470007_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NUH I H UAHULI NA
DWrurmit u Environmental Qua

? "1
El
Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number:
470007
Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS470007
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit:
Routine
County: Hoke Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
02/06/2017 Entry Time:
09:00 am - Exit Time: 10:00 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Farm 5786
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical_ Address:
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34' 56' 29" Longitude: 79' 19' 18"
On southwest side of SR 1204 approx. 1 mile northwest of its intersection with Hwy 401 at Bowmore.
Question Areas:
- I
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator:
Secondary OIC(s):
James Brian McGugan
Operator Certification Number: 986752
On -Site Representative(s):
Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name
Mike Cuddy
Phone
On -site representative
Mike Cudd
Phone
Primary Inspector:
Robert Marble
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

f r
Permit: AWS470007 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470007
Inspection Date: 02/06/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection( Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 2,400 I
Total Design Capacity: 2,400
Total SSLW: 1,039,200
Waste Structures.
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00 44.00
page: 2

Y `l
Permit: AWS470007 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
Inspection Date: 02/06/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
470007
Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field'
❑
• Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? _
❑
. ❑ M
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ M
❑
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?
❑
'M ,❑
El .
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the .
❑
❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage& Treatment
Yes
No Na Ne
4. Is storage "capacity less than adequate?
❑:
M ❑
❑
.If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
M ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, ? : seepage, etc.)
- r
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through'a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
M. ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? _
❑
M ❑
.❑ .
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen -Ground?
❑.
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10016/1 b lbs.?
❑
Total. Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outs'ide.of application area?
❑
page:
3

tr �
Permit: AWS470007 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470007
Inspection Date: 02/06/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1 Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2 Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4 '
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4 -
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6, a
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land.application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Checklists?
Design?
Maps?
Lease Agreements?
Other?
.If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes; check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
Weekly Freeboard?
Waste Analysis?
Soil analysis?
Waste Transfers?
Weather code?
Candor sand, 1 to 8%
slopes
Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2%
slopes
❑■❑❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑■❑❑
❑0❑❑
Yes
No Na Ne
❑
N ❑.
❑
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS470007 Owner- Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility. Number: 470007
Inspection Date: 02/06/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
•N ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
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?
110
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Otherlssues ;
Yes
No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
_
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
N ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
N ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
WEI
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑.
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
N ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
470007 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS470007
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Woke Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
03/09/2015 Entry Time: 04:00 pm
Exit Time: ' 5:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Farm 5786
Owner Rmail:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Physical Address:
Warsaw NC 28398
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34° 56' 29" Longitude: 79° 19' 18"
On southwest side of SR 1204 approx. 1 mile northwest of its intersection with Hwy 401 at Bowmore.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
. Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator:
James Brian McGugan
Operator Certification Number: 986752
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name
Mike Cudd
Phone
On -site representative
Mike Cudd
Phone
Primary Inspector:
Robert Marble
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS470007 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470007
Inspection fate: 03/09/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 2,400
Total Design Capacity: 2,400
Total SSLW: 1,039,200
Waste 3tr�u .Ees
Dlsignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00 31.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS470007 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470007
Inspection Date: 03/09/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
[] 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
110
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■ ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yea.
No NP No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
A ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste ARRlication
Yos No No Me
10, Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
[]
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS470007
Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470007
Inspection Date: 03/09/15
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Candor
Soil Type 2
Norfolk
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
M ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
M ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
N ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS470007 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470007
Inspection Date: 03/09/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
[]
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
E ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0013
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yoe No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29, At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by 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
❑
If Other, please specify
32, Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
[]
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
E ❑
❑
page: 5

■ Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
470007
Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS470007
D Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit:
Routine
County: Hoke Region:
Fayetteville
Dale of Visit:
03/18/2014 Entry Time: 10:30 am Exit Time: 11:00 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Farm 5786
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
Facility Status:
0 Compliant ❑
Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 34° 56' 29" Longitude:
79' 19' 18"
On southwest side of SR 1204 approx. 1 mile northwest of its intersection with Hwy 401 at Bowmore.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
S Records and Documents
Other lssues
Certified Operator:
Michael L Cudd
Operator Certification Number: 25233
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Rep rosentative(s):
Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name
Mike Cudd
Phone
On -site representative
Mike Cudd
Phone
Primary Inspector:
Robert Marble
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Records reviewed 2/26/14.
Site visit 3118114.
page: 1

Permit: AWS470007 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470007
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS470007 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brawn LLC , Facility Number: 470007
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharrnes & Stream Impacts
Yea No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ M
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ ■
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
MEI
❑
Slate other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, 5toraoe & Treatment
Yes
No Na Ne
4. Is storage capacity less then adequate?
D
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
■ ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yea No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS470007 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470007
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yoq, No Na No
Crop Type 1 Coastal Bermuda Gress
(Posture)
Crop Type 2 Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1 Candor
Soil Type 2 Norfolk
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15, Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
MEI
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
M ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
M ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
M ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No No No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
M ❑
❑
20, Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WL)P?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS470007 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470007
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No No Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
MID
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
■ ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
[]
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by 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
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
M ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■ ❑
❑
0
page: 5
a

■ Division of Water Resources
El Division of Soil and Water Conservation
El Other Agency
Facility Number: 470007 Facility Status: Active
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection
Permit: AWS470007 Denied Access
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Hoke R I . Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 02/27/2013 EntryTime: 10:30 am Exit Time: 11:00 am
Farm Name: Farm 5786
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Physical Address:
eg on.
Incident #
Owner Email;
Phone:
Warsaw NC 28398
910.296-1800
Facility Status: Compliant F1 Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34` 56' 29" Longitude: 79° 19' 18"
On southwest side of SR 1204 approx. 1 mile northwest of Its intersection with Hwy 401 at Bowmore.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator:
Ronald Lee Matthews
Operator Certification Number: 990008
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name
Mike Cudd
Phone:
On -site representative
Mike Cudd
Phone:
Primary Inspector:
Robert Marble
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspactor(s):
Inspection Summary:
Records reviewed 2/14113
Site visit 2127113
page: 1

i 'It
Permit: AWS470007 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470007
Inspection Date: 02/27/13 inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 2,400
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freoboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS470007 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470007
Inspection Date: 02/27/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharees„& Stream Impacts
Yea No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
13011
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑M
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
❑
❑
Slate other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection. Storane & Treatment
Yee
No-Na _ Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I,e.1 large
❑
■ ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed andbr managed through a
❑
■ ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
�]
S. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
MED
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yel No No No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ M ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS470007 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470007
Inspection Date: 02/27/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yos No No No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Candor
Soil Type 2
Norfolk
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
[]
❑
Records and Documents
Yoe
No No No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
E]
M []
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
[]
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
[]
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS470007 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
470007
Inspection Date: 02/27/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yea No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑
❑
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
■ ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25, Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? ILyes, check the
❑
M ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26, Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
'Le�__No_No Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30, Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
s ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33, Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency 11
Type of Visit • Compliance inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit & Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency O,Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1212S ArrivalTime: � 1 1�� Departure Time: D,$' M County: D Region:
Farm Name:r1 / Owner Email:
Owner Name: ut; Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ' " `'k Title:
N
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 Feedei
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: 0 0 =1 Longitude: 0 ° = ` =
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ 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?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy 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: M
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 j� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
paNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No-
�9 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
1P NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
F No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes
LwNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
PNA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): c/
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 1� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑//EEvQvidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) Nt?41 "C as�G I !;,, - aa_t'1
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
QlNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
F No
ElNA
ElNE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[:] yes
Ep No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
03 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to;quegtion #) �Ezplain any YES answers andlor any recommendations ar any other comments,
��ll]se dr�;jaydwing.;JJs of..{�facillty.tobetter�expiain�situati°ns:�(utie�additionAl pages as necessary};
YS hL i7@LS «LA.,p R.4��A�.}�iV:i �4AEt'.'$.�i4Y!'.°'WN"'31fii•�iYAM'��»��:�,
R-ecmds rewe,&j eP( zl"'r-1 i I ,
5jt +� '+- coK d 3/11/11 r
Reviewer/Inspector Name �� Phone: j3G�7
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes �bNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [;jVNo ❑ 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?
El Yes
Lp 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
P1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[P 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
P
❑ NA
ElNE
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
Page 3 of 3 12128104

il 0 Division of Water Quality '
Factlity Number ElFal - © 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: 4D Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: ® Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up_ 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 01 / Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: �Q
Farm Name: 5qi f ©S) Owner Email:
Owner Name: V-V Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
'e k aid Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Region:
Phone:
Integrator: Lt
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Harm:
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.
Layer
Non -La er
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Pouets
Other
Discharaes 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
0 Yes g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[—]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes No
[:]Yes No
[r NA ❑ NE
0 NA ❑ NE
NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑NA
❑NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection: a
1 ,
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No WNA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Frecboard (in): go
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
LOW
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 P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? [-]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? r
Waste ApBlication
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 ind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12.Cro T es: s aZ' Y,.,, Q,,� &.,fd
13. Soil Type(s): k_OYJCVW,
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
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
T
[ 1] 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 10 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
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes;No
No
❑NA ❑NE
[] Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: H- Date of Inspection: 42 a1
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?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
29. 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)
❑ Yes +ram] No
❑ Yes T� No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
E] Yes
( No
❑ NA
❑ NE
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.]
Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
](�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional) recommendations or any other comments.
,
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
:ce s rev'k&L,-� ZlGtf'&
oi -,k vt4 - P/.07/1
3
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: L00' T B1f7F0
Date: CP _-2 % /3
21412011

Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: b Region:
Farm Name: �,-� F 1 �g' Owner Email:
Owner Name: r L�-� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative: u
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: U.iv
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design
Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity
Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
o
Cattle Capacity Pop,
Wean to Finish
La er
Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dai Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Dr, Poultr,
Ca aci
P,o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layer
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
keys
0thcr
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)? _
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes [—]No
[]Yes L No
❑ Yes P9 No
NA
❑ NE
❑NA
❑NE
❑NA
❑NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: -rl jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
RNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ No [DNA
Structure 6
❑ NE
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): No
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes ONo
[] 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
[DNA
❑ 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 PNo
❑ 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 [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? TT
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground [] Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus [] Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acce able
Cro Window ❑Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop TYp e(s) : !:S Slc V
�YI�I�
13. Soil Type(s): LAVObt-,It0-1 V
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
r;No
TT
❑ 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 �j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
[:]Yes F3 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 6 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and l" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facilit Number: - Date of Inspection: 31 QIL
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 provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes r] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
[] NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #E): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or,. any other comments,
Use drawings of facility to better explaln situations (use additional panes as necessary).
j al
Reviewer/inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:IKYW j 33
Date: 3 2-
21412011

L Z 0/V
(� �3ivision of Water Quality
Facility Number �% , 007 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit ompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit routine O Complaint Q Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: .57 96 -- % (0)d IT- —I-70 S, Owner Email:
Owner Name: _. /ff —8yd'&JW_ LLG Phone: _
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
9pt4-,--
Region: r20
Facility Contact: / "f �+� �� Title: L A/A4 M.A14 Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: X4-.8rb-L'rAl
Certified Operator: �d""` iyle.Gc�� Operator Certification Number: 18 6752-
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
ini
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 0 i Longitude: 0 o =, =
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
I I 0 Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: - ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Daia Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: D
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[]Yes
❑ No
12 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
(3NA
❑ NE
2YNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
RFNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Pale I of 3 121128104 Continued

Facility Number:
Date of Inspection 13 ZPv /ice
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: 57194 — /
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 31
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 (6 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 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 tO No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes JM 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 CE 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) �w �.� c` (P-1-4 r c.r� 11 6 ,, fm %0, S -
13. Soil type(s) //d —Fo1 K , Ca nl d oY
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes V] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes [ff 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 ZNo []NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
r .: mF;- .�' '�='a*� j'�yrrr_ .
CommeFnts (refer to question #): Explain any YES 144
answers and/or any recommendat�ons�or,any othergcomments ,
Use drawings of facility to better explain situatians. (use additional pageaslnc ssary)c (` s =,
Reviewer/Inspector Namei�'';5a Phone: y/0.P33.3 3�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 'V a7- Z0/a
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

. Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes OfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes JTVo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ g Other
p
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes eNo ❑ 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
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
El No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
92No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
Olo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
e No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ 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
[EPNo
❑ 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
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
EgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
AdditiianaGCamments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

1374lS e�✓�c�'cd�vS�za�9 112
'Ivision of Water Quality Y
Facility Number Q �% Division of Soil and Water Conservation.��
O Other Agency
Type of Visit
ompliance Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
a, outine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date or visit: Arrival Time: 7`, µ5" Departure Time: .S; /D ,yr County: _ I Region:
it � t
Farm Name: %(a gjn �ot.J iMo it 21 Farrv� Owner Email:
OwnerName; MfArD—� VdUfAl Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: j
Facility Contact: o'-''r ��� �� A C� �r+c.lri'itle: �G-Yt ^-� Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: 9�!W> 4,
I- -
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Ceo
Location of Farm: Latitude: [=] 0 0' = Longitude: = ° =' =
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
1 ❑ La er
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ 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?
Cattle
Design ; ; Cprrent-..',
Capacity Population :"
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures
I
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
L=1 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
E NA
❑ NE
0 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑l No
El Yes
O'NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
LT No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

FacilityNumber; NumI,/ % -" d % Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes EJNoo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No E'1�A ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: _ 7& g
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): :2 7
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [`j'No - ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes 0"qo'--❑ 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? El Yes No El NA El NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes D ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs []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 ripe(s) ,-C"11 _ WkaL SC1110- r-.,JS
--
13. Soil type(s) daCaN d O
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes 2<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes 01C ❑ NA ❑ NE ,
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
0-90
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
21 o—
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
PNo-
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: 910• `f33 . 33d0
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: 3 — Z— Z= 9
12128104 Continued

r ...;6
Facility Number: 7— D 7 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ETINo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes EJNo ❑ 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 to ❑ 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 CTNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes vo ❑ 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 [3'go- ❑ NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes O'lgo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes D<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
BNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
B IlTo
❑ 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
2iq
❑ 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
CTZ
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspcction with an on -site representative?
El Yes
r��
i_i No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
B'5o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

•: . .V
(Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: �/� � Owner Email:
Owner Name: A ux� 'KV&"14 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: I �N,� �00&.S - Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Region:
Latitude: = o = I = Longitude: = o = i
Design Current Design
Swine Capacity Population Wct Poultry Capacity
Current Design Current
Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Fecdcr
❑Non -La er
❑Dai Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
El Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean Dry Poultry
El Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ Layers
❑ Gilts ❑Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Boars
❑ Turkeys
Other ❑ TurkeyPoults
❑ D Cow
❑ Non
-Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl I
Number of Structures:
❑ Other El Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
l . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at; ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes 1] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
t9NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
19 NA
❑ NE
29 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection �i 8
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: %0
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes El No 19NA ONE
Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes �No El NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes 'M 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 P No ❑ NA
ElNE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes 9 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 PM No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes IP No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes 1K 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 ❑ Evidenceof Wind Drift [IApplicatiioonn Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) !W Q (t'jqM)Im1 _ a /tf�n 6 ® 1 -'�'4lm S',
, 4147L
13. Soil typc(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
IS No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
W 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 (refer to duestion #): Explainany YES. answers andliar any,3 reconimendations or and other comments°
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
AL
...
Reviewer/Inspector Name°
�. .a TF ._ ram....
77
Phone•
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:I if/ 111A%Z
Page 2 of 3 12/28104 Continued

Facility Number: TE=
Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes JpNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes P 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 q9 No ❑ NA Cl 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
PQ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
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?
Cl Yes
,� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
�Q
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes-
P 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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Z`+3-07 Arrival Time: 7;Un Departure Time: (o; O County: �YGKe. Region: �24
Farm Name: SD W rn ore- i, 76 g�4 � Owner Email:
Owner Name: 44arA4� Brow] Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: R4md�j 8 uM a ex n—rJ '_ Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator: 1NovP4Fy Ujt,/
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [= o [= 1 = s, Longitude: 0 ° = =
Design
Current Design C►urrent Design Current
Swine Capacity
Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ElDai Cow
❑ Wean to Finish
El Dairy Calf
❑ Dai Heifer
El Dry Cow
ElNon-Dai
ElBeef Stocker
ElBeef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
[:]Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La Non -Layer
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean 2
Dry Poultry
El Farrow to Feeder
Discharges &Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
El Yes
19 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑Structure ❑Application Field [I Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑Yes
� Na
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
El Yes
(� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑Yes
1PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
[I Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
El Yes
5fl No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12/28/04
Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
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
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 119
Observed Freeboard (in): -2"7
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
OfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
QNo
❑ 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
[2 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
[XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
i 1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) l7' S S Co -"f L,.lL-41-
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes [PNo ❑ 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 Q?No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes [9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If ILK
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or, anyrother comments
Use drawings -of facility to better explain situations. (use additional )ages�as necessary)
Reviewer/inspector Name Phone: 910.0 33f 3330
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: 7--13 Z(so
Page 2 of 3 12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: '9 7 -- 7 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 El Design [I Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Frccboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
El Yes
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
[ 1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ 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
[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
FNo
❑ 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
P 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
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
�'iNo
❑ NA
El NE
I Comments and/or
Page 3 of 3 12128104

0
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ® Routine Q Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: //,��p County:
Farm Name: 0 % (a S? FowlVat . ry,m Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Region: Aigo
Phone No:
Integrator• v /✓
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: 0 e= 1=di Longitude: = 0 0 6= [1
Design Current
Design C*Ugent
Design
Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry C►►opacity Population
Cattle Capacity
Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
1
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Wean to Feeder
JE1 Non -La er I
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
%Farrow to Wean 2 DO
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
El Farrow to Feeder
❑ Layers
ElNon-Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -La ers
El Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
El Puliets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes [:0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
[]Yes
[9No
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
QQNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: W- 07 Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 14"1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 0,
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 2d 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 EVNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures 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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
f UNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11, is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
99 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 ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of/Area
//Window
12. Crop type(s) Bu1A26C p4. ssutl� �hxi'ry r!d uuiSGd
J.-Ghltl
/
€ •�f�r
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ 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
EgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or, any recommendafiuns or any other comments ty�?
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional. pagesas.necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name I F )c'�' e. V CJ S 7. _ Phone: C91491 #96 /519,1
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: t'P-06 -- ZD� (o
Cage t q/ J I2/28104 Continued

r,
Facility Number: 447-4971 Date of Inspection O —O
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes C9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes CA No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists El Design [I Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [2 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
%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
C& No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
El Yes
[�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
ElYes
LA
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[A 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
V 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
54No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
'XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: i� �Z - Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: go K'L- Region:
Farm Name: AA B xt -7 iv g & Owner Email:
Owner Name: �Yu 1cQ 81�D :�I� Phone:
Mailing Address: _
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: R tj d atAt-Nqz rule-✓ Integrator: luupPf b'►���
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
10 Wean to Finish
1
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o = 1 = Longitude: = ° = 6
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Points
❑ 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?
FRU
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?
❑ Yes Nf No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
C@No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
t@No
❑NA
❑NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: L1L�►— Q ] Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes DdNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes (XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): / 9
Observed Freeboard (in): �(o
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
D?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
[K No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
09 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
[yNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ 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 Drifl ❑ Application Outside
of Area
12. Crop type(s) 8Grh4 &c-._ 4. 'Sm i/% 6 j-r,1'N ( 6v-v5'eee1 Ci+vin!
wk s
£ SabectAIS
13. Soil type(s) AloV.Po I K C(X"id 0 i✓'-
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination,
El Yes
1KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
C9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
ReviewerlInspector Name .'1� K' p'V>�rt . �1': I E : Phone: lO)g
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: O S
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: '5L7 —d Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 5TNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the approprrate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes EgNo ❑ 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
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
CgNo
❑ 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
Z 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
[9No
❑ 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
[29 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
CR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
AAdditibnal Comments�and/or Drawings , ', 5 r�,,}y +gg' ,�'z° y{"*
. .. .. _ ...'a� Y+'Iir.k iAF'r�k3t�RceY�:.`SV.3.:' ri
12128104

4
air -:
h ,
I 1 ,a GG iM a g it S , t7 �i.Dlvlsltln oT Wateru ug]ity
li ` Qa#DiVls�an 0�3.�iAil And st@r 611serV8ti01t
', �sQtller,ACitCy;: a
Type of Visit Q1I` Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit o Routine (D Complaint 0 Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date ot'Visit: c'=/ Time:
of O e tionai 0 Below T es old
0 Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name d rf o rS lC�Ptr / l 'r �i'sm 6 ��,o County:
Owner Name: ���rrrd Phone No:
Mailing Address: F O nx Z S 2 c2 it{"�V ' 00 S f r7. 4 Ale
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: I Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Operator Certification Number:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ horse Latitude a • u" Longitude '
Design,, Current Design ' Current Design Current
• Swine-_=:Caachy--, Poulstion •Ponitrv. Ca acitv: Population. ,....'_Cacity Po elation . " ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
[] Feeder to Finish ;. , ❑ Non -Layer I IrWon-Dai }
a,
❑
Farrow to Wean m .
E ❑ Farrow to Feeder Other
❑rowinish Total Design Capacity i
` ❑ Gilts 11
i"1 ❑ Boars _ :; `Tots1SSLW'
b
t',' =„Number of iaagaoas ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oon Area S rav Field Ares
3.
f, i •s€ f;3 . �';,I:,3 III�°..1. � I, i,•p' 6 - - - ¢ „- .. - - .
Holdinji g Pond0 Solid Traps No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes GR*N"o
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system..^•(If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4, Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
e
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 Continued

Fa&lity Number: aq — r[
Date of Inspection I — - � r
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, [--]Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ❑ No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4.6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenanceJimprovement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes ❑ No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
1S. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ❑ No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ❑ No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes ❑ No
Air Quality representative immediately.
�Cansmcnts (re%x� ta�es�aa d�Fsplaia�tY�54answrrs�and/or asaysreaana�ans or�any atbe��ommsnts� � �'
N' =tl "il.L:4s is?i�s4#t$3�,TE F �'9.bU�' ryf;�s+;�iP "3� °� ' �yFi: fiw i "`"s� `4�P+p 'GfCfYft}ti"� '96.�"♦,� �t� tk3' � .��s,rr�tw:mu.nF�a.:.ai -
Use �av�s of',fa�lity to`b�e�tsrdc�cplsit��sitaaticats. {u�xe�ttdditiamt��pages,�: 1, ❑Field COPY ❑Final Notes =
P'r 1iie.'s.�}c"i k.6. `aS�`"',.
RevfewerlYnspector Name r . ; „w i
Reviewer/iaspector Signature: r Date:
12112103 Con inued

(Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit ® Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: > 1— Time:
Facility. lumber
Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted M Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: C, rLio F'od zhr County: ffi2k it ,,,, _ri
T
Owner?Name: �:C�MD(��S Phone No: �'(D a_)- 4-
Mailing Address: P� L� a0z SS-6 __ _a93-44
Facility Contact: _feriaf:L_la!4P�i,8��c ,cictr Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: fAALd, fL MC lg(P, 104, C"Z/ Integrator:
Certified Operator: IZA ' Eer ry ll Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
USSwine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑Horse Latitude ' 6 u Longitude • 1
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Ca aclty Population Cattle Ca ac9ty Population
❑ Wean to Feeder I JE1 Laver ❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish I ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
® -Farrow to Wean 00
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons `., ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oon Area S rav Field Area
, Holding Ponds / Solid Traps
0 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Laeoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass'a lagoon. system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
51 No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
r--' No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
❑ Yes
No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): h�
05103101 a�
Continued

Facility Number: —El Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes, ['lo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? (if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an ❑ Yes q No
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes RNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes [[JNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑,Yes PNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes [�No
12. Crop type 13P t-r a CMG A evx
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with (hose designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
ElYes
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
[VNo
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
CiNo
Required
Rer�grds & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
R No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(icl WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
[�[No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
�Sj No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
�No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
FXNo
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 j No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes P No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes [� No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.

Facility Number: — p Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor 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?
05103101
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes EX No
❑ Yes [NNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No

Site Requires Immediate Attention: IV O
Facility No. 15�7 7
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: 14 1995
Time: /& ! 15
Farm Name/Owner- 01 rro 1 `.5 l�lo �-7 o S / Cal-Yoll rodel .Ziy
'Mailing Address:
County: 140 K�
Integrator: Phone:
On Site Representative: a l '149�1
P-trvcr Phone:_ C109L -16 05
.Physical Address/Location: 4 140 KCo .
Type of Operation: Swine ✓ Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: Z*00 -wow Number of Animals on Site:
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: 3 4 ° 56 ' 19 " Longitude: ° I `D ' 2-N-"
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficie
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) Q es or No
Was any seepage observed from the la oon(s)?
Is adequate land available for spray? Ye or No
-Crop(s) being utilized: erw�u�l o�
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellin s? Yes r No
100 Feet from Wells? Ye or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes of NlD
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line: Yes o No
Is animal waste discharged into water of he state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes or Ni If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? Yes or No
Additional Comments: C e is f; e. J 1-OaC.i t
nt freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
Actual Freeboard: 3 Ft. Q' Inches
Yes o<D Was any erosion observed? Yes o No
Is the cover crop adequate? (D or No
Rom.. Q
Inspector Name Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.

101 00 100 00:00
021 P02
iS
- DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 4, 1994
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
County
Dear :
on , an inspection of your animal operation was performed by the
Fayetteville Regional Office (PRO). 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 2x, 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 r

Twit
TnT
9m wff
7Tr
0
4
& 7Frr
tsrsm
"Tt
FnT
r
obu
Trrr
dy
Ira
av
ern
at
tag
mv
i .
or 6
TM TTrr
fie art
it
TTO
'TaT
TM
a
iiii
e.
Iq 4
InT
c
itOWAIR
Alyin
tag
"TIMM
n
0
r
4
imhtSWU
a
Ix
a;
00— 1 "Ov t!
-TOT
� I r
L.
ol
INOA
v

I % I I I J% % I
021 P03
NORTH CAROLINA D$PARTM M OF ENVIROKI+IMT, EM TH A NATURAL RMURCES
DIVISION OF FNVIROMMAL RANAGffi NT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
!�M{Nsil•`4'.Ms:ahF q�pe �
• .w41o:a .r: a.
wyy
Mnwn•n••vivn•.v.v.v. .r.
uvMVY�f�V.Y.VM1.lsW�YY4=
�YhaY �
N[�+1Ni11WW11M'Nly[WY[X 4hNAF11M[
ry � �yy�V��MM
nu•fvAKN'INRµJ11X �hWXF
'v^'^M•vay.r.r�v it+� x.�.. {t5lAtuY •.MK.INvn4 h0+..on1+44H•,1v.iAWnaa.nyiAv.aV... •••••r�
KbrWYrll6iWil�xseilnYaX.ei:tlf41t1��' R•w.w.ew .i �:h�+.r•IJIWK...K.I+.swWsnA.v....y..0 :.
//�y1� }�j/+y���� y(.y)�� A q
4 .i:H:ui.:MV.tF�4l u �,.fr.•��
�N• . ..
Y�M���':!^.lf.^�.�RS
.l�.S�JHi'�a'>
�ilH�gs
o
����WwyyyV[� yy y. 1 6nM MR^w •X N •�1 1•
:Mn.Ij:R.n. �.�i:H+inli�.wl�M.+•�XM[ Y�Y III N.w. Y� yN. .[W M4.M4h��yy +��ryM{. M:1 h
A.+1.n .•n.n•n.' Mvilt�'nl+l I Y' '��[� YI Y :-0H 4
�AalXI.tM.•'MhMr{A{I[�
Y�..:
N W
W W
1 .•+.v.+•.. r. r.vn
XA �• M Ml�il+1'INM.I+.In[nMl IJi*FXN•n lvmn: a avn �tisnlhl��Xr{.VnhFl{Yni1•':
44F`IVKMY �. TTY..IN. �.�(.�]�p1�.yy
Wk v � AA[Y+tt k•• SM ]���y�YY X ! I ?l v V a
..[aAt•MY3a.XJ:I MYVSkX•K.Wv.�RIM�+h�Tu•
.•+Iv.x.a.n.+b+n•A�VrI.
nw.�ii u�arr .+.u�v�1 �•11ii LL 9�.Y�\��a��n.n 4.+.y.r.a��l. u..a .,
All questions ans"red negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
o I
Animal _.Operation-yipe:
horses, cattle, swine poultry, or sheep
f--V-G! 4kii;Mq
!Alit
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 MISTRATION?
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12-month period?
4. Does this facility have a CRRT M ANIMAL
MASTS MANAGEPU _P?
S. 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 SC5 minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc?
Y 00

• , 101 00 100 00:00
4'
fI �
f
BHCTION III
Fieldte_Manavement
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 Hap
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 its accordance with the
CERTIFMIM kl 1w
5. le animal waste discharged into Waters of
the state by man-made ditch, flushing system,
or other similar man-made devices?
6. noes the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices
OMP) of the approved T YCATION?
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient q�a
freeboard? How much? (Approximately - 3 ^)
S. Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
SECTION Iv
K • T1
%WS4ficYc0 � ��LK�1 RSOEIL-3 ifs l� It on �r14I�1� .
I
021 PO4
T I N I CON)MRTS