260007_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qua

_...r 1�
on of Water Resources
Facility Numbe� 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservatian
0 Other Agency
type of visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0-1 outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: �a Departure Time: D County: egion:
Farm Name: �:rr[„r Owner Email:
Owner Name: /� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: �a.4
Certified Operator: tf el—�
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
r Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design Current Des€gn Current
Swine
Capacity Pap.
Wet Poultry Capacity P. Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer airy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er airy Calf
airy Heifer
eeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Design Current D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Dr, Poult r Ca act P,o Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers y Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Boars
z
Turke s
Other
Turke Pouets
Other
'.'SP9:R LYc.Ii L i'!%:J rYAS�i06SM1Zi�'
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes D Io [:]NA ❑ NE
[—]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[3 '`'o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
011'qo-
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: Date of Inspection: 70
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? 0 Yes ;eo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? [Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 9
Observed Freeboard (in): Ap
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 [ N' o ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[3'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
E5 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
�o
[DNA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
1 1. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
[] Yes
[3-11; o
[] NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate
Manure/Sludge
into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application
Outside of Approved Area
12, Crop Type(s): �' et
13. Soil Type(s): y�Lc7�frr�
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
I_J <'o
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[J No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[D'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reaulred Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
�o
❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
�o
❑ 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
�o
❑ 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
[E lqo
❑ NA ❑ NE
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes L"J ITo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facilit Number: 7 L - p Date of Inspection: 2
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ED o ❑ NA D. NE'
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes Zo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes O No
❑ Yes M"No
❑ Yes [[a No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
[7�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
dNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
El Yes
❑ Yes
Comments (refer to question #)...Explalnsany YES`answers and/or any additional recommendations;; or. any'other comine'ntspM;a 4
Use drawings of facllity, to:better`exulain situ ation'ifiuiecaddttional pages, as necessary)
�t`7
� xr-4� g�,Zli --W-el
Reviewer/Inspector Name: nz�/�- Phone:O%S�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 3 of 3 21412015

!.
r
I yt1C Ul V loll: %.j1.U111t111i111l'C lllNPClllUll `% VtlC fllllUU ii,CVICW lJ .711'UCIUI"C GVi1lUi1llUu LJ I CCII II1Gi11 HSSIS lil11CC
Reason for Visit: outine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit:191�_1:21Arrival Time: Departure Time: p ` County:Region:
Farm Name: "old j�Q/� Owner Email:
Owner Name: GL ✓' Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: �44e_
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: jay
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone:
Integrator: e� J'•'�+'�--
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude: Longitude:
Iits o s Jf iM err I� i` i + s i r 1 us-
z I Desi u u Current ,"�k ` ,;. i s i Design `Current
i( $ I
I�p(`II I�IIi1�Il
Design Current
Swine 111:h i specify 4., 1'op.,I,,E ;Wet Poultry �Capacity Pop.
Cattle . Capacity Pop.
Ir..1 ,'4k!€;llt�
tf=!k Wean to Finish '' Lie�iaver
p,j Wean to Feeder l�,"° Non -La er ;
el,t , Feeder to Finish .5�� � , l � � ' ',� `�' 4 , , '
Farrow Wean I �� Design
a to �;� Current
Farrow to Feeder�.DI .poult :.Caaci Pop,
j' Farrow to Finish Layers
Gilts Non -Layers
rl j� it
�� Boars ��ayfr Pullets
�r I [(19iafH �r-� 3 �r sr" a ° Ib : r"
ro �1tI i�l ' 1 Turkeys-
��;""i � Othere iii.:� INN �' =rI I1 I,f. I' x..#I� � ! �'�� TurkeyPoults71
.
Other Other
�...; .... ....
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify D W R)
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?
Dai Cow
Dai Calf
Dairy Heifer
D Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes ELNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
Page
❑No
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
Eg-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
EF�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
1 of 2/4/1015 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
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
ELNo
❑ 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
1 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
0 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
[KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
[ENo
❑ 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): �ul �JS�r
Tdvt s�.e.� �'��'�ri6r.M.; � u �-✓
`
.,_
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
E%,No
❑ NA
[] NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
C&No
❑ NA
[] NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
DEkNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
5No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
Callo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check ❑ Yes
0,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes SLNo
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 5�No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [] Yes allo
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
[]NA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

lFacility Number: - 0 Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes U�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ;4No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes
,4 No
❑ NA
0 NE
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 4g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes RNo ❑ NA 0 NE
[:]Yes [,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
54:No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes
f2.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatui
Phone: 92�(% �W;115`/
Date: /-� —'::�/�
21412015
Page 3 of 3

for Visit: (1fo-utine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O E
O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: 7A H n e j IBC{ .r'/yl Owner Email:
Owner Name: %� O y L{,�IGL - Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 7-y/`a//'� Title: f
Onsite Re resentahve: Sc•-�-�--- / /� n,�
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone:
Integrator:.�'�y-i�'U���
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm; Latitude: Longitude:
Design
Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity
Pop.r��No
oultry
Capacity
ity Pop.Wean
to Finish
Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
a er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
`7L
/ 0
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Dr, l;oultr�
Ca aei
P.o
Non-Dai
Farrow to Finish
---
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
on -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
ullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turks s
Other
TurkeyPuults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream „Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes []No
[:]Yes �&No
❑ Yes I&No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 1 of 3
I
21412015 Continued

[Facility Number: 7 to - A Date of Inspection: =
Waste Collection & Treatment
r' 4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
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.)
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 [allo
❑ 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 [RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? []Yes RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes 2[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 121-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 2No
❑ 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 Approved Area
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift/ ❑
/Application
12. Crop Type(s): Z VoK 14) Cr- !'A"t-eens y*4 / C'D'- ► U
13. Soil Type(s): lW` t,i hrt 6 •1 5 7-i�l i
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the
WMP?
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?
[]Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
EE No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
E&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes �.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[]Yes ER 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 INo
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis [D 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 54 No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:]Yes 23-No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
[DNA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - 077 Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 2No
' 25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes allo
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 25,No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ®, No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
MNo
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
CS No
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30, Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
[allo
Permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
3 I. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
E] Yes
[�[_No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Comments .(refer to question#): Explain any YES`answers and/or anyaddltlonal reeommendations or;anyother comments .y
i1'se: drawings of faellity to better' explain situations (use_ additional pages ae necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date:
21412015

- //
M
T'Division of Water Resources
Facility Number /� - 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of visit: om��pliance Inspection Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Orfoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: p p Departure Time: 3 County: 44e,,,�//�egion:
Farm Name: u_ / Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: r'a / /v_ e-T-- Title: rrX `
Onsite Representative:
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:
Integrator: 65;z"
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
L
ayer I I —d
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey poults
Other
Design Current
Dischar es 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 KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes [:]No
[:]Yes [-]No
[:]Yes 0 No
[-]Yes O_No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page I of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: P -0 Date of inspection:.3-
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):_
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes D, 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
C&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
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
2�_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
[Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
rRNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes C&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop /Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): e��� /�2�-r� ��.-r o� /�/ r� �L<✓��-�c�h��.-~S
13. Soil Type(s): $rrrS ST
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes S No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable [:]Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 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 V Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ELNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facility Number: - O Date of Inspection: `7`3 o
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes
2No
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
5� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations°or, any;other comments.:
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as.necessa ).
0
Reviewer/Inspector Name: ,j ✓Z'�-'-� �"r�/�"— -
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Phone: 31J ,2y
Date: �JO y-s 3 33 �7c
21412014
Page 3 of 3

y
v urvvs:on or waver quaury
Facility Number (p - O Division of Boil and Water Conservation
` O Other Agency
Type of Visit: C��om��pliance Inspection Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: (51f outine 0 Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: ..f Arrival Time: t7 Departure Time: /! 4 D County: Region:
Farm Nameo,/' r arM_ Owner Email:
Owner Name: J \!'i� c� tc !'a r'ci Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �'t"r-Yr /�/`� Title:
Onsite Representative:
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:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
ELayer
Non -Layer
E
Pullets
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 DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
,Non
-Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes RNo [DNA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [:]No
[:]Yes [—]No
[:]Yes [:]No
[:]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®, No
❑NA [3 NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes EffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes 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): G' / �• s 6
y
1 � _
13. Soil Type(s): at,ma'rtS Z-aL-t na26. -- -- --, - —
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
® 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 5�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 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: jDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes (2 No
r
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [2 No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? [ ] Yes ® No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑Yes ®No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes [K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes CZ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No
[] Yes [� No
❑ Yes No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawvings: of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessar ).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
0
21412011
! . .

s
Facility Number
(:Y6ivision of Water Quality
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: EMompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: iSRoutine O Comnlaint O Follow-un O Referral O Emereencv O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: — / 1 Arrival Time: f ; p O Departure Time: ; O77 County: ..egian:^ 0
Farm Name: �lc Q �d �Q �� yyL� Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: zGLo . ! /WOm-r- Title:
Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Sack -up Operator: 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
Boars
Other
Other
Latitude:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
I I E] I Layer
Non -La er I EEd
ury routtry
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turks
Turkey Poults
Other
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 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 Broad Cow
❑ Yes [S No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes []No [DNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
[]Yes ELNo
❑ Yes 0 No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of inspection:
r' Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): q
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
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
fo 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 Auplication
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
[2 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): le/moolla- / '�5P4xiy�r��rl't..
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ER No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
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
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
;Q_No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
O'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 allo ❑ 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 Pq No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes &No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: 7 JDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA 0 NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond 0 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
a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
E4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
Eallo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes g[ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes JZLNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 12 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[] Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes E�.,No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments:;
Ilse drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
f�YGvS'FYvt�e o, 1! 114--�[3
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature;
Page 3 of 3
Phone: / A y,-3 —3,
Date: / /
21412011

i ype of visit: �tmompnance inspection v uperation review , J arrucrure r,vaivariun v t ecnmcal AssIsrance
Reason for Visit: outiine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region: fl
Farm Name: ,�j U 0-/A �et /'n1. Owner Email:
Owner Name: /�u I1 a�'� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 4W 6f Title: _7N. !S�e . Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: at�l��✓�( Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
to Finish
La er
Dai Cow
to Feeder
Non -La er
Dai Calf
r to Finish -
71
IDai
Heifer
to Wean
E
Design
Current
D Cow
to Feeder
Dr, P,oultr,
C_u acit
Pao ,
Non -Dairy
to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Othe
urkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)? _
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes Co No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes [:)No
❑ Yes " No
❑ Yes ®, No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - d Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Spillway?: _
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): • S~ T
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]No ❑NA ❑NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes CaNo ❑ 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
El No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
[ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
.E No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ 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): Co ry I W ) vim / S�*i��e� r � i`nt ad &— &V
a
13. Soil Type(s): ',�lcL-✓-� A"­f;
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
ONo
❑ 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
2-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 EZ Na
❑ 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 k 21412011 Condmied

Facility Number: - 0 Date of Ina ection: 3—
i
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes El 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 S No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes allo
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
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
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
[]Yes CO -No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ED No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E[ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes r,7-'l No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes �. No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to.question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
bar •' i�IE r� � "� � �,rr �� ��� rra e1� ,d�.ri`fc � r r.,�% -� �T rrs �'"'"�'
ReviewerlInspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
21412011

Type of Visit: OXompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
[season for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
mmu�uu u.umrrr _- -_
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ; / Departure Time: County Region: C7
Farm Name: �7L�ry i�aI,t1_ Owner Email:
Owner Name:_ u%ard Phone:
r
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: _6-/r-C/ Title: Phone:
IV
Onsite Representative: o•�Integrator: �—
Certified Operator: y eel _ Certification Number:
Sack -up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Swiner
Desgnxurrent
u��
Design
Current
Design Current
Cattle Ca pacl o p•
Wean to Finish
Layer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Nan -La er
I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
/
* 'f .
3
Dr, Foultr
f DDesign
. Ca aci
Current
P„o
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
,other
Other
3
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1, is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)? _
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No
[—]Yes [:]No
[]Yes [:)No
[:]Yes No
❑ Yes m No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facilit Number: - D Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
1 4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes (9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?. -
Designed Freeboard (in): 9
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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 2INo ❑ 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 ZLNo ❑ 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 D 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): f 7-
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 allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ZLNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA [] NE
❑ Yes a No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ®. No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists [:]Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Q!�No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - p Date of Inspection: /-
a 24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
i
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ES No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey []Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
®,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes r No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No
[:]Yes No
❑ Yes No
[] NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments , 4"
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
0-- //-d��� �-d �✓/,/,�.- w°rk /vim --/ -vim �!
Phone
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:%� — Date
Page 3 of 3
3"33cx>
/a--/ - 9.0 / 1
21412011

isian of Water Quality /;z —0-17- _1 U
Facility Number (P O Division of Soil and Water Conservation sff� •�
O Other Agency
Type of Visit Coommpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit a Koutino 0 Complaint O Follow up O Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: r�r Arrival Time: , Departure Time: / r3 County: Region: !
Farm Name: !3!i �'Q1' 1�Lt' �/9'1-/ Owner Email:
Owner Name: ���1 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: XMl Title: Pf` Phone No:
Onsite Representative: /��J �w �i!✓�! �cr� �jf!t1�``� Integrator:f n1'L S�`2Z�7
Certified Operator: 4ma LIB Operator Certification Number: 17, P
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = 1 = {1 Longitude: = ° = ` 0
it
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ on -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Puults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood 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?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
RN
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
®.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

j Facility Number: i{ Date of Inspection
I Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Stnirture 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 JZ 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 9No ❑ 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 JK 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 ISYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 91 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 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes &No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
1$. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
S.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
`n
04 9,�:
Reviewer/lnspectar Name I - � m Phone: % 7
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: a-- 2`7� /b
Page 1 aJ 3 111251 4 Uonlinuea

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection i
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes allo ❑ 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 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
JK No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
CKNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
I] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[RNNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
9LNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
(9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
JA 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
&jNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
®,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/[nspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
�Io
El NA
❑ NE
Additional; Commentsandlor Drawings:
I
Page 3 of 3 12.128104

flMS z-Zz - Zo0 9
ivisian of Water Quality
Facility Number ��lQ % 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit
ompliance Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure;Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
tine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: iZ ZQ-r 9 Arrival Time: 2: Departure Time: 3; /Q County: G4•�: �r�a.✓� Region:
Farm Name: Lela✓Q � �`�"'` _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: ��i f/cl[ / //ee e_d Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Gr1 e k- Title: 7u� O�c— . _ Phone No:
Onsite Representative: ��� f'� Integrator: rlei^� IY 5��.'04
Certified Operator: ll✓sr,/ s�d''u,'Q• Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Other
❑ Other
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: n o
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non —Layer I- - -_. - -
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turke 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)
Longitude:
0
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑
Daia Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dai 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: T11
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 Zo E!4�❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
EI tvA
[INE
❑ Yes
ElNo
2 <A
❑ NE
8<
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
ElNA
[INE
[IYes
G-KoNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: G, - O7
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
❑ Yes E No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[]Yes [}-5o_ ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 2-
Observed Freeboard (in): , �,,No�-
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? El Yes I1 ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ic/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes To ❑ 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 0'150- ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? [] Yes 91go' ❑ 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 B- o— ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ElYes No ❑ NA El NE
maintenance/improvement?
1 t . Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ['�-]moo ❑ 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) !!�IRCQ/[IS %.1A.rruwJ S
13. Soil type(s) 4 S-1-
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes 2No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination,❑ Yes L'J No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes 2'l o ❑ NA
❑ Yes [ o ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name s '% icy " tv S y � 4 ? € Phone: 9�0• 44333.3-30 0
e,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 1-2 --7/- Zo09
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 26 —Q7 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes L7 O ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [ to ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design
g ❑Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
. 10 ❑ 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
9110 ❑ NA
❑ NE
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
ET_ ElNA
ElNE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
R o ❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑< ❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑'Tqo-- ❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes 9<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
Now❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
El Yes
, .,,
i..�'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
ETNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
ETNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/]nspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
�'No ❑ NA
LWo
El NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

CiT,wl5
/-08- OQ iz(L-
f Visit C)'Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: �: S��',� County: 614-4 -/—cl Region: �2O
Farm Name: Zd t 4 tld F" v. — Owner Email:
Owner Name: __ Rq:.,Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title: .S'OG� Phone No: 1
Onsite Representative: Moo r-L Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
6 r-c.Lr Moa t—t_.
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o ❑ A ❑11 Longitude: 0 ° 0 ` =
Sg
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes LI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
El Yes
❑No
EKA
El NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
E NA
❑ NE
B A
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
'' No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
BITo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 2lv -d 7
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Pr
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
r
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 2 1�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes Bl o ❑ 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 E Nore❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require [] Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 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 1 O lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window y ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) ge.—Ai ec Wes— (Al-1 J Ca r�J .S� y 6 •vS �ii•J,�r r �+.�nru
13. Soil type(s) ;,i / S77-
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes ©5o ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes
2io
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
io
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
C5No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
[�'1 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name k ,� v` sµ Phone:1 f 0, `3a'r 333 0
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: a — a— ZDD
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 24 — D % Date of Inspection
Required .Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes B<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes E No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes L2No ❑ 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
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
El Yes
[]"No
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
0No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
DITo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
0<
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
ElNE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
ElYes
,E
Lr 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?
ElYes
[] 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
❑-t<
❑ 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
[INA
ElNE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
[] Yes
�ETNNo
CJ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

/2;1/41ZDO7
O'D'tvision of Water Quality
Facility Number 'Z(p Q-7 O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit 01 ompliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit �outine 0 Complaint Q Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure 'Time: f :00 r., County: caw b'W4 Region: Jc:�/20
Farm Name: fi td La v J Rx v rv^ Owner Email:
Owner Name: Raw..* Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: �xah�a r.ae< /-M Ewz
Certified Operator: s;iMzw IZ, Bul�avar# Operator Certification Number: /7$//
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
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = 0 06 0" Longitude; 0 o= S=
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1, Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design. Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dai Heifei
❑
Da Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocket
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
!I
❑ Yes [M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

i
Facility Number:
Date of Inspection I Z -17 - 071
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: I
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ?No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
El NA [I NE
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 32
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? 1
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes I
No ElNA ElNE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes � 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.) f
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l 0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Dritl ❑ Application Outside of Area A
12. Crop type(s) B e+-w-t&J o, 64a4, ) . Cb t -tv , 5o w b e,_�S , Q1Nk4— AA1,VU _
13.
Soil type(s) 6UA Sf
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[0 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
19.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
w
ReviewerlInspector Name Ri c_k Revels- Phone: 9/0, Z133 , 3300
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: /Z — /7— Z60 7
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 26 Date of Inspection f2-/7-07
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 4No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping; need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box.below. ❑ Yes P6 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
IF No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ 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
IF No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

f
7
Type of Visit &Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: FTU;� Arrival Time:
� O Departure Time: [� County: /�^�' Region: F)y
Farm Name: ffie d' o 6111 w Owner Email:
Owner Name:I a%� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: x_r. it, 1 �tej Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator:
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
Boars
Other.
❑ Other
Latitude: = Q =' = Longitude: = ° 0
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
DischaMes & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made`?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ DairyHeifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: ED.
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? (Ifyes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
PQ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ Yes
ER 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?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
El Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes V3No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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
9LNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ic/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
[LYes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
[:]Yes
[RNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
(] Yes
O.No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
5d No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drill❑ Application Outside of
Area
12. Crop type(s) CArri- +yYY/"",4zm d_
13. Soil type(s) &CtLa l .S�f� <
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
OrYes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination%❑
Yes
R 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
EZ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
ec ClJG�S �/ i�ol '"''`��✓ �.�'�i �- lUkb �rhS�c�V�'Yol �� �" �� r u1 ����
Reviewer/Inspector Name r= '" Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: L�•-%'!J(p
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 69 — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [�Z_No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes VP -No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design [I Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes JD No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
LZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NNA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
RLNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
9NA
. ❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
;kNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
O No
kW
❑ 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
El NA
El NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
%No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
-0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
91 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

a
9
ac
.d �i,-Ysa:s �.F s.L #. -n..i i.Erar4.M:. ns.+.�.•S`.:J. 'i .:T.:d.',4�V'�. .: !wA r:i.s �,.,n .X. '�., C, C,.> ..A c.:»n:. _w
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ® Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Time: 0 t d O
Facility• Number
jig Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted M Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered pate Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: AiAUCC& County: e--&,LLAe-KJ
Owner Name: U1 I e'-A Phone No: _ 41 0 U11
Mailing Address: ._�na2 <�t'�f.�i �Laed�- �.re ei4 Vzk ley3 ALL 2.83i
Facility Contact: __ Kt._i. L' C.14 Title:
Onsite Representative: &- � WIMA
Certified Operator: < L a L, i ( ram _
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator: "de- ae.aclf. -
Operator Certification Number: 1'4-s>ii
19swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ` 4 " Longitude • 01
Design
Current Design
Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity
Population Poultry Ca acity
Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder.
❑ Laver
❑ Dai
® Feeder to Finish
Q Non -Layer I
I Non -Dairy I
7d
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
umber of 4goons
-'­' ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oon Area
rea . S raF Field A
gPonds I Solid Traps
E
;,❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
1 r'
D' rcres g Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Sprav 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 an), adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
taste Collection & Treatment
4, is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5.
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): 3
05103101
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes P] No
❑ Yes I�No
❑ Yes q No
Structure 6
Continued

1
Facility Number: ;— Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ 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 answerer[ 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 of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
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?
Renuired 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?
(ic/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ 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?
(ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes [ANo
❑ Yes {R No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [$No
❑ Yes P[No
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes E No
❑ Yes 5D No
❑ Yes fZ No
❑ Yes [9 No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes CS No
El Yes p No
❑ Yes 0No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes © No
l0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit. 1

Y
Facility Number: — Date of inspection aLr a
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30, Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32, Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes [R No
❑ Yes [9 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
AA
05103101

State of North Carolina
' Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 • •
1 Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N F�
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Andrew McCall, Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
July 19, 1995
Mr. Ray Bullard
Rt 2 Box 290-AZ
Stedman, NC 28391
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
Ray Bullard Farm
Cumberland County
Dear Mr. Bullard:
On July 13, 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 [phone].
Sincerely,
/j' `1 '
`11�
D. T. Jon
Chemist
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

i
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTNSNT OF SNVIRONffiBNT, HEALTH A NATURAL UBOURMS
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL KMAGERMT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal operation Compliance Inspection Form
Bullard 1 7-13-95
Rt 2 Box 290-A2 Stedman, NC 28391 I 910 531-3463
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
SRCTION I
Animal Operation
Horses, cattle, swine, poultry, or sheep
1. Does the number and type of animal meet or exceed
the (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal Operation REGISTRATION?
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12-month period?
4. Does this facility have a CERTIFIED_AMMU
]MOTS MANAGRMENT PLAN?
D. Doom this facility maintain waste management
record@ (Volumes of manure, land applied,
@prayy irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
6. Doom this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wall@, eta?
eee
11M
mom
mom
mom
11M
oo=

H
SECTION III
Field Site Management
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
Map B1ue,Line Stream?
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream?
3. Does this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
4. Does the land application site have a
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?
5. 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? (Approximately 3 ft plus)
8. Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
SECTION IV
Comments
NOTES:
1. Type of operation
200 Sows - Farrow to finish
on
!IN
go=
No=
IN=
mom
is=
2. This is the only Cumberland County independent that is
certified at the present time.
3. Mr. Bullard implements BMP for his animal wastes.
4. Directions: SR 2022 -.1/4 miles from NC 210 North.

F State of North Carolina I'll
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources ffl�I;T •
J Fayetteville Regional Office )A
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p � H N �
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Andrew McCall, Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, MANAGEMENT
July 19, 1995
Mr. Ray Bullard
Rt 2 Box 290-AZ
Stedman, NC 28391
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
Ray Bullard Farm
Cumberland County
Dear Mr. Bullard:
On July 13, 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 [phone].
Sincerely,
/j, J .
D. T. Jon
jp"—
Chemist
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

- 7
NORTH CAROLINA DBPARTNZNT OF SNVIRONDZNT, HEALTH i KATVRAL UNOU S
DIVISION OF BNVIRONMMMAL MANAOMEW
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
7-13-95
Rt 2 Box 290-A2 Stedman, NC 28391 1 910 531-3463
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
SBCTZON z
Animal Operation Tune:
Horses, cattle, swine, poultry, or sheep
1, goes the number and type of animal meet or exceed
the (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system))
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal Operation RRGIBTRATION?
3, Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12-month period?
4. Does this facility have a CaRTIFYXD ANIMAL
1tAf1T>0 NANAOMXT PLAN?
S. Doe® this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
@pray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
G. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
walls, *to?
eee
11M
OEM
OEM
mom
11M
oo=

SECTION III
Field Site Management
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
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 this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
4. Does the land application site have a
cover crop in accordance with the
CERTIFICATION PLAN?
S. 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? (Approximately 3 ft plus)
S. Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
SECTION IV
Comments
NOTES:
1. Type of operation
200 Sows - Farrow to finish
ee
!IN
OEM
10�
OEM
is=
2. This is the only Cumberland County independent that is
certified at the present time.
3. Mr. Bullard implements RMP for his animal wastes.
4. Directions: SR 2022 - 1/4 miles from NC 210 North

�u
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGMENT
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
Aq , h# 1),44P County �'6f�l�2Lr/i}rv�/ cG
Dear :
I I t lags
On , 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 [phone].
Sincerely,
Enclosure
cc: Facility Compliance Group

, V :
NORTH CAROLIN1A DEPARTMENT OF ENWROMIMT, HEALTH' & NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Fayetteville Regional Office
4
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
�'�w.:...: �: ....... iv .. .. i....
:a::; ••t; o,}:•{x:+:::6iSCl :1{�il�.p/V�1Li��+cti-''.�SPECTIQN:.t?BTE.
., is • i::j'�
.. .:....tip+.-...::::.�.::{�..: ... :�:
•n•: •.tr
-�WINOWW(Wo
(
...: :.:
l� Z) u
9 5--
„{.. .,:, ........ :..}t......
ILITY $'�LEF80NE,.�!]iMBHFt
Z 0X ,1 qo -/9 5
G I3 �/'/s— SS/ 3 �� 3
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the -Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
BECTION i
Animal Operation T ;
Horses, cattle, swine poultry, or sheep
SECTION II
1. Does the number and type of animal meet or exceed
the (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal Operation REGISTRATION?
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12-month period?
4. Does this facility have a CERTIFIED ANIMAL
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN?
5. Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
6. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc?

SECTION- III
Y N COMMENTS J
Field Site Management
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
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 this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
4. Does the land application•site have a
cover crop in accordance'with the
CERTIFICATION PI.,AN?
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
(EMP) of the approved CERTIFICATION?
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approximately F9 A5)
8. Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
SECTION IV
Comments
Iroje- �
ol- o�r� �• %%o�
S G w 5 - )*OxIea ti/
3. lox , Aw/Iipkp
W4- ,IZ5,
7" ��'pcGTidv5:
,'.up��lt�+' f S
/5MP �04 ,'s %).v,'Nrs 1