260002_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

ii! i� { ¢¢1 E jj'llif�{{il�`f+� f �14Rihki i �lliY11��S. Efli.�iN� 1.141EIj_1;i4l.k ldi# i! ' a.11'IE! ,o1, DIV616b �of WatCr Resources Y. - y Ci l',
-� �
�;Ninh i I i i�9 ,� �q i
Yl a ��ty Number � �'i ®II IV,Q Division of Soil and Waters Cons_ervhtion i
I ;��I„91' i� I ��=h r i' €rl.'� ; [,' C I':ii' F �H . r` ;�'�� .I'�I , KID I Other "A en
41t 1I' 1
Il,s.r I� E:I. I .Elr pN :. , o.... cy
Type of Visit: & Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: O Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: ' ou
Farm Name: 11g Owner Email:
Owner Name: dl° i�Lt/`►^^S' Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Title:
Region: L �"
Phone:
Integrator: Prle�ofl
Certification Number: 1 7 -1
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
rl I li F , (• I I . ; V', , N .rnY . f. ,l,q
1' ?3;l.I N.,,.jII IlI`�IIy, p,, ,I;3?Desl n 'Current
1. il r ���I{�� ij11111 �g.,c
i` ��
k II .I...I I
�r;'r,11 {f'Ikilr , I ,:{ yllal, i,+ rlIDesi n..,l Current ,
l i Ejil.. �I',It ,.,
'Design' Current
g
i !;a gh] y 19! r^; 1 1N €€d r47 , I� I a 1�1�, 44k� I,t N. , " ., , r
�I.�j) IIE k f l.II � k I lI'i'..i f , .II I ,:..11 I t3.` ' - k II 3�I� Y. i.��l �i.' r I rl it I !_ I �• .''
lSwine, r .I,l,Ca aci I?o . iN ,,� ;Wet Pnult r . Ca 'acit r.(Po
I Y P
�:�� f�I �1. a P 4 �'Jr p
E sE '�1 'i {ICapacityi
N tittle
°
I,
I
; ,I'o
P
�1 iI
l tit lirtlrllYii I .th � rli�� , I� I� I I. ; v. LI?lllr,:9T9lYY€,n.e.. I l -�° iIM 1
..
I; j =I C. toil. ; r+ I € �'t.l_l,ld .: S
;� I
Wean to Finish
&La er
Wean to Feeder
Non La er
1
i I Feeder to Finish
'E l a 'ryl I ll I r r"
I � � r. �I, I; i I �, �� 1-i 11 KI
�f "Ir i
;t'IY Farrow to Wean
�,�la � , I .
i
iF' ' 4� r ` �� + ;;°"f Design i Current
f Farrow to Feeder"
Ir Dr`' , Poultry r Ca aci Pop.
'.�..
t ; Farrow to Finish
err„
°
;' La ers
Gilts
- : Non -Layers
Boars
;'; Pullets
Turkeys
i Y i
r�" !
Othcr�'.I �� �,� i a �1
TurkeyPoults
Other
;� Other
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
D Cow
Non-Dai
Beef Stacker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Discharges and Stream ImDBCtS
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes rA ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑Structure ❑Application Field ❑Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ No � NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 2/4/2015 Continued

Facility Number: jDate 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
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): _
Observed Freeboard (in): _
Structure 5
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ® NA ❑ NE
Structu%ure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste ADDlieation
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes y
No ❑ NA
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
❑ Yes U% No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
�] No
❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
(] No
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑Waste Analysis ❑Soil Analysis
[] Waste Transfers
❑Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412015 Continued

[facility Number: Date of inspection:
;4. Didthe facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permi ? ❑ Yes No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatui
Page 3 of 3
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes 01 No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes ®No ❑NA ❑NE
Phone:
Date: v`
21412015

ttl i5/1.
N Division of Water Quality
Facility Number ®- ® 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: O Compliance Inspection U Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation (_) Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: 11 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Q y Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: Z + County: UM Vazgion:
Farm Name: U Owner Email:
Owner Name: Pmsh5e FirY►ns Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 0-a-rAej Lo t'`ti[9 Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: u Integrator: Erod±547
Lle
Certified Operator: Gl {j1C Certification Number: -!Y! 770D
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
Boars
Other
Other
Certification Number:
Latitude:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -La er
ury routtry
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey
Other
Design Current
Discharges and Stream Impact
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
DryCow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
0 Yes P] No [] NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[?DNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
Qq NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes No
PNA
❑ NE
❑NA
❑NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Fachi Nu?hber: - 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 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
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?
P@ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No 112 NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 'Q 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 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)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require []Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [:)Yes ® No ❑ NA
❑ 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 A,
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
[] NE
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
T[}C�
❑ 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
i%] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
Fh] 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 10 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

FaMit Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
VT1 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
❑ Yes
[P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below,
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or Any.other comments:
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pagesvas°necessary)..,
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/]nspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: k/Y�33�3
Date:
21412011

I
W Division of Water Resources '
Facility Number - © Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit: 1p Compliance Inspection U Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: L.[1_! `'ice Departure Time: - / County6JAW00Region:
Farm Name: 1 _I
Owner Email:
Owner Name: P'xs Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: Prt�_kly_
Certified Operator: ` M `'Vr ",tL�'' Certification Number; V ?e2eV
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feedej
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Latitude:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
Non-L
Pullets
Turkey Pouets
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 DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes 19 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes
❑ No
F NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
[:]No
F1 NA
❑ NE
[—]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ZNo
�9 NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412014 Continued

>Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes jP No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes T❑ No ® NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 1J
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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
T
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
T
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [)a 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 Dare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Cro Window ❑ Evidence of Wind rift ❑ Appliccatti_on_Outside
']of Approved Area
12. CropT e s : PQ . �h (J
yP O
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 [jD 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 NJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[ ] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design [:]maps [] Lease Agreements
❑Other.
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
1; 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
21412014 Continued

hacili Number: lb JDate of Inspection.
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30.. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
[—]Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA 0 NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
[:3 NA ❑NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes q§ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes Lp No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes [b No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recomm.endations,or any .other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary)..:
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
2/412t 14

Q l MS 3,3 1'-eC 13 rTJ
Dii ision of Water Quality
Facility Number ®- ® 0 Divs `ion of Soil and Water Conservation
1 �
0 Oth� try: 'ency
mm
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection Operation Review 7 �i ure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 40 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 -1;. 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: U1 74 1,14 1 Arrival Time: ®_3+ Departure Time: County: CU-P-6EALAW d Region: PAO
Farm Name: �" $ Owner Email:
Owner Name:Vre,9-6trno Lk�c4 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Toml e- 5 Title:
Onsite Representative: it
Certified Operator:'
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Latitude:
Phone:II
Integrator: Tc,o,54yt6'e
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -Layer
Discharees and Stream Impacts
Pullets
Other
Poults
Design Current
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
P 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 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

'acili ^Number: 212-2 Date of Inspection: ti 74
jg
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 5j NA ❑ NE
Structure 1
Identifier: �r
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3 N
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
(g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
01 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 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 [3Evidence of Wind Drift Application Outside of Approved Area
CRS 10
12. Crop Type(s): Q 1 SS/" . (-` ' 0
13. Soil Type(s): G O A t W a
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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
rM No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
l'
❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps [] Lease Agreements
[] Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
P" 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

Facili y Number:^ _ Date of Inspection: ttlwhl
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
25. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes
r—j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes �@ No
❑ Yes 50 No
❑ Yes 5+ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments. I
Use drawines of facility to better explain situations (use additional vaees as necessarv).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date: 14 2� %
21412011

FA
Wulvision of Water Resources
Facility Number - ® O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit: • Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: a Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: D Departure Time: County:egion:
Farm Name: !P!— I Owner Email:
Owner Name: (�}Q_ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: To-y"Q.s LCLV�'b Title:
0
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
Boars
Other
Other
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: `k rtS41m, —
Certification Number: l ! -7% DQ
Certification Number:
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
Non-L.
Pullets
Other
Poults
Design Current
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
Longitude:
so
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
,Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
NA ❑ NE
�NA ❑NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No P NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No [DNA ❑ 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 21412014 Continued

5
Facility' Number: Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑Yes No Ln NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Arc there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
[] Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental
threat,
notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
S. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�iNo
❑ 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
r No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Aj2plication
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 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 [3Evid nce of Wind Drift [3Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): cmsw U " C�-'M$ �'� Spr..�},-�„ l
13. Soil Type(s): Yet UAk
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes T 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
IS. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
V No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP []Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard El Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Tr nsfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
' No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412014 Continued

Tacility plumber: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? if yes, check ❑ Yes EP 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?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
[:]Yes
`P No
[] NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
E(]No
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes No
[—]Yes No
❑ Yes] No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (referlo question #):; Explain any YES answers and/or, apy additional ,recommendations or any other comments
Use drawin6'bf`facliity to betier'exulain situations°(use.addltional:aages as.ncccssaev
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 9/&-L
Date:
21412014

�► 31D tom.
f: Division of Water Quality
Facility Number - ® O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: 40 Compliance Inspection U Operation Review (] Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-u O Referral O E cy C) Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County.424m8 Region:
Farm Name: Owner Fninil:
Owner Name: n'f re.i�V FdfntS ,1:�C r Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: VAS
Certified Operator:
&rol&-
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Veanto Finish
Vean to Feeder
ceder to Finish
arrow to Wean
arrow to Feeder
arrow to Finish
Other
Other
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: Pi�oe
Certification Number: / 77 9 b
Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -La er
Non-L.
Pullets
Other
Poults
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
[3 Yes P] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
f0 NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page I of 3 22/4/2011 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
e
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes �a No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No Pq NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3. Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 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
Tg
❑ 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 r§ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): L,6CbTW EAXY"CJC(
13. Soil Type(s): 69D 1 W ala -
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? "r
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
MR No
[3 NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
NM No
❑ NA
[3 NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412011 Continued

Lt
Facillt Number: jDate of Inspection: 4j v
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [ No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ER No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ® No
Other Issues
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
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?
T
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.
T
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
TT"
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33, Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
[] Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
ments`(refer to;question #): Explain any YIDS answersandlar anyadditional reconimendatibns ar any othercammentsk
F
Arawings0facility to.better explain situatians;(use ad liti[rnal pa es'as;necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: %O- 7✓J `3
Date: 1f 41Z
21412011

Type of Visit: 10 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: *Routine O Complaint O Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: IT-151]E Arrival Time: r0 Departure Time: Q ,� County:
Farm Name: P4 Owner Email:
Owner Name: i ." .' .'c Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Latitude:
i
W�w 10 MIA
Phone:
Integrator: Q Certification Number: 7 79�
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design
Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
@apacity
on
wet PO it
Capacity
Pop..
Cattle Capacity Pap.
Wean to Finish
La er
Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
O
D
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D , Poultr,
@a aci
P.oP.
Non-Dal
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
.Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impact
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)
e. 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 7'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [—]No
[:]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes No
❑ Yes No
{M NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Amber: - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
§a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
T NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
E, No
❑ NA
. ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental threat,
notify 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
[:DNA
❑ 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
U No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. []Yes PM No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
1..F g%
12. Crop TYPe(s): s4d &r5 SQg4 sM, &a .
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ Yes
5fl No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
M No
El NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
P] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes r0] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑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 V 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

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ® No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail 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
❑ NA FINE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
® NA ❑ NE
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
5g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments �; t
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary). _}
S ui''� t 4- o v% 9-7,6 __W 01
Reviewer/inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: q,0-g33-5300
Date: 9-1 r ff
21412011

9
Division of Water Quality
Facility Number _ �l Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
- — -- C) Other Agency
Type of Visit 10 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 11DRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 0 Arrival Time: D; Departure Time: County: 0064"D Region:
Farm Name: TP 10 Owner Email:
Owner Name: T�� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: r Integrator: �res'R�
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o = 1 Longitude: = o =
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
❑N❑ Layer T.
on -Layer
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean '!
Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑Other ------------.�
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
. 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
Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
[:]_Dairy Calf
❑ Dai Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non-DaiEy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: M__1
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 PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[PNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
EP NA
❑ NE
19NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
CgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
j
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facilify Number: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Struc I
ure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ic/ 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 RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No �1A ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes Iallo ❑ 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 W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) LP
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste ADDlication
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 ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of)Vind Drift ❑ Appljcation Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s) a&�
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ yes
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
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
{ ..i .E : lz..SR'ga:v*�sR +r ��s t+t`s +F�di�i'+T••
Comments (refer to question;#) :'Explain ,any YI±Sanswerfs,and/gr any recommndations or�anyother tomnnents� •�
3Use,drawmgs=of facility to better'explain situations.: (us6additional pages,as necessary : �x ,�t r
`�ey�reJ,'w-u 9/n//a.
Reviewer/inspector Name w << bye ' ` " Phone: i0 3j `33Li�
ReviewertInspector Signature: Date: lolqllo
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

y
w
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design [I Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Q NA
El NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[P No
1❑NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
21 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
- No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
f
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the pen -nit 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
[:I NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Revi ewer/] n spector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments:andlor Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of Water Qu it /
Facility Number rp i_ sL O Division of Soil and Watei Conservation TJ
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: 1 Arrival Time: O9%XQ.k Departure Time: .'am, county: 0_UMff ! &10 Region:
Farm Name: — A —�^ _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: B e- 8 m5 4XY'� Phone;
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: _ Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Phone No..
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: r r�
Sack -up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: =O 0 6 ❑ Longitude: = ° a ` =1
Design Current Design Current I)csign Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Pouitry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
La er
El Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
El Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry ❑ Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
ElNon-Dairy
❑ La ers
El Farrow to Finish
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Non -Layers
El Beef Feeder
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
(F}ther
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑Other Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 0No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ® NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ` NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
[I Yes No /❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ` NO ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number:
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Struture I Stntcture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Spillway?.
Designed Freeboard 00: _
Observed Freeboard (in): k
El NA El NE
PNA ❑ NE
rocture 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
[] NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
El NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
�No
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
T
ElNA
❑ 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
1�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Auplication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑Yes � Nn [] NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 10 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence ind Drift [IApplication Outside of Area W
12. Crop type(s)�
13. Soil type(s).L
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
@3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination, ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
IV
❑ NA
El 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
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Z101
12195104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection �LJ
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes qqNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 10 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the approprrate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps [I Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes J&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 bNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No 6 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
tj No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[SNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
$ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
2$.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
++,,,,
9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ 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
MNo
❑ 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
1�0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
& No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33,
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Facility Number a�
'Division �f-Water. Quality
O Division of Sail and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
(Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance j
Reason for Visit 0 Routine Q Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access I
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: OUMBE lINNb Region:
Farm Name: rG Owner Email:
Owner Name: Q+Phone:
Mailing; Address:
Physical Address:
1
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: s
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phone No..
Integrator: e—
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = c ❑ I 0 l{ Longitude: = ° 0 ` = "
Design ' Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -La er
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ DaiEy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
P NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[:]No
9NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
;a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
1P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

a
Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? El Yes Iva
llo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No N 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? Cl 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
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
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
S. 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
W No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
It. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
EPNo
❑ 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)fXt& j,5 Q ,u , A.54Ue) 1.5m 1 Q9n 0wsw'�
13. Soil type(s)
' v
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
E3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
;0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
t9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
�Comments�(rcler�to question #) ,Explain anyYES,#�answerskRnd�or any recq"mm�en�d ations or any other comments.
i�Use d?rlawings, ¢¢af�.facl_llfy to hetterMexplain�si"tuations. ,{use sddit�fon,,XXHl�p�aasg�es�as nec[e.,ssar�y)(:�, y4
T
ReviewerllnspectarName__ - - Phone: lD
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
gage 2 of 3 r'Ci_1aivq Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes IM No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WDP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 29No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
E?No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
E) No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
SNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
F No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
29.
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
in 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
PNo
❑ 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
n 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
C5No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
x
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Facility Number (o
Division of Water Quality
Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation [
Q Other Agency _k A` k I
Type of Visit ` Zompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit`f�Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: qlj
Arrival Time: Departure Time: County'.
Farm Name: _j 1 0 Owner Email:
Owner Name:'Pl e_s._-4 rams Phone: _
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: EeIL24
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Other
❑ Other
Region: ' ' "•'
Latitude: = e= f Longitude: =° 0 f 0
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream lmnacts
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'. _
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ D Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 1;tNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
TV
❑ Yes
❑ No )aNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ Nozf� NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No ADNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
to ❑NA
[INE
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
A
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 10 Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
kxNo
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): `9
-
l
to
Observed Freeboard (in): 7_
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
g10 ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
o ❑ NA [INE
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?
bqes
❑ No El NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑VVVVVVYes
�No ❑ NA El 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
PgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below,
❑ Yes
�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 1bs ❑ 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)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes �Go
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes �4blo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination`?❑ Yes )9)No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes ;E4)No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18, Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes _J�!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):
ect ,balq aAtN tin. tUtt. 6e 5-1�1
0
Reviewer/Inspector Name ma MPhone:
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:
1212R/0 1"antirrued
11

Facility Number: (p —0b2 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 'KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes *No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
&14A
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
j&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
A NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
allo
❑ 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
7
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
ElNE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
El Yes
�,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

Type of Visit t�L�`,o/mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit i Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: M' Ok_ A�egion: PX
Farm Name: ^ I Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: �Mh)0-7
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone:
Phone No:
Integrator: P_r C,4M
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = e = I = 11
Longitude: = ° 0 ` 0 `i
Design Current Design
Swine Capacity PopulaYson Wet Poultry Capacity
❑ Wean to Finish ❑ La er
Current
H I 5t I Enj
Design Current
apacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La er
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
R'ra—rrow to Wean
Q902 SO52, Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
ElNon-Dairy
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
El Beef Stocker
El Beef Feeder
❑ Boars ❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
Other ❑ Turkey Pouets
❑Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
❑ Other ❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
W/o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
El Yes
[I No
�, //
LAVA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
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
JJ
DNA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
R o .
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 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 U No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
ElYes ElNo
94AB ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: Iq
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
r
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
,.,/
❑ Yes LKNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(iel large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes 2 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 Q(No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes [�10
❑ 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 ICJ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste_ Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes VNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes L"J 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) &YM I& J 01 - 416" 4 GA0,e1 AM GY)a �
CA - hQ-4A T Q"Q
13. Soil type(s) G70 A
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
F5N El NA
El NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
El Yes
LI No ❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
o ❑ NA
El NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
El Yes
Ir [I NA
[I NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
El Yes
�70 ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question#): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations :or any oth'er,comments
Use drawings of facility to. better explain situations. (use additional,.pages as necessary):;
Reviewer/inspector Name 'ALM.1QK5TrTJ I V r r .. Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Paee 2 of 12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number:{}Z Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes EfNo ❑ 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 Q 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? El Yes LIdN0 NA [I 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
E2<0
❑ NA
ElNE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
ElE Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
E3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑No
ElNA
[INE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
ElYes
ao
❑ 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?
El Yes
,�/
12 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
EJ 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
�
Rj o
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
EJ/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

P"i S
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ® Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Dented Access
Date of Visit: 7 o y Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: 54 ti. , ►ass oQ Region: Enxz�_
Farm Name: P" S Owner Email:
Owner Name: Pr e S-�o a c_ 174 v'vy �.. ,.. _ ,.„. Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: ,p Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator., --
Certified Operator: ,; .0 1�4 4 r�-�o a -/— Operator Certification Number: 77s�
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: =' =' ❑ Longitude: = o =' = "
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Nan -La et
❑
Wean to Finish
❑
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
®
Farrow to Wean
3 0-7
®
Farrow to Feeder
❑
Farrow to Finish
❑
Gilts
❑
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ 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? (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 [N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

PIEr?
Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[2 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a, If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: I�
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 9 /A.
Observed Freeboard (in): 3 Z/
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
M No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
V No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[4 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
I]. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
4 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 Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) e r Aa tX / 0-5
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination,. [I Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
1'3' /?eyv7oV'- oUc15-ccO�Q_0" 'XCON a3 ro_Sr IIle,
Reviewer/Inspector Name} , �':pjj'o, '. ,% Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: �112716J-
12/28/04 Continued

Pt►P 9
Facility Number: -- Gy.] Date of Inspection 6
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes Z1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WCP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crap 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 property 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
3 I. 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 ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ®No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes © No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ®'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA ONE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ®Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up O Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: �� Time: i
Facilih• Number
Not O er tional 0 Below Threshold
Permitted ® Certified M Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Form Name: —PW'Q 142 F Dac'S P)( -; g County:
Owner Name: _E 5G.c ,S• Phone No: _ 4l I! 1 Sgr 2 -_S -za/
Mailing Address: _ P. d s Pic 43 & __�4 .C�
Facilitv Contact: W- Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: e^ a A &.`e Integrator: er'F_ATd e
Certified Operator: kbs< Pe_A-er C 0 L- . mj/ Q,9w6, ;6 13x%M&f _Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
2Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Catle ❑Horse Latitude a 4 0" Longitude • 1 OK
Design Current
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Laver
❑ DaiEy
I
® Feeder to Finish
5 -0
O
❑ Non -La er
I
Non -Dairy
__J_
__j
❑ Farrow to Wean
MU Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
•F
Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons _:w' ❑ Subsurface Drains'Present JED La eon Area JEJ S rav Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps t ❑ No Liquid Waste Mane ement'Svstem t'
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 8 Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillwav
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): 3
05103101
❑ Yes q No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [:1 No
❑ Yes G] No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes R No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection Av .
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes I"No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? (if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an ❑ Yes No
Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes LAPNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes f� No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes 5No
Waste Annlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ONo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes 99 No
12. Crop type R e_r ry%u Ale— mob— Si— . ('TA -roll d r
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
[ ;No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
16. is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
RegUired Records & Documents
17, Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ic/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ 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
E� No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
;Q No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
�allo
(ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
N No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[BNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments-Qrefe t6 ci stioif°#): Explain any YES,answers:nnd/or any recommeddations orany other,`commen st`i"
:.
a Mat nefiessp
Use drawins of facilit to;hetter ax lamsituations;(use additional pig t Field Copv
g ,ity P ,, 4 t ary) �� ❑
❑Final Notes
u�a k,- ry 41 � � G cis ►n t-e� c rc90 -� � 4�� �,
�-, � IJ S �
FC�(`rp�3 r"cGcfmf� . BUA- owCJ� �" "1 S C.��vvSr4�^k44 GC.r•t`o�
4 Li
Reviewer/inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
.4
Date: /.L12 A n 4zL
05103101 t: Continued

Facility Number: a4, — OA Date of Inspection
Odor Lssucs
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e, broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged Fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
O5103101
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [54 No
❑ Yes © No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes [55 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
J

1of S6il and Water pivlslon:'of Whter Quality. 3
f ", 7 a ` "� ivlsiart ter Coascrvatipp
p s
her J. enlCy i
,;,, 6rtw i ily, I I rl M��E , ER..:r .. ff >t ; i� -'�•.1 d • I! ..
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Koutine O Complaint O Follow up ()Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number bate oC visit: Time:
�a
10
Not Oneralional. 0 Below Threshold
[Permitted © Ce 'fled [�Coonditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: _x — 175 __ County: [ - �••�• �`Qr' ��
Owner Name: �— pl'eS_ +t? ____ _T Phone No:
MaiIing Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Pane No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' 0• Uu Longitude Da 1
Design Current Design ;Current Design Current
,;:Swine Ca achy 'Po uiahon Poultry , ` Ca acity°...Population Cattle , Ca acih Pa talation
Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer i Dairy
Feeder to Finish ❑Non -La er ' ❑ Non-Dai
Farrow to Wean
r
Farrow to Feeder❑Other I'
�E l Farrow to Finish J!' 11 ''< 3 ' Total Design Cn}Iactty.l
Gilts
Boars t '' i ! Tote!: SSLW
°. i
E
Ea Subsurface Drains Present La oon Area S rav Field Area1
,
g tuber of Lagoons + � r; 'I, I
rNu
Hoidin Ponds 1 So1ld,Traps I No Liquid Waste Management System
h r s _& 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?
MALe Colleclion & TreatMent
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes APNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes o
ElYes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
1,No
Structure 6
\
Continued

Facility Number ZA — ©7i
Date of Inspection 1-D�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?.(iel trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence ofover application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
4
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designa{edin 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?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(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 ReviewerlInspector 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 ANO
❑ Yes 60
❑ Yes No
El Yes o
❑ Yes M
❑ Yes
❑ Yes ►�No
❑ Yes 9VNo
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes CQ 1No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes X fo
❑ Yes No
El Yes l o
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes ,CTNo
❑ Yes �To
❑ Yes L]'No
❑ Yes No
El Yes o
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
IEV V'-dd =. 6 B €F._ pf 1{ .E' i E.< z
Corrrtments§{rettfer ti! questions#) 'ExplainE anySYES answers ant//or anyrecomtnentlationS or anyEather comments.
' S 1 {.z'
.S,,a;
-...9 i,E` idad-.e:i�e ;._ d tt .5,13. d 3 ? .,kn..9HnFiwk..t
rseiilra�vings of;fa¢ility to better,explatn sitnations. (pse additional pages as necessary)• 3d.
[� Field Copv ❑Final Notes
p << €
�P.
6erm"A. //Vw/ 306V27/.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
r-
Reviewer/lnspector Signature:" Date.
O5103101 41
Continued

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Andrew McCall, Regional Manager
Mr. Glen Clifton
P.O. Box 438
Clinton, NC 28328
Dear Mr. Clifton:
4
OOL
E:)EHNR
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 1, 1995
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
Confined Animal Feedlot Operation
(CAFO)
Cumberland County
On May 24, 1995, an inspection of your animal operation was performed by the
Fayetteville Regional Office (FRO). Please find enclosed a copy of our Compliance Inspection
Report for your information. It is the opinion of this office that this facility is in compliance
with 15A NCAC 2H, Part .0217, and that Animal Waste Management is being properly
performed.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact me at (910) 486-
1541.
Sincerely,
- " k. %.- Z
Mid D. Moody
Environmental Technician
MM/zlt
Enclosure
cc: Facility Compliance Group
Wachovia Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH a NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
Farm Name/Owner Inspection Date Farm No.
(Prestage) 24 May 95 PX-18
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 438
Clinton, NC 28328
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
SECTION I
Animal
Operation type:
Horses, cattle, swine, poultry, or sheep
SECTiON__II
Comments
1.
Does the number and type of animal meet or
exceed (.0217) criteria?, [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)) 1250 (Farrow -feeder)
X
2.
Does this facility meet criteria for Animal
Operation REGISTRATION?
X _
3.
Are animals confined fed or maintained in this
facility for a 12-month period?
J
4.
Does this facility have a CERTIFIED_ANIMAL WASTE
MANAGEMENT Kan?
J-c`
5.
Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
X

f Administration and Program Management
6. Does this facility meet the SCS mimimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc.
SECTION III
Field Site Management
I. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of USGS Map
Map Blue Line Stream?
2. is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream?
3. Does the facility have adequate acreage on
which to apply the waste? (over 50 acres)
4. Does the land application site have cover
crop in accordance with the CERTIFICATION -PLAN?
5. Is animal waste discharged into waters of the
state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or
other similar man-made devices?
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices (BMP)
of the approved CERTIFICATION?
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approx. 3 ft.)
S. Is the general condition of this animal facility,
including management and operation, satisfactory?
SECTION IV
Comments
X I Comments
X - -
g ]H Comments
- X -
.L -
_N_ —
JL -
Section II #5 - At present there are no records being kept on land application
of waste. A copy of a proposed log will be attached to this report.
Section III #4 - There is no cover crop on land at this point, and waste has
been applied. Prestage is in the process of preparing the land (clearing and
planting of coastal) so that waste can be properly applied and therefore
adhere to best management practices. Recommend that future application of
waste be done after cover crop is in place to maximize pan uptake.

, �Mwnr

.� .�,, ._ �; �„f� j 4'�S _ate--'1C
- _.� ::a.,��..�t.�.-.: �J.�-� _ _ -- �r.ir._ _ - -M f., --gym