Facility Number.Q �(p
tvision of Water Quality
Q'Division of Soil and Water. Conservation
Other Agency
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: Arrival Time: �.F�.J Departure Time: ; r County: eA1 Region: �CI Q
Farm Name: B(acl" �G✓ 5-1 dl _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: � &, 4 -. )GWfA "'^^ s Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: I�N�h gt1({ ✓/`�Title: I� Y 4+ % �' Phone No:
OnsiteRepresentative: R4Ak1j4 guwt4Gf6Le r Integrator: 80Z-CJA/ -
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 0 e 0 1 0 U Longitude: = e= g=
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
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Pouets
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. 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
❑ Dai Calf
❑ Dairy Heifej
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef 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 ffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
0NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
2-NA
❑ NE
[ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ YesfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
LI No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

r
Facility Humber: DQ �(� Date of Inspection 3 '�
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No 2'1QA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 0 rr
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Oe/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes 21go ❑ 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 ETNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit'? ❑ Yes BTo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 0-55 ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [a<o_ ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manurc/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence ofWind Drill [IApplication Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) 15 �.yy�t„��a` Lo Ue.= -e_¢_(f .
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ 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
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
2-go-
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name Kr' 9"j4J4 Phone: 910, 1433. 3300
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: -3 "// , ZOO
12128104 Continued

y
Facility Number: D 9 —16 % Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents ,,,..��
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? [I Yes ,B o El NA El NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check El3 Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP C Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 3<7 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
io
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
I =I No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
2 N/o
El NA
ElE N
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
El Yes
B No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
2<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
B<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
E 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
R�lo
❑ 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
2 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NI
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit (3 f,,,o,mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit CH11omp�utine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: LIP—R'4r� Arrival Time: Departure 'rime: L+ r County:
Farm Name: L-a Owner Email:
Owner Name: /5,4"'. Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ��/n''✓�7�r Title:
Onsite Representative: I?a-n Vf 5w," 6i'',11-%
Certified Operator: V4ut!„_._.�i
Back-up Operator:
Region: �(�
Phone/NA/0:- 74
Integrator -�►' `L1_ „-
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 0 0 = t = Longitude: 0 0 = 1 = «
Design C*urrent
Design Current
Design
Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle
C•apucity
Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑Dair Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
I J[:1 Non -Layer
I I
airy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
[I Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
El Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
❑Beef Feeder
15 Boars O t, Ofl
❑ Pullets
❑ Beel' Brood Cow
El Turke a
Other
❑ Other
[1'1'urkcx Poults
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
(g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to (lie Waters of the State
❑ Yes
JO No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of'3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
X 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): �. 3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
,� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
IR 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
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
;5, No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes C&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulie Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Fleavy 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 Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s) Lau
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? 54Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
M No
[DNA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
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):
/5-1 ,f�y i� 3 �r/( ,QDYi�>F
✓�
f/'%� rn� Ire l/-/ Pf-•1G a� l-`7/G
T
ReviewerlInspector Name Phone: _MDD
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 Continued

i liacility Number: Date of Inspection
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the approprrate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 21 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
F61 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
EZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
54 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
JRNo
❑ 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
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
$ZNo
❑ 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
E2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

Type of Visit OTompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit GAroutine 0 complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: 3 ; 0D County: �c/i'r�- Region:
Farm Name: La ers-0aV-- _ ,� !ii�( Al Owner Email:
Owner Name: ,ZZZV J �/ � / Z/h f' !� �a/Yyi S Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 4,ffiggiv TLU dtWz9t2r_r-' Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: . 50'�-L�e. - --- Integrator:
Certified Operator: �a /� / Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 0 e = 4 = 1I Longitude: = ° = ` = 1{
Design Current Design
C*urrent Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity
Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
10 Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ Layers
El Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts ❑ Non -Layers
❑ Beef Feeder
Boars wo0 O0 ❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other ❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other ❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
[]Yes O No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
No
El NA
❑NE
El NA
❑NE
El Yes
El No
❑ Yes
�KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

E
Facility Number: T -- (p 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): v;? �(v
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 G� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes 21 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)
4. 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 29, No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes C 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) ��rY'i7l�Gf'�c #,-v
13. Soil type(s) Z.a
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ 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
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name . Phone: %G?-1f .3 00
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: /—/)
Fage l of f 12128104 C.ondanuea

H
N
Facility Number: — ] Date of Inspection
Required Records_& _D_ocuments
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists ❑Design El Maps ❑Other
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below, 0 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ER No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
f2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes p No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 21No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
El NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Ta,1
Page 3 of 3
12128104

I?
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ®Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 16`6 7 -4 Arrival Time: Departure Time: //; County: AF/6d�! Region:
Farm Name: M B * 70 Z 3 L.LS r a 4 c.�J $OCLV-- Sb�l� Owner Email:
Owner Name: �Lf u1•A �lrpcJ�/ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: �-+ � U t+na a +—N CA, —
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator:�''i��. gy�r,JN
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = e =' = Longitude: = ° =' =
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
10 Layer
❑Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
10 Non -Layer I
Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ DaiKX Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Non-DaiEy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
Non -Layers
❑Beef Feeder
ICS Boars �fJD
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turke s
Othe
❑ Other
urkey Poults
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
f U No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: -- / 7 Date of Inspection (v-4i'O
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
�1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): /4
1
Observed Freeboard (in): 36, 41
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
CgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
0 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
U No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
JA No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
4. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
IP No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > l0% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) /-ot.ct T pyi ye,S AMP 5►ea� �ftyN C �� S•
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes 09 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes R9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes V1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ®No ❑ NA ❑ NE
.Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments
Use. drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
i
T
Reviewer/Inspector Name � Rre— KL 1 Phone: q/D 476
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: /Q Date: cly—O 7- ZOD 41
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: -/(07 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes E3No ❑ 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 EgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[�)No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
MNo
El NA
El NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
V No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
CffNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
M 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
P 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
[ff No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, frceboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
al Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit Q'Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint Q Follow up Q Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ~ �Arrival Time: I� i7 Departure Time: a County; 172,0Qf� t- Region:
Farm Name: .%���i±r►r�7 a r . s yZ`f� �^ _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: gel—/ryrd[.� Lliir�► Title:
—1
Onsite' Representative: Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Phone No: .9/,*z _o -
Certified Operator:.____ _,S�rJ—
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feedei
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
j3oars
Other
❑ Other
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o = 1 Longitude: = o 0 ,
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
I❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Daia Cow
i
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: 711
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 K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
RZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
RLNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
K.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection I ( rJQ __ ,-
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
❑ Yes (;.No
❑ Yes XNo
Structure 5
El NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?: T1 d
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
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes KNo ❑ 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 Rf No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes U 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 R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need []Yes R'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes C,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 D Evidence of Wind Drrifi ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s) I_ 4 ly,
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
W 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
K 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
5allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
t, r e,4r,r. x1v
`}` a p `aK
ReviewerlInspectvr Name .Z. `".'` W' ® " b „' F ;, Phone:
ReviewerlInspectvr Signature: Date: // /Q
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — (p Date of Inspection
Reauired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes SNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ;K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21, Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes f,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stacking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Cade
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 fait to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
J9 No
El NA
El NE
El Yes
at , .
'
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
.Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
[]Yes
C,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
2INo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[]Yes
tKNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Ad�dltianal Cmm�reents and/or'Drawln s,c � ^ � � ��
12128104
12128104

IType of Visit • Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit • Routine O Complaint p Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of visit: / / • v Time:
r Not Operational C Below Threshold
®'Permitted Mterptified p Conditionally Certified © Registered Date -Last Operated or Above Threshold: »» »..»_._.....
Farm Name: ....._....V 4le- 1.............61 PA n..........itvd .......... _.... _ County:..._.�.2 _..»_.» _..........._...... ....
Owner Name: .�iYt�r��_jj......_.C'Qirr.77rlal�c...»_.Ffap� e.,i....._....». »........ 'Phone No:.._�r! .:.� �3.L.1...................... ............. ».
Mailing Address:.. p�
Facility Contact: ..... .,.�L.» �!�,CCtx �!R�.� .» .» Title: ... Phone No: _.`, ZQ--� .!?_-_y ° ....
Onsite Representative:.., .[I. , . �� r:.G ._ f.Xr �� �{ ' Integrator. »B kt,&4
3p►:.... r )r....Ff!�C.t!�s»......
Certified Operator: , », ,,tQ,r,,�„ G , .. ,.� ,%,Q,,t,�S(�;, ... „» Operator Certification Number:, T,19_K0__QE7__._.
Location of Farm:
[wine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • 4 " Longitude • 6 it
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes [INo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes G-fCo
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ONO
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gaUmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes 9-No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ONO
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes B No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1
Identifier: __ _ I .. ».
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes eNo
Structure 6
Freeboard (inches): �' ~
12112103
Continued

Facility Number:
Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes QM
seepage, etc.) -/
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ❑4o
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes aP+i '
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes L3'90
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes Ergo
elevation markings?
Waste Aimlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes Gi'o
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ¢No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
L p /'7 0/I SV
12. Crop type P. i %��/u S.. // Grd.:, D.�irsrir�
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes Mhio
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 M240-
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes M-Ko
Odor Issues
I7. 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 C-No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes MMo
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 01 o
Air Quality representative immediately.
�',p.$"'MRP�s%13'i?i'�"' ;4R•SRk"• 94:'i.4f^','�'ieti 74)H9if�91§i�.oi''� i,Sr[`,:4<�4F`. �. al+i�t'14� � �ftF7:ii It T�°�•""�tt��tFti:�2l.:r:!•i Y-+°1i�t � j •!"4� • r ; 3y =;s•
}Comments re#er. to gnest�on #) Explain Wy�Y&S. amzv►ers'8ad/q�' any'racamtaetni Lions or:any of VMn Meng, 1 0 §
l§' K, f k rl�i 4A 2 i P4f 'g36i3�iia:. iffi'"R?#EE a nq}.� < ' liii�'7� t§i9 aA.lds4s'r;§§tiitlt%Yi4"+sg i.e."YqF•. r<_. :...a��:.utuw.t�u.;.;:,waux�
Use drawings _of,facility tool `>bettcr ti?cplain sitaatioas. (use adilitionai;pages?as eery}zs geld Copy ❑ Final Notes
P.'P7G frees are wr,t�/en He rvas/reps were c,, 6r
fi?' S At Ile, Pleas a 1"e pla'7 gees,
ReAewer/Iaspector Name e ,SR
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: G
12112103 Continued

I.Fatifity Number: 167 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ®"des ❑ No
22. Does the_ftwiflity fai!,p have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ , ch=eping
, deem , etc.) ❑ Yes Q-Wo
23. Does record need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes S-i'Qo
❑ ❑heard ❑ AVestrAmatysis ❑ S QU Samoin g -
24. Is facility not in cd1hpliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes B-Pfio`
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes B"lffo
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes Ewft
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes M-N&
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes O#e-•
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes GI o
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35) ❑ Yes EINO--
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 ❑ No.
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? ❑ Yes ❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
13 No violations or deficiencies were rioted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
!, ME
; ON
'� ?`P7r,+;:rr : u . ar+ �. 'or€ , g'tz� �, � J�jy � 3�,g
nil COmsnenu artd/ar Dlrawintg >3 +chi i p[I€ °�: i'� £i s '< i ;? {�` 1 `� �7i'lI� i��Y`{ k1 � t d ' i�'d��dN981�l� �, �Iss�
I ¢0f 4'- `� d" i$ �.. •�s ' `U $. ` i c � 11911 �,
101P7Se P 14fe a ct rl-e"/ CD/I y �P� T ,'r �c .rle or T nv tswG e Gr„!� e
►7e4, Prr.►,.'f c„�-fir burr, �a�o►-�s, ��F' a neg. any ��s �nf 6�,•.,
%Cc,ved III-'asc cut/ •is&,A, for a co,oy,
12112103

0
Facility Number Drte urviot: 0 Time: " : b O
Not Operational Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified ©Conditionally Certified M Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold
Farm Name: _ (31 clat'v. R oa r" 5Lck County: &( G c ens
Owner Name: Phone No:
Mailing Address: Cg_ 0,((
Facility Contact: -29- i4' Title:
Onsite Representative: - 6 } L�
Certified Oper-ator: +n die n
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: '.3 S46
'S Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude �• �0
Design Current
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Ca adty Po ulatfoa
❑ Wean to Feeder
10 Laver ❑ Dai
ElFeeder to Finish
❑ Non -Laver ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
® Boars p a
Total SSLW
Number of Lagooas 0
"_ . " ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oou Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps Q
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges 8 Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑Yes 5No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Laeoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
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
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collecti2ij & TreatmCBt
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes [.No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): g
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: q — ',L- Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
W No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
El Yes
N No
Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
�_kLNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
W No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
W No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
MNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
&NO
12. Crop type 1— 0 re k Pt. --yi I C1416, fh rN.�rJ�r� . �m ,
1
o . s-
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
QNo
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
[RNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
®-No
Rggyired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
V] No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
®No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, Freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
0 No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
Ej No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
P 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 [!�INo
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
fWM ) f-,z-U'CJ
Reviewer/inspector Name;;
Reviewerllnspector Signature:
❑ Field Copv ❑ Final Notes
Date:
05103101
Continued

..� ' ... �.DIVISiOn of W Q ",. y "' � ., •' '�t h� 1 '• 1 t� �
Water uaht a
1 Division of Soil and Water.Conservation
�i� 1 S i111 i! 1
Q Other Agency. I . it` a tt Ct _ „ Y
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up Q Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 9 I67 Date of Visit: 4-8-2002 Time:
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified C3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold
Farm Name: .................... County: obdgil ............................................... FRA............
Owner Name: i.!'Sluriaby.family..i;'.arztls......................, Phone No: 91,0489:11l.t.......,.,............,.,.........,....................,..,
MailingAddress: V..S1nX.7.5.9.............................................................................. Siq��.S�iSi.�iG.............................. .. NAM ..............
............. .........................
FacilityContact: d.0.i>tt..Rlzig........................................................ 'fitle:...... .......................................................... Phone No:...,.,.,,....,,....................................
Onsite Representative:..W.Aht.0.wrxtgY............................................................................... Integrator: M.ujrphy.kallplxlY. a�............... ......................
Certified Opera tor: ,].eX�Aliy.liSlAl......................... TyA.dWI.......,..................................... Operator Certilication Number:2,6$.5,& .............................
11-ocutlon of Farm:
HWY 53 to White Oak, turn right and farm is on the right apprx. 10 miles. +
I•
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 34 • 50 53 Longitude F 78 • 47 22
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
ILI Layer
10 Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
JE1 Non -Layer
1
10 Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
400
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
160,000
❑ Boars
400
Number of Lagoons 1 j❑ Subsurface Drains Present jj❑ Lagoon Area j❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 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-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 l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure ]
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
identifier: .............................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 36
05103101
Continued

Facllity Number: 9-167
Date of Inspection 4-8-2002
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/improve ment?
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?
Waste Ayyileation
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? []Excessive Ponding []PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Forest (Pines)
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes Z. No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reauired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers And/or any recommendations or -any other comments."
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): "" " Field "d C
❑ Copy El Final Notes
15- Weak areas of pines need to be replanted.
19- Change flow rate for Oct. `01 pumping to correspond with current calibration. Complete recalculation of March `01 pumping to
correspond with correct waste analysis.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Paul Sherman
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: f �_
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 9-167 Date of Inspection 4-8-2002
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the'confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor 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'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Additional Comments an orDrawings:
r
O5103101

f
of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
(Reason far Visit &Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 4/ Time: : �
Facility Number p
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
S Permitted a Cieerrtified` [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name:.......1I1 es .... ar ..... .C�........................... County:........... ..........................................
OwnerName:......'J,1''....s......................................................... Phone No:......:..�............................ ///.........................
FacilityContact: ...... ....................Title:,.............................................................. Phone No:....................................................
Mailing Address: �•...�
........ ..........r�,�... xx../............................................................ ........................
Onsite Representative: ,.......v!y/�' if .............. Integrator: ..... /.�:. :...�.................,
1......V....... ....... ......
Certified Operator: ...... ��,�I,�,,,r......... p,7 ................................ Operator Certification Number: .........................................
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • 4 41 Longitude ' 6 •4
Design Current
Swine Cauacity Population
�] Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
Boars
p�
Design Current T Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
s TotaLSSM.
Number of Lagoons° ! _;,. ❑Subsurface Drains Ptesent ❑ Lagoon Area ID Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps r ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes WNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was (lie conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ,® No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes �RNo
c. II' discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in galhnin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes J�rNo
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes J� No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes e&No
01/01/01 Continued

Facility Number. 0 -- le7
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes wo
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................
Freeboard(inches) .....................................................................................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes Wo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? El Yes $[No
(If any of questions 4-5 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 /9No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes KNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes �fo
Waste Application �� ``
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes KNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes 4No
12. Crop type L /0/ AM& Le I Z �A_) .. _.
13. Do the receiving crops d ffer witft those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)'?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
17. Are rock outcrops present?
18. Is there a water supply well within 250 feet of the sprayfield boundary?
❑ On -site ❑ Off -site
Reuuired Records & Documents
❑ Unknown
❑ Yes
&No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ Yes
�No
❑ Yes
X No
❑ Yes
❑ No ate%
❑ Yes
❑ No
19. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ® No
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) �io
❑ Yes�No
21. Dces record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigafreeboard, aste an is &soil same ports) � Yes 7MFOO
22. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes KNo
23. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes KNo
24. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes /KNo
25. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes O'No
26. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes XNo
27. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes XNo
Odor Issues
28. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below , '�j Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
29. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? (:]Yes tWNo
01/01/01 Continued

Facility Number: p — Date of Inspection
Printed on: 1/4/2001
30. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
31. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
32. 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.)
33. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
34. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ERNo
❑ Yes 9 }FNo
❑ Yes 9No
❑ Yes iZNo—
❑ Yes RNo
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
D
01/01/01

F�
0 Division of Water Quality
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation-
0 Other. Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit B Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other
Facility Number Date i,f visit:
{® Permitted ® Certified (] Conditionally Certified © Registered
Farm Name: .......�� l'o ....s 0.0.4 .....�........................................
❑ Denied Access
'Time: �'ti Printed cnt: 7/21/2000
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
r Countv:..... 17.l. A.I. �.................................................
Owner Namc:...../.!�Ff� .... ./� ..t Phone Na: ........l..yZ��� .............................
FacilityContact: .... 7................... .ritle:................................. ...................... ......... Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address:.....,�'.....t....!f�./......v.,I. /��i` /...!�........rt....................................... ..........................
Onsite Representative: ��'`��+,�.�,���r Integrator: ....................................................
Certified Operator:..........!! .......... ................................... Operator Certification Number:..,A.K;rzI -................
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • & 44 Longitude • ° it
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder JE1 Layer I I ❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer I JEI Nan -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
Boars !) Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons I I ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ fag.+nn Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps JE1 No Liquid Waste Management
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 observed, was the conveyance man-made?
h. 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
SLRIetUre I Structure 2 Structure 3 StrucaUre 4 Structure 5
,elrIdcntific: ............ /... �
r.............................................. ................................... .................................... ....................................
Freeboard (inches):
5100
❑ Yes ejk-No
❑ Yes Flo
❑ Yes `�o
❑ Yes &No
❑ Yes A -No
❑ Yes t"o
❑ Yes t8tNo
Structure 6
............................
Continued on back

Facility Number: D — '67 Date of Inspection
Printed on: 7/21/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes N 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 5 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 allo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes WNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
�RNo
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement!
❑ Yes
RNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
P No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops di(er with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
00 No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
10 No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
C No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
`J�-Yes-'o
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
19No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available'?
(ic/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
0 No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? 00 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
52 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?
(ic/ discharge, freehoard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
P`No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency'?
❑ Yes
Vivo
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
RNO
P. Rio yiQla�iQt>is;o�r d f# ae'ncie ire note¢• dµri' ig -4hjs;visit! • Yo0* ;will •tee0ive do fut�th
coriesoridence: about: this :viisiit. •
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
AL
X20
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

Facility Number: v — Date of limpection Privi d on: 7/21/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge :it/or below J.UYcs ❑ 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 ea -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 PtNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes P No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes �No
AdditionalComments and/orDrawings:
a
J
5100

m, C1 Division of .Soil aerakioWlk 'A€i.l'iSEEIE�
I , p ivision of Soil and Water -Conservation'- Corn [fiance Lis ect>ton r��d @' I .3 1js t # I�4 �} �� E }
P - P �'yEs� ,t t.,� i{
Y t� F
Division of Water Quality CompliancE,
' .. [3 Other Agency Operation Review " x,'. r I ttr,� ;
IQ Routine 0 Complaint Q Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection Q; Jd 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Permitted 0Certified 13 Conditionally Certified © Registered Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ......11..4 .' ... 4.cf r...... Aj........................................... C.ounty:........�� ��,lti,............................................
rr
Owner Name: ... uf......��.F. ! C,il!!�...,r... .. Phone No: ..............`"..Zl�..........................................
` ,
Facility Contact: . (!✓..:..G.....,. ,7 rC?, ..................... Title:.....1`.` .... .....1.............. Phone No:...................................... .......
Mailing Address:.. d.(C1........ . .... .... .... ...... .. 4Se......L.//...,l(1.C..............,.......2.5..Y....7�.,.
OnsiteRcpresentutive:.A)..,...Q..g......... Aal!!t o.......................................Integrator:...........,.......................................................................
Certified Operator:..., �.... ...� . n..If.,5.......................... Operator Certification Number: ..........................................
Location of Farm:
.. ... ............................................. .........................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Latitude Longitude
SWinE " is '' I ,..,'.-!esig.,„Design. CurEr,elnrot n'.,DCurrent
Design Current OI pillCatle CaacitPoCa Capacity Po ulation It
ula
p@
fit'
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish ❑Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean E
❑ Other k `
Farrow to Feeder o a� r"
4 ❑ f Vi 1 : f
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design 'CaOacity d
❑ Gilts # -
Boars Q TotaFSSLW '
Dumber of Lagoons, ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holdin ' Ponds / Solid Traps ' ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes �No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes KNo
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (II' yes, noti f'y DWQ) ❑ Yes No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yesit,
o
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? [I Yeso
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ;p No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):......................................................................
.........4 v.. �..................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iet trees, severe erosion, [] Yes No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

` Facility Number: Q — 7 Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes ANo
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
KNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
Of
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
J No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
'a Ponding ❑ PAN
' 11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Ex755A4
El Yes
VIM
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those desig a ed 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
WE o
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
9fNO
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
A�No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
�No
Required Records & Documents
,tiff--
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage &General Permit readily available?
❑Yes
�j 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
IN 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?
discharge, freeboard
❑ Yes
ONo
(ie/ problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
XNo
24, Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
kNa
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
Wo
Iq yiglaoptis or d f�eiencies rvqre pgte daring thls'vsit; • yoo :witl•NeOi 'e Rio, fui 6Vr
corres' oridence. abotit this .visit.
t � , ':.� ' '.. ;g, ,: €f i t§'if 'E: £ -- , rrP 'I rBr±t
Comments (refer to question #} Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations orEany4oiSe. r comments
}i
-Use'drawmgs of facility to better" plain situations use additional
IReviewer/Inspector Name j "W W(/YI rrlr 1T JS l i_. F,;r.; , I'3� �', f 1! Il lal @' 9 ia' @ ` P �E¢ dal !t'slia€t €l rEiilC•;' l� �FiEiti!a.E 6''Ei I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ✓I4 Date:
3123/99

Facility Number:
Date (if lirslfection - -9
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
O(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
lk4g0
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation; asphalt,
❑ Yes
KNo
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
E�No
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken ran belts,' missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
kN0
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
Cl Yes
,�fo
``gNo
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
3/23/99

Dives an of Soil and Water Conservation Other ��
�
a �❑ ❑ Agency
J� Division of Water Quality,'
® Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection Z®—
Facility Number d
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Registered ® Certified 0 Applied for Permit ❑ Permitted 13 Not Opera Date Last Operated:......•
I�� �f/Farm
f�/ r Nante............: 911A( 01 .... :mat ...*,..� .............................. County:....,.....&.14�✓......................... .......................
Owner Name:...... .4 .' ...,... ........................................................... Phone No:..... w ... .rZ/. .1..................
..
Facility Contact: .....,% r.,�.d!Ax�rl......,r.111�.d° .......... Title: ...................... Phone No:
MailingAddress:.........../..F.... .`..,. .,......fr fl.. f. .f�"... ... #'.T•.• ............................ .................. I.......
Onsite Representative:,.�,c .�?/W... .......gof la►se".. t✓ ......... Integrator: ...............
Certified Operator,.,..... !. ........ c�! -! ................................. Operator Certification Number-_../q,f,6-/
/ ......... ............
Location of Farm: ," 1:3 " i
...,,r........... _,,.ram . _ ..... .. y1 ..y .....�.r r._...,_..............................................................................................................................---...........--......,.-
Latitude Longitude �• �' �"
Dcs►gn .: Current
f)esign Current ' Design Current
Swine §_
Capacity, -,Population
Poultry Capacity, Caftle
Capacity ipowilktion "
Wean to Feeder
❑ La er
,Papulation'>
,
❑ Day
❑ Feeder to Finish
JEJ Non -Layer
I❑
Non -Dairy
® Farrow to Wean
d•D
:; : > ..:..
El Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
i Total Design CaphCity.
❑Gilts
[IBoars
a Total SSLW-
Number" of Lagoons / Holding; Ponds I
II
❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110
Lagoon Area
113 Spray Field Area
��''
❑ No Liquid Waste Management SystemV.
jeneral
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
RNo
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
14�10
b, If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface. Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
IVNo
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
/ell1 .
.d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
PNo
3. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
�lo
a. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
OQNo
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
Ix No
maintenance/improvement?
b. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
�ff No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
No
7/25/97
Continu
Xnback

Facility Number: 47— %
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes �No
Structures (Lagoons,tlolding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes RNo
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
i Identifier:
Freeboard(ft): ............7.0... �C �✓..•....................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes X No
l 1. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 9No
t
12. 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 JQ No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes JV'No
(If in excess of fWMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type Al�R11�......�.�:�!'�..................... ........................................................................................................................ I..........
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? Yes ❑ No
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?
13 No.vi0'Wions-tir deficiencie's.rvere`no't;ed-during this: visit..Y.od,.01 iecei:ve-no•ftirtli&:
ctirrespondebce about this.visit., :.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
❑ Yes RNo
kpn
Yes ❑ No
gYes ❑ No
❑ Yes 2'No
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes r—
❑ Yes RNO
❑ Yes lji No
❑ Yes �No
i
7/25/97
Reviewer/InspectorSignature: Date:

racuuy Nmfttr._`
Division of Environmental Management �y " r
Animal Feedlot Operations Site Ylsitation Regard
DsuQe711. .
rune: ; r Al,
Farm !a. -ec, f S k — - •—Camty: �d
Owwr Name: �p A, f-M C -Phone No-, A.7 Q t
On Site Rcpirseatative: tegtstor: r
Mat7iag Addrexa:_
Physical AddressUcation:
Latitude: 1 1 Lon 'tude• I 1•
4ReratfQn Desc[Jp90M, (based ors design eharactesbtics)
type of Swine No. of AnimaU Type of Poultry No. of Animals Type of Cask
No. of An%aLr
0 saw O layer 0 Daily
0 Nmwy O Non -Layer a BW
0 Faeder
Wtherrype of Livestock - Number Animals: 410Z
Number of Lagoons:._, _1_(include in the Drawings and Observations the freeboard of each lasoon)
FacilitE_�
Lagoon
Is lagoon(s) freeboard less than I�foot + 25 year 24 hour storm storage?:
Yes O
N�.t
Is seepage observed from the.lagoon?:
Yes 0
No)R
Is erosion observed?:
Yes 0
No $M
Is any discharge observed?
Yes 0
No(Z
O Man4nade Q Not ManIarade
Cover Crop
Does the facility need more acreage for spraying?:
Yes 0
No)R
Does the cover crop need improvetneuM
Yes)
. No
{ 1Lrr the crops which need LVro.wAsetrr)
17
Clop type: I rAmtage:
Setback CrUerk
.
Is a dwelling located within 200 feet of waste application?
Yes 0
Nd q
Is a well located within 100 feat of waste application?
Yes D
,Nod
Is animal waste stockpiled within 100 feet of USGS Blue Line Stream?
Yes D
NoF
'Is animal waste Iand applied of spray hTigatcd within 25 feet of Blue Line Stream?
Yes 0
No-M

Maintemmm
Does the facility maintenance need LMPrvv�ameat? Yes O NQ)M
` h them evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? Yes O No•`U
Does record keeping need improvement? Yes O No O
Did the facility fag to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan on she? Yes 0 No O
Explain any Yes answeza• �s Y� �-�' e-s 1 ��
ec Fae llity Assetpum Unit Use Affacknew YNeedsd
j)MwIL_Qr --Obseastions:
Cxt- e.w-e•_ S
S o✓. (OIA�ti IaC S i c-wna � w I re -
.. .. a w�►�r.1r •�w�. w�tir •i� •fib ��• . Jm- Alrr�+.Q•��R r�•r'►+rir+r`='��'•
�•'M•.i.w�lr ���r.•�• 'w •A�=� fx:i �:.H:'� M7� "!.wrwW w��.
• r
Aoi - Januj+7 =7d"6

a:
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation [] Other Agency,
x * f Qp Division of Water Quality. .`
140 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWO inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number l9 L
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Registered [3 Certified ❑ Applied for Permit 13 Permitted 193 Not O erational Date
/Last Operated: ..........................
FarmName . ......... B.1 ......&0921P ,....... zv') ..................................... County:..........: .,,........,....................................
OwnerName ......... ,tr!tw ........ r9?t �.............................. ................................. I... Phone No:... 1.. ... .R... .......1..............................
Facility Contact:...... C�(>< .........../..�.n!�x�.!q .,. Title: .............✓.... /� j . Phone No:
Mailing Address:............ ....:�a".:�:.....: (.�/ f.....�d�i ....�711�...1`�..L�..�,���v�-�............................................................
c /
Onsite Representative: ................. Integrator: .... 1470.1 .. ... ;5;W..e_._e...... .......
Certified Operator L.........+!G!►r� P ....
........... . Ac 1........................................ Operator Certification Number:.✓... .. r�. ..
Location of Farm:
Latitude �• �' �" Longitude
k 6 ;^ ,. Design, sCurrent
Design Current; d",; « r Designs , ;Current
Swine ' PopulAt�on
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capscity.l'npulationtM
.Capacity
f
Wean to Feeder
❑Layer
❑Dairy,
❑ Feeder tv Finish
Non-LayerEll
❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
„`;
❑Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
Farrow to Finish
Total Design�Capacit'
Gilts:::
E.
k�.
-------------
--,
Number pf Lagopns 1 Holding Ponds
❑ Subsurface Drains Present 11EILagoonXrea 10 Spray Field Area M.
..:. '
6 awl .
❑ No Liyuid Waste Management System V
:E";R.�x I} k. .i? ^r .v,r.,
eM . r ..._
Genera
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
JkNo
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
)2 No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
ArN
A. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
0j'No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
gNo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
No
7/25/97
Continued on back

Facility Number:p —
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
El Yes
�No
Structures (Lagoons,Holding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
)<No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: ................................... .............................................................................................................................................
...................................
Freeboard{ft): ................................................................................................................................................................................
....................................
10. Is seepage.o b served from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yeti
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
,( No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
XNo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ..... Ap".!� ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
Yes
❑ No
17, Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
k N
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
Yes
❑ No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
XYes
20. Does fadility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Yes
0 No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[KNo
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
Wo
For Certified or Perruilled Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
KNo
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes
KNo
0 No.violations or. deficiencies were ni►te'd during' this:visit. Yoilm'ill receive no further
correspoOdencc 6hout this'visit:; :: • :
comments f 1' ,(keto question #) Xxpnin anyY�Sanvwers and/or anv recomtnendations or anyother co nme'n"C
:. ._. � Y}
J5e drawings of fuctirty to better explain`,situattons. (use.additional pagEs as:nice5tiat
Ate, I, - ,sue �c � ,� -�•
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name � Q
t
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �� Date:

Jan-07-00 09:48A usda service center 9108626447 P.05
Plan Amendment to Include S&WCC Chronic Rainfall Practices and Standards through March 31, 2000
t If this facility can comply with its existing permit and CAWfuIP It must do so.
2
Temporaty Addition of New Sprayfields (') (Check approplate boxes.)
A. acres of cropland. I_tst crop type used:
0 9, acres of hardwood woodland Q 100 Ibs PAN ! acre added.
C. acre&of pine weodtand added Q 80 Ibs PAN ! acre added,
3 Summer Perannlal Grass (Chant appropriate box.)
0 A. Application window extended for 15.33 acres of perennial grass until first killing frost
0 B. An additional 50 lbs of PAN applied to acres of perennial grass pilot to killing frost
4 PAN application Increased for Small Grains r>i Winter Grasses to be harvested. (Check appropriate box.)
[] A, PAN application increased up to 200 Ibs per acre for 15.33 acres of small grains or winter grasses to be harvested.
0 B. PAN application increased up to 1501bs pot acre for acres of overseeded summer perennial Included in 3.B.
5 Waste Analysis (Check appropriate box.)
[] A. Prior to December 1st, 1999 the calculation of PAN will be based on a 35% reduction of the last analysis taken
prior to the first 25 year 24 hour storm event. (Current waste analysis must be used after Dec. 1st.)
B. use current waste anatysls to determine PAN.
v
5 Rtguiii<d • Maximum Nitrogen Utilization Measures for Small Grains and Winter Grasses,
A. Use of higher seeding rates,
B. Timely harvest of forage to Increase yield, and
C. Irrigation during periods of warmerweather.
7 Rtguired - Irrigation Management Techniques to Reduce Runoff and Ponding Potential.
A. Making frequent, light Irrigation applications, and
B. Not irrlgabon Immediately before predicted rainfall.
.8 The owner! manager is required to manage the movement of animals to and from the facility to minimize environmental
impacts, ensure compliance with the facility's permit and amended CAWMP, and avoid discharge to surface waters.
9 Authorization to use the additional practices included in the amendment expires it a facility discharge
Any discharge is a violation and may result In an enforcement action.
10 The owner J operator Is required to keep records of all waste applications.
11 This revision must include a'map or sketch of new land application areas.
Facility Number 09 -_1B7
Murphy-Ramily Farms
Facility Ow r / ana Na (PR
Facility Owned Manager Si ature -
Date 11111/99 / Date
Bladen Soar
Facility blame
Kra
'Specialist Signature
11/11199
t to surface waters.
r j�III
�• i
This document must be filed at the SWCD officeand be att*hed to the facilities CAWMP
and be available for Inspoction,at the facility
(•) Nrw temporary aproyfields must meet applicable buffer and setback requirements. Waste must not be applied to wetlands.
AA 14 R!nn

0 G . - „; :
y6
G 4 t--M D G