430023_INSPECTIONS_20171231

EN
Type of Visit IWmpfiance Inspection 0 Operation Review O�ructure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: /I f8 O % Arrival Time: /Dr Departure Time: County: �'/+/G7� Region: /4_7AD
� 1
Farm Name: x`Q ✓VQ ✓ �l t�� Owner Email:
VF
Owner Name: My -y g,. — Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Fa v e- a- Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = e =I
= u Longitude: ❑ ° = C ❑
gg
Disci & 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 volurne that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
Design Ourtent
DesiDn Current
Design Current
Sw ne Capacity Population
Wet Pjoultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Papulation
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
Dairy Cow
❑ NE
❑ Wean to Feeder JILD
Non -Layer
I
Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ NE
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
D Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑Non -La ers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
El Beef Brood Cowl
❑Turkeys
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turke Poults
❑
Number of Structures
Other
Disci & 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 volurne that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes
0 N
El NA
0 N
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28/04 Continued

r �
Facility Number: -23 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): &P- C'e✓& I t,d 4; -
Observed
:-Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
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
[:1 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 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (re�erto:question #}. Explain any YES'answers and/or any recommendations or any othe"r mment�s
Use drawings cility to better explsrn sititations. (use addittonat
oftfapages as necessary)
at,
4�ftr✓i T�G� 41l rrc� 3�
`
(Q Sd13/✓s /[ 4 S 6Ce-n.� (.'.�[.�N td KN Q rC.d ��
T"Y (✓rC 5'��'�. `.3�SN4 /'`r `� b %
/�It'c.GS 1
Reviewer/Inspector Name E—�GVG
=� Phone: x%3.3.330 D
a
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: %/-/Q--2062
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: 3 -23 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall [:]Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ 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
❑ 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
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
A'dditioualComments and/o`rDr�aogs:
12128/04
12128/04

glf�l5 z"/Arc-rr: -5--1 9 -7–va I
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q'Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 1 /Q:.3. ,j Departure Time: County: �a�^�� Region: ���
Farm Name: f+'arrae AftgmpS btli r y Owner Email:
Owner Name: J R w,e. < M. FQ:-Mit Phone:
Mailing Address: 11-75 YirC i� (inti r� 1Zoa>x i��i %o .ice /�%G z75 -4i&
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: M - Farm it Title:y`'` "��'�/ Phone No:
1
Onsite Representative: _�OW-te-; ^�- tZtrra_Y' Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certifieation Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [::] o [—]' [—] " Longitude: [=] ° [=] ' =
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
L✓J NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
ZINNA
❑ NE
b_ Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
LrJ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
O NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0N�A
ElNE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
ElYes
ElNo
E,NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12/28/04
Continued

Facility Number: 11-3-23 Date of Inspection
❑ Yes
❑ No
3 NA
Waste Collection & Treatment
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes ❑ No
[3 NA
❑ NE
a. 1f yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ +'1�1A
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: S' � e �- 5�a�Z • c 3
El Yes
❑ No
L7 A
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 4o 6- CI eS+-d- G ( 0.3 <-,4 C a S
Observed Freeboard (in): 0"
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes []'No
0<A
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not property addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes ❑ No
EJ<A
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes ❑ No
G<
❑ NE
S. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No LJ 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 ET�A ❑ 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 l 0 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) 'a,.e r-A",t C/--- . W l� Gw.r� Fl
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
3 NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
ETT�A
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
❑ No❑�N�A
El NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
LE=I N—A
El NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
El Yes
❑ No
L7 A
❑ 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):
�1A S ! N1©e c� �r 4 �� i.� c- 5 if :✓ >� �ivc fj< <o .
j
IV R C S
pbs��v� cl�G,�. �,4 b fl Sf�Se- Z £ 3 -9 clos ��cr!
q // a�aasass«
w; Pev,,(s� - �. Sc z4 3 Gum � G/ose.d H�
IVA< s ka,
ReviewerA nspector Name Ri +e,__ird r
Phone: [phone]
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: A
Date: ,/-/& -zoo g
12128104 Continued

Comments and/or Drawings:
12128/04
Facility Number: 3 -.:2 3 Date of Inspection
Required
Records & Documents
19.
Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[:1 No
��
Ll NA
❑ NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
❑ No
LJ 1vA
❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
El Yes
El No
,��
Li 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
❑ No
0 NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
L'7 NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
lT NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
©//b'lA
El NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
El Yes
El No
NA
El NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
El Yes
El No
,B
L:7 NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Er`
LE�S,, NS�A
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
El No
LINA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
El Yes
El No
/
D A
❑ 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
❑
��
EWA A
❑ 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
A
El NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El Yes
❑ No
,.
LIMA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
12128/04

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: q�►. Departure Time: �l•%j County: 4� r'" F L Region:
1
Farm Name: Farm- � ry Owner Email:
Owner Name: G M • Farrar Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 3-a s IIr_ Title:
Onsite Representative: I
It
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: r
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Do =' =" Longitude: =0=' ="
Swine
Design Currents Desiil gn
Capacity PoPulatton 'Wel Poultry @a_ pacify
Current , Design Current
Populahvnttle Capacity Popnlation
m. :
❑Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
Dai Cow O
❑ Wean to Feeder
}; ❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to
`'-
�0
El Dairy Heifer
,Poultry . -:
El Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
RD
El ers
El Non -Dai
El Beef Stocker
ElNon-Layers
El Beef Feeder
Boars
❑Pullets
❑Beef Brood Co
Fes` ❑ Turkeys
}'
Other
, ❑Turke Poults
❑Other
❑ Other
Numberof 3truetures:
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑Yes CANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: El Structure El Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑Yes ❑ No [�S NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (]f yes, notify DWQ} ❑Yes ❑ No RNA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑Yes ❑ No [RNA ❑ NE
Z. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? El Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the Slate E] Yes 'R
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12/28/04
Continued

Facility Number: a, Date of InspectionL_L_I_ `lL�SJ
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? IN Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes JZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
❑ NA
❑ NE
Spillway?:
❑ Yes
RNo
Designed Freeboard (in):
EINE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? El Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Observed Freeboard (in):
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ YesNo
❑ NA ElNE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
❑ NE
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
PPNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
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
El Yes
[�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
ElYes
A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[:]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ElApplication Outside ofArea
12. Crop type(s) L.' q
1 `I7x�^2���r�t.
L9Y
A4� L& i ,
. c.�1-/n2iJ_._
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
�
u TYes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
EINE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? El Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector NamePhone: �)
D "33cc)
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: —a Date of Inspection Ilia
_ Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have 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 CZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes EpNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes Efo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No I)kNA ❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
CRNE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit'?
09 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
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWM P?
❑ Yes
JU No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
NJ 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
ip 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
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additionaltomments�andlar Drawings � �`� �X4� �� � �� ' �� ;� �
S
. .-C
PJa da v� cocj5 ,- 2 y �.
,✓�u, M is -5�V A
e, �
`�, 5 Su �.► rl.�r
Page 3 of 3 12/28/04

7
Division of Water Quality
Facility Number 3 a 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency -1:�l-n I
Type of Visit A Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 16 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency. 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: B E1 Arrival 'Time: Z d Departure Time: County: Region: -
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name:Phone:
I n
Mailing Address: 1 Q� f0 4 i d U� __...,— 4 v
n r t
Physical Address: (SY1 SSI 1 at t` i tj�i INA Q(4
A
Facility Contact: 1rY�4_1� ��� Title: �,1 W r Phone No:
Onsite Representative .� �C)L fYOLZ Integrator:
Certified Operator: __.] Ciyn" '�-_ C" IqL ( Operator Certification Number T
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification plumber:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Iwo ®` � u Longitude: JM ° ® ` [0 u
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
10 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
Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑
Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
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)?
Number of Structures: EEJ
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 A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No �'NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
E&No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
91 No ❑ NA
❑ NE
12128/04 Continued

-lracilityiCumber: �, Date of Inspection v o
Soil type(s) Vol, Gal'j W 1 6,1 6 10-1
4
Waste Collection & Treatment
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
L2PNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
OVA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Spillway?:
❑ Yes
[N(No
❑ NA
4
Designed Freeboard (in): a�� • �_i in ,all
1�17
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Observed Freeboard (in):
❑ NA
❑ NE
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
[]Yes
%No
[:INA ❑NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes-- o
❑ NA ❑ 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
N No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
EI
19 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
-Yes
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
�o
[INA El NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. 1s there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
4 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu,
Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 101bs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of AAccJeptabl-eCrop Window El Evidence of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type!3L.! s) r1r11AI GL ��Cl� id s �� r��.., VIS i
Com moi.
lmI
13.
Soil type(s) Vol, Gal'j W 1 6,1 6 10-1
4
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
'N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
�A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[N(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
0 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):
Y M_
WQS C a�+'
01 s� s
Reviewer/Inspector Name _A4pisnAig Ln Nro Phone: R) Y33 3
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12/28/04 Continued

'Facility Number: +3 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? �f Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check PE Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. 9 WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application EAWeekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ t20 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ N�}A,
El NE
23.
if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
El No
�Nl(
®►NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
rad%611
41,A� arccr�r:rN Gazed
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
JUNE
FbNE
f
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
t@ NA
•❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
�zNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
• ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
0.
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
3 i .
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes )K 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
El NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
�1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
n c l�sLL ff-- t5 0 �` �; �; al IL) ear ego 0j, o ur M v&4
AL
n a
�nnaair► +�.elc.l veebao�(d � `
rz Jnr' 6lcl�n � �OY-Lj .
1� teasx_ bk S t_x e_ �0 7Y{A." V-14"
Wee CJ '� txez6oar-- S o • ��al ups s
�(X:. r4 1 I V,
��x 0
-ewer ar�A 20ty
st��� 6eed
�ot'e it tiS nooy)cv G_V1 CcG_k'�✓t_ YyYI��[G
r ued
Cy
rad%611
41,A� arccr�r:rN Gazed
12/28/04

• Facility No. Time In Time Out Date
Farm Name P-wr o_( Integrator
Owner �.►'r� rte,! Q.Y Site Rep
Operator ^„Vk.LQ. t Y0. _ No. _ W ���
. Y `I
Back-up No.
COC Circle: General or NPDES
NIP�
Design
Current Design Current
Wean — Feed
Farrow — Feed
Wean — Finish
Farrow — Finish
Feed, Finish
Gilts / B rs,
Farrow —Wean
Others S
FRE i n
SAUdge viii VG"
rop Yield l~
(Zy
board
Spray/Freeboard Drop _
Weather Codes NO
PLAT
Daily Rainfall
120 min Inspections .
Waste Analysis:
ate Nitrogen (N)
Observed
f`�iihratinnlCP[U +" � 1
s e ransfers
Rain Breaker
Wettable Acres
1 -in Inspections
Date Nitrogen (N)
Pull ield Soil Crop Pan Window
�_D
S 1 1 .. D

Type of Visit 0 -Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 01foutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: —/ �(, Arrival Time: O Departure Time: County: Region:FkD
Farm Name: )!54tnCa- / Da: `1 _•,_ Owner Email:
Owner Name _Tfikd t'6 /N._Faccetr Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
V '-5 Farra "--
Title:
Onsite Representative: .��L---e_ Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phone No:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o =I = 1
1 Longitude: = ° E=1' E__1 u
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
E❑ Layer
❑ Non -La Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑
Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any pan of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
(�
Dairy Cow 17d
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ DEZ Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stockel
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
4--
A
Number of Structures: I
K Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
51 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Cg No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[;&No
❑ Yes
qNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28/04 Continued

t
-Facility-Number: Date of Inspection � b
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ZNo [:]NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes [KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ yes
E& No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination',[] Yes
® No
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situations poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improveAkt? ❑ Yes
nj No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
ENo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
❑ Yes
ZI No
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes
[9No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Apolication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
;,No
❑ NA ❑ NE
mai ntenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? 1f 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 Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) /i/rni�Lcis /�v y l
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[A 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 acre determination',[] Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18_ Is there a tack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ZI No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name C''•' '%t�%.r� l t Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: _Z_'/ 7 C�lv
12/28/04 Continued

-Facility*Number: Date of Inspection 7 D
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes PUNo [INA ❑NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 0No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ W UP El Checklists [:1 Design [I Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crap Yieid ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
SNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
P,NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
14 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
14 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[A -No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21NA
❑ 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
2Q 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
XNo
❑ 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
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Atd�dittofial Cflmcn'en`tsdlorDravvin(j� ity p•r' :r` �!{ -
12/28/04
12/28/04

Type of Visit & Compliance Inspection O Operation'Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facilitv Number
Datc of Visit: Time:19 CJ O
;
Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted M Certified ©C
onditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: . E[u!`1'o-r �[ t+l t Count '
: ��� ►"►e F90
Owner Name: _JL v,%e,C V t ir-G r(,A f- Phone No: _ LUL z93 -,g��b
AlailingAddress: r• �'Cx In
Facility- Contact: __ rr4Me.S PC, Cr,,-- Title: _ b t,il•.er Phone No:
Onsite Representative: la w-x,o ��r-r^4r Integrator: ckctirzr k
Certified Operator: _S]G VVN"-1`r`ac _ Operator Certification Number: Oft
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude i " Longitude '
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Ca achy Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder110Laver ❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish Non -Laver ❑ Non -Dairy a �O
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrov.- to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Bom Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons 1 ❑ Subsurface
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps - ❑ No Liquid'
Diseharees & Stream Imnactc
1. Is anv discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b_ If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notif}, DWQ}
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If ves, notify DWQ)
Z. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
Area JLJ S rav Field Area
3_ Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure ? Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: �► ��
Freeboard (inches): 44
[:1 Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
EP No
❑ Yes
(P No
❑ Yes [;9 No
Structure 6
05103/01 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes KNo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? El Yes RNo
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes [�FNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes [RNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? El Yes AM
Waste Annlicationn
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes [0 No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes [NNo
12. Crop type Q e r^ tA�� fir` n ' s . a qf. * cA r>ck __
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes [P No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
10 No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[VNo
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ® No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative? ❑ Yes [B No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes 5 No
Q No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
05/03/01
Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
Date:
Continued

I a
Facility' \nether: 4 3 — Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge actor below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
[9 No
28. Is there anv evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation. asphalt,
❑ Yes
No
roads. building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
No
30. Were anv major maintenance problems with the Ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts. missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters. etc.)
❑ Yes
® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanentltemporary cover?
❑ Yes
❑ No
I.Additional Comments and/or Drawings -
05103101