470010_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

.9%
Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
470010 Facility Status:
Active
Permit: AWS470010
Denied Access
Inpsoctlon Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed
Hate:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County:
Hoke
Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Via It:
02/06/2017 Entry Time: 10:00 am
Exit Time: 11:00 am
Incident#
Farm Name:
Farm 6707
Owner
Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mal ling Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
360 Dogwood Farm Ln
Raeford NC 28376
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
340 59' 55"
Longitude:
79' 23' 22"
On the west side of SR 1216 approx..9 miles south of intersection
with SR 1215
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

F _ a
Permit: AWS470010 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470010
Inspection Date: 02/06/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection - Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine -Farrow to Wean, 1,700
Total Design Capacity: 1,700 _
Total SSLW: 736,100
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon - 1 19.00 46.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS470010 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brawn LLC Facility Number. 470010
Inspection Date: .02/06/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
charges & Stream Impacts
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)
❑
❑ 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)
❑
❑ M
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
E ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
01111
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na No
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 (Le./ large
❑
� ❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. 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
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Anpllcation
Yea No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks; or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN a 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: AWS470010 Owner - Facility : Murphy=Brown LLC Facility Number: 470010
Inspection Date: 02/06/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No No Ne
Crop Type 1 Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2 Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Autryville loamy sand, 0 to
2% slopes
Soil Type 2
Blaney loamy sand, 2 to 8%
slopes
Soil Type 3
Goldsboro loamy sand, 0 to
2% slopes
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
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?
❑ ME] ❑
❑ ME] ❑
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
❑ E ❑ ❑
Yes No No No.
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
❑ M ❑ ❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS470010 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470010
Inspection Date: 02/06/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No No No
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?
❑
❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
E ❑ ❑
(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
❑
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?
❑
N ❑ ❑
Other Issues
Yes
No No No
26. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
N ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29, At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑0
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
N ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
[]
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
470010
Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS470010
❑ Denied Access
Inssection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County:
Hoke Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
0311012016 Entry Time: 10:00 am Exit Time: 11:00 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Farm 6707
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
360 Dogwood Farm Ln
Raeford NC 28376
Facility Status:
0Compliant ❑
Not Compliant Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
34° 59' 55" Longitude:
79" 23' 22"
On the west side of SR 1216 approx..9 miles south of intersection with SR 1215
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Waste Col, Star, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other lssues
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:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Robert Marble
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWS470010 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470010
Inspection Date: 03/10/15 Inssection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 1,700
Total Design Capacity: 1,700
Total SSLW: 736,100
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00 29.00
page: 2

4
Permit: AWS470010 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470010
Inspection Date: 03/10/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na Na
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?
❑M
❑
❑
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
❑
❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. 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
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%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: AWS470010 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
470010
Inspection Date: 03/10/15 1npsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Appllcation
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Gress
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Autryville
Soil Type 2
Blaney
Soil Type 3
Goldsboro
Sail 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, Dees the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yoe
No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■ ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
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?
❑
N ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

t
. 'r
Permit: AWS470010 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470010
Inspection Date: 03/10/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yee No Na No
Crop yields?
C]
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
[]
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and 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?
❑
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No 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,
❑N
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30, Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / 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 reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Hoes 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: 470010 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS470010
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit, Routine County: Hoke Region:
Date of Visit: 0311812014 Entry Time: 09:00 am Exit Time: 9:30 am Incident #
6707
Farm Name: Farm owner Email:
Owner; Murphy -Brown LLC Phone:
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
[] Denied Access
Fayetteville
910-296-1800
Physical Address: 360 Dogwood Farm Ln Raeford NC 28376
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34° 59' 55" Longitude: 79° 23' 22"
On the west side of SR 1216 approx..9 miles south of intersection with SR 1215
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Cot, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator- Michael L Cudd Operator Certification Number: 25233
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:
Records reviewed 2/25114.
Site visit 3/18114.
page: 1

Permit: AWS470010 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470010
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 Dale Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS470010 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470010
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Imaacts
Yes No No Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑ -
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)
❑
❑ E
❑
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)
❑
❑ M
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
Stale other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storane & Treatment
Yea
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.)?
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
MEI
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
■ ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yoe No Ida 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 Ibs,?
❑
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

F
Permit: AWS470010 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470010
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yos No Na No
Crop Type 1 Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2 Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Blaney
Soil Type 2
Goldsboro
Soil Type 3
Aulryvilla
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑0
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes__
NQ Na No
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?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS470010 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470010
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Reco►ds 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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
01111
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?
❑
N ❑
[]
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na No
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?
❑
E ❑
❑
(i.e„ discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31, Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
s ❑
❑
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

i
Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 470010 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS470010
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Hoke Region:
Date of Visit: 0212512013 Entry Time: 02:00 pm Exit Time: 3:00 pm Incident 0
Farm Name: Farm 6707 Owner Email:
❑ Denied Access
Fayetteville
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 360 Dogwood Farm Ln
Raeford NC 28376
Facility Status: 0Compliant ❑
Not Compliant Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
34' 59' 55" Longitude: 79' 23' 22"
On the west side of SR 1216 approx..9 miles south of intersection with SR 1215
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other Issues
Certified Operator: .lames 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:
Records reviewed 214113
Site visit 2125113
page, 1

Permit: AWS470010 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470010
Inspection Date: 02/25/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 1.700
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Yyagle Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS470010 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470010
Inspection Date: 02/25/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No No No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ ■
❑
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)
❑
❑ 0
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection Storage & Treatmen
Yes
No Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑M
❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
❑
[]
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
❑
013
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes NoN9 Na Ng
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%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

r ti
Permit: AWS470010 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
470010
Inspection Date: 02/25/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Slaney
Soil Type 2
Goldsboro
Soil Type 3
Autryville
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
0 ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16, Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
g Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑
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: AWS470010 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470010
Inspection Date: 02/25/13 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?
❑
N ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑0
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
N ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na No
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,
❑
❑
❑
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?
0
❑ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32, Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
N ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
[]
N ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

3
W Division of Water Quality
11 Facility Number - C) 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
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 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 5 r /� Arrival Time: Departure Time: a County: q p ? Region: FO-0
Farm Name: LQ 110 t ! 1 _1 Owner Email:
Owner Name: k_'tqDku4 �1Y1 ['� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: `
Facility Contact: t e— C.t �1 Title: Phone:
1�
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: l G E �,
Back-up Operator:
Integrator: I ►(._ fig b y 12 row n UU
Certification Number: I tp 3y
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 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 Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
I I [ I L
ayer
rou
Other
Poults
Design Current
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes Qg�TTo ❑ NA [] NE
❑ Yes ❑ No [PNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No E3 NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - 0 jDate of Inspection: c9,3
.ti
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes JE3 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No Ej NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: y
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
�4 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
2P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
[:]Yes
ETNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
51No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes E] No ❑ NA
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN [ ] PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13, Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ
those designated in the CAWMPY
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
[:]Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑Yes
®No
❑NA
❑ Yes
❑t ►No
❑ NA
[:]Yes
Eg No
❑ NA
❑ Yes E] No ❑ NA
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ONo
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [B 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 F No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:]Yes ,® No
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
[] NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
[] NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Ins ection: �, J
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ru'ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey []Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
IM Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
® NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes E2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommend ations.orany'other comments ; :-
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary)..
C,eP -s
1
gs'
l��-e_VtiS(t�
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
f—.
Phone: q 1 a•. q33 330d
Date: a 5
2/4MI J

IIw- i vL_
0 Division of Water Quality
Facility Number WE - 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: IV Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 9 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: k 2--u M Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: �707-1 Owner Email:
Owner Name: rAyt�'c u ( Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: N
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
Other
Latitude:
6121
"_%_)
Phone:
Integrator: AqA0&A±L1 Ile
Certification Number: 1 -26 ✓ y
Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -La er
ury Nouitry
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Design Current
Discharges and Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Daia Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
[]Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [:)No
❑ Yes `� No
[:]Yes fo No
(P NA ❑ NE
1P NA ❑ NE
�NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

1Facili 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
T❑� No
NA
❑ NE
StructureI Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: 6000--3
Spillway?. -
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 27�
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.)
T
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
T
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
[] Yes
F No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA
❑ Yes No ❑ NA
[:]Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. T
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes r No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: -10 jDate of Ins ection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? 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?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
No
po
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
D No
E� NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
F No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 101 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 1n No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 1� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes EpNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations -or any other comments t�-4,r `" `i." `
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
S'4e J t� � 91 14 1 L
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewerllnspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
11_20be441 Mair Ue Phone: 1 3'
' ► " l Date: 3 11 Z
21412011

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 'O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: � Arrival Time: 't�Bw Departure Time: dS% �'' County: Region: AQQ
Farm Name: 70 — 1. m'-1 _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: Al2' 44 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: jL4"ke Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: aC
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
63y
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = 4 =if Longitude: = ° = 1 = 1{
Design Current
Swine Capacity. Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean Q
Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
'Other
❑ Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
Pullets
Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number.of Structures:.:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
KNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
P3 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[I Yes
J�gNo
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
F No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

4 Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes rO No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No
0 NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in);
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
ElNE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes]° No ❑ NA El
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 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, Q Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
Q9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
`� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
tNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
• Rfc&45 ruiend 3;&/1/'
s"'kk l`,;,I twdv� 3/ah/ .
ReviewerAnspector Name t Phone: 3:Fco
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: J
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

;.
Facility Number; pate of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes f� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components ofthe CAWMP readily available? If yes, check El Yes [�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the approprrate box. ❑ WCP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
So 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
y
❑ 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
[3 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
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
EP No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or .Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

ivision of Water Quality
Facility Number 0% ED
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit OCo—rnpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 3-2*-10 1 Arrival Time: 7;Od R►. Departure Time: 7; Ud Ire County: Region: ' eo
Farm Name: 'lf& 70 7 % M I- Owner Email:
Owner Name: &I `8*--0 1,JAt L L Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: jV k�r CcAJ,4 Title: 1-14 M Mamag a r Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: lZi'$to�JN Certified Operator: Oy*_ ��yr�� Operator Certification Number: 17b37''`
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean 17
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
❑ Other---._ . -- - -- __j
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o = I Longitude: ❑ ° = g = is
Design Current Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ La er—�
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ DaiEy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dai Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: M
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
NA
El NE
❑ Yes
El No
�E'
!� NA
❑ NE
[RNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes :N�io ❑ NA ❑ NE
YesNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

I Facility Number: 4L7 -O/0 I Date of Inspection 3-2Y- 10
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes O No El NA El NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? El Yes [BNoo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 6707 %
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3111
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'? ❑ Yes 2 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 E5No ❑ 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 thre t, 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 L7 No El NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes 2<0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes L7 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) Bw" I (ce., ) Sw"+ a 6 M r�.l (O • S .
13. Soil type(s) �%, r>Cv7yiA3/a ,v e-!;! 4 6ld---4 o
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
3'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
VN/❑ NA ❑ NE
7 ❑ NA ElNE
❑ NA ❑ NE
s3
Comments (refer to question #) Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other�cvmments tK it
Use;drawmgs offacility;to better ;,explain situations.`(use'additional pales a' necessary):`
IA
NDfG Ne-gSL P drivIAJI 6LCrPSs 5'/0a y-ge!d AA Cow/d V?_Sw1A )fAi
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rj r, k 4 Phone: RIO ,�3.3 -33D0
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �'' ' cE:ela� Date: 3 - !O - Z 0/0
12128104 Continued

ti
Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
14. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
❑ Yes 2<410 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 90 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
D o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V
Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
BONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
L4_1,0<
El NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
El Yes
Irk No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Otherlssues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
E No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
IWOJ0_nal Coinin'er ts. and/or Drawings;
A,
12128104

er5vision of Water Quality
Facility Number Q/D 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation a z y
0 Other Agency? " �r
Type of Visit compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit G<outine O Complaint Q Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency O Other . ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: J //' 09 Arrival Time: S ` 0 Departure Time: ; OD County:
Farm Name:Owner Email:
OwnerName:
Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: 0
Facility Contact: f�r� , g a�.�rr.rc�✓ Title: Farms �4 " _ Phone No:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Region: /:_P_V
Latitude: 0 0 = I = Longitude: 0 ° = I = 11
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
- -1 ❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Im !acts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
h. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design: Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Daia Calf
❑
Dairy Heifei
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stacker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: Ell
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 ErNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No CTNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ETNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ETNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes Bo ❑ NA
[INE
ElQ Yes o ❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 2V 7—Q�Q Date of Inspection / Q
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ErNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes D<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 1'
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 1 9 At
Observed Freeboard (in): Z3''
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes f NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ETNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes Lf 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 El Yes No El NA El NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvetent?
❑ Yes LJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 075o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence
\of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) Va 6YU, tJ'
13. Soil type(s) A%A+n:a V i ll e— .0 )a A!
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes FrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes ONo ❑ 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 O NNoo El NA [I NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? El Yes Q o ❑ 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 R e4w S q Phone: //0•C33• 3 3 d0
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: 3-'//-2-602
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 7-,9101 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ZrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 2<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Ch kl' D ' ❑ ❑ Ot M h ec is t ❑
s es�gn aps er
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
a.No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V
Rain Inspections ❑ Weather
Cade
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
BONo ❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No [INA
ElNE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
El2 Yes
o ❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑llo ❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
Ta ❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
12 ❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
E o ❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
OeNoo
❑ 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
,.
L«f'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
El Yes
�,
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
�
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
El Yes
B o
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El Yes
ONo ❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

Division of Water Quality
` Facility Number Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit WCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit I& Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other [IDenied Access
f" 1
Date of Visit: Z Arrival Time: ��a Departure Time: County.-0 Le- Region: F`—'
Farm Name: Owner Email:
IOwner Name: T r ► � �� 1 S Y1F. Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: —Title: _ LM M Phone No IOQ y 1 (m
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Nu er:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ❑ o ❑ E] Longitude: = o ❑ ' ❑
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
I I❑ Layer
E]Non-Layet
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other
Diseharees & 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)
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Population
I_
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifei
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non-Dai
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 50 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
M NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
El Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
" No
El NA
El NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — (� Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): L
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ic/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) r
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 0 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 ?a 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?
1 1. is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes **4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
111�Mlo
V
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CA MP?
El Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
�T 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
1 J No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
[--]Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any -recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone:"3
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Ea D-co cfWS
r 11%7RInQ 1'AN011"Niad

Facility Number: 13 — Q Date of Inspection a�(v
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes M No ❑ 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 appropirate box. ❑ WDP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes MNo ❑ 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
4NA
❑ 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
14 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
'%No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
tNA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
' 'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
$ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
El Yes
,,cc
6No
❑ 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
CSNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

facility No. 41--0I0 Time In L_(�yy Time Out Date 4 W, fo,
Farm Name
Owner PNM
Operator xxaQX._
Back-up ay��
Integrator ran
Site Rep ._ 2n. `U a xym2n{
No. Ct[ �
No. �D l
COC Circle: Gener or NPDES
Design
Current
Design
Current
Wean — Feed
Farrow — Feed
Wean — Finish
Farrow -- Finish
F
Gilts 1 Boars
arrow — Wean
Others
FREEBOARD: Design I
Observed
Crop Yield
Sludge Survey
Calibration/GPM 1 r 144-1—
Waste Transfers
Rain Gauge." � Rain Breaker
Soil Test Wettable Acres PLAT
Weekly Freeboard e� Daily Rainfall 1-in Inspections
Spray/Freeboard Drop
Weather Codes 120 min Inspections
Waste Analysis:
Date Nitrogen (N) Date Nitrogen (N)
Pull/Field
Soil
Crop
Pan
Window
r-

13 Division of Water Quality ►[�
Facility Number Q / O 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
L
f Visit qkCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
n for Visit WRoutine 0 Complaint , 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: e1 o Arrival Time: Departure Time: ® County: L(O kg Region:
Farm Name: r ! "' ,� r Owner Email:
Owner Name: tt'-r'�'1 r "(A � f7 �xd f;-yoi r� Phone:
U IV
Mailing Address: Po�6 _C t4tin
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: IW IY1 1 S R)(QF V\ Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: f, Q_Y}r1 t 5 t�11'�l- x� `O.lL Integrator: Pan]
Certified Operator: 7 ' Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =1 0 0' 0 " Longitude: ❑ ° 0 ` = "
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ TurkeyPoults
❑ Other
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:
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
xNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
[:]Yes
❑ No
'UNA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
ONA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
---__.r
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Ycs
❑ No
-19NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
(MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
MNo
ElNA
ElNE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

,w
j
Facility Number: 7 r7 —01
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate'?
❑ Yes KI No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No
J+TA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: i
Spillway?: ^�
.r
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): "
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes 1 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 14 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 gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes bNo ❑ NA ElNE
(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 AkNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes �(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10%or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable t�, y� ri �lAcceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidenceof Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
1)Sl_
12. Crop type(s) f mui] f Q �l S
13. Soil type(s)
G
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designald in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
o
ElNA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
ElYes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (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):
0Z
ReviewerlinspectorName -, N - 1\4 ( D Phone: 1'Q_Y ,33 3 CC)
Reviewerlinspector Signature: Date: -c ' a to =1
12128104 Continued

i .. -
Facility Number: —[)(d Date of inspection (o 0
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 14 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ;KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24,
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
9No
❑ 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
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
uQ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
MNo
[I NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
hNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
) , No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

I.
i
S �N
Facility No. �`r� �Q Time In q 3 JT Time Out Date b(, L01
Farm Name YYi `� ('� Integrator
Owner p r e r,-, � �. h\ Imo C-0-►. y 1 ri c Site Rep
Operator 1��R-t �� w�.rr.✓ _ No.
Back-up No. _
COC Circle: General or NPD t
Design
Current
Design
Current
Wean — Feed
Farrow — Feed
Wean — Finish
Farrow — Finish
F
Gilts 1 Boars
arrow — Wean
i
Others
FREEBOARD: Design
Sludge Survey
"U
Observed
Calibration/GPM 1
Crop Yield Waste Transfers
Rain Gauge ✓ Rain Breaker
Soil Test PLAT ��_ Wettable Acres V
Weekly Freeboard �� Daily Rainfall c� 1-in Inspections
Spray/Freeboard Drop
Weather Codes 120 min Inspections
Waste Analysis:
Date Nitrogen (N)
C) �,3
f/�� (.Co
Date Nitrogen (N)
Pull/Field
Soil
Crop
Pan
Window
30-
6
3 1 -- Ica
, a A �
� O9
c' ,_,
5"b
1 - 3

Type of Visit Fompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine �TComplaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: �J_j� [(JIeJ Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: County: o Region,
Farm Name: i , i Owner Email:
Owner Name: �Y�1 i ��-✓-5 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: j
Facility Contact: f ` Title:
Onsite Representative: '1 4
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator• mm� , irn St Qb
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = I =dt Longitude: 0 ° = I E� "
k --qu&ffSfass
,f
=e'
Swine @apacty
Curreent
I?op�l�atian.
�,; Design Current
Wept Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dme:y P,au1t�Y
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
El Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
iw
'11
C, { D11 esign y Current
Cattle' CaPty Popov iation
❑ Daia Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
ElD Cow
E]Non-Dairy
❑ Beef Stoekei
El Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Fg-Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Discharees & Stream Impacts
Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
�IPNA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
r51INA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?�
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
BbgA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
21 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

acuity Number: - Q b Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
%No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
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
C9 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
OE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
�NE
maintenance/improvement?
11.
Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA D4NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN , ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12.
Crop type(s) / rwr <!�V'Q (_UA7_<'--_D
13.
Soil type(s) /v b—r E f14 (i 09 —rCQ
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 �ili
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination: ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA E
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA NE
Reviewer/inspector Name �;` ��%/°, "�a 7 �(j,s''� Phone: 4Y
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:
�} 12/28/04 Continued
j�1 ►' 1Q U

Facility Numbe . —
Date of Inspection
Required
Records & Documents
19.
Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA E
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
ElYes
ElNo
❑ NA ZE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design [I Maps ❑ Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA *E
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual
Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and t"
Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA�E
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ""�-RiE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA *'EXNE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA E
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
El Yes
❑ No
El NA NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA [�T1E
Other Issues
!
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA 1WNE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA tNE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
1
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA L04E
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
Cl No
❑ NA P$NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA &NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA )ONE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Q"kaan+ Q_DJ� _oA Adj eJSe
&n C'kV n ov+er w e C e� c arte aU'Vot CULL U " a.
J
CL4 Las ou-0,ef 4oy U n Q-
'� n! �.le�r�d �1 e d' �� a• �, �,� �r 14
A j v . se Ck (2 p (e.�r4n-Uf -4o P.r ; 'o r
n--
{ rsw� fo J u C..'�c ►1 c�V`Co► f 0. (SO
l� 'I I1s4o0. U sk o� V a ( d �, � r uv � ►1—t � 5
1
tr
Page 3 of 3 ir i Lid -� a L. c g �ed 4o W o s-Pe f (t p, 0. 12128104!
a4,er NO 'AA s-h QPP Cla tZ—J'. �n-� % ��q� ;✓i-t .

BE
Type of Visit (rCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit @1110utine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: l U Arrival Time: Z Departure Time: �a County: Region:
Farm Name: — Owner Email:
q h
Owner Name i�M_ K y) _ )46nd Qr f�.r s d A N c—, j Phone: [ / 0 5 d
Mailing Address: toe � 3 E yti an -An
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: .�(T'M'-jc ' + Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: v--rQn L
Back-up Operator: U L' J M MK-Y
QAU I Ji pt Phone No: 9 jD _;9S' 6 Y i
Integrator: r VCM 1 y1. A c-)= .�1LttiXEf �
Operator Certification Number: r
Back-up Certification Number: c--25`7 /!
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o =' 0 Longitude: 0 ° =' =
SOL Mile D . G1 s a�, �• N C. 5�. I Z.I W C44- Si de 40. CJ .
Design Current
DesignEurrent
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultroy Capacitulation
Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
-Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
arrow to Wean
17,06 1 LISPDry
Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ La ers
❑Beef Stacker
❑ Gilts
❑Non -La ers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑Beef Brood Cow
El Turkeys
Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes ❑ No
NA
ElNE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
ElYes ❑ No
NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ❑ No
"&NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes -ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12128104
Continued

Facifity Number: '] — D/D Date of Inspection b
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 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I. Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes �KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes [XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes %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 'RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Aaalication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes %No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[]PAN ❑ PAN > l0% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ElEvidenceEvidence of find Drift [I Application
_Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) _ &91 �� ' f� 1 �Q{! � ]' 4Y7 O_Ver92C
13. So l type(s) 616 d" , VC, LA
14. Do the receiving crops di(ar from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes **XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ NA
ElNE
%c�,y9 W
;Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other commentsG�iv
f n r , Y
.Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as.necessary):
r
Reviewer/Inspector Name
I Phone: e7lo= 337
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: cc!
to
Page 2 of'3 12/28/V Continued

Facility Number: — pip Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20, Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes'KNo ❑ NA Cl NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes IQ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes )RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
El Yes �No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes JyNo
❑ 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 J% No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes 7jNo
❑ 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 ANo
El NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes �No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
4 x.� a-0(p't _
I jon i � 4 r Q w[.ca
l %lam C1.I? ?ma 19 Ct Pero �1 .
4
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Facility Number a Date' Time IN_ Out
Owner
Farm Name'. ► I —
O.I.0 FAA— No. �a '5�3�
C.O.C. V Genera
Design Current' Design Current
Wean to Finish Wean to Feeder'
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Feeder . Farrow to Finish
Gilts Boars .
Other
Soil es 1 a u c-1wz -" f
Crop Types j Pan 7_ Window
Iv Ja 6 3 S
Soil Test"" Plat
VI
Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Rain gauge Rain breaker Daily Rainfall Waste Transfers
R�- !fib
Calibration of spray equipment G.P.M.
Sludge, Survey' Crop Yield 120 Minute inspections
1 in. Rain inspections
Pumping time
Weather code
Waste Analysis % & Month U LC
Comments
S
Weekly Freeboard
-a.r /i/lg - J.-I
r r_24
a
f
,
a/z0 _ zI
410 a (I
V2,, - z

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Vislt d Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
llateof' Visit: �-�" �Y Time:
Facility Number /
.....".�� .,..—Q Not Overational O.Below Threshold
0 Permitted © Certified E3 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated oo bove Threshold:
Farm Name: f County:
Owner Name:%�e,_ .)�aw.r��w.�nrf____ __ Phone No:
Mailing Address: d w4y 7• /1/C a
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Phone No:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude " " Longitude 0
Design i Current °. Design Current.:
",'Ca�ucitv��E�PoMahon�Poitltr'
Ctiaclri''-Po elation �Ca#tle '-.Ca acirv. Po elation
p ' ❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer 1 10 Dairy!
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer 10 Non -Dairy;
❑ Farrow.to Wean
[].Farrow to Feeder
I
j.; Other
❑Farrow to Finish
j V ,°`i''E, Total Design CBpa¢tty_ i
❑Gilts
� i ; �,3!, ,I:• �i I;rz ,ry3r li .: � .
, � iii,
~Numbei of Lagoons
; : ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area Area
❑ No Li uid Waste Mana ement S stem
i;Holding Ponds / Solid Traps
r.
Discharges 8. f Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste a ti n & Tfeatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches); 3 9
05103101
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 6
Continued

Facillity Number: — fO Date of Inspection — -o
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance!improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ 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?
18. 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.
Field
Reviewer/Impector Name
ReviewerAnspector Signature: Date:
Final Notes
-to-0
12112103
Condnited

.�1 »�"'�,.. '.Y'r tn. rr �r �. d ww. 4r t v«A6 w - iY' i'* � ' �t>•�� "tk A - � r r a'i �, � s.rt� s w �'
33c s�E„'�<��`[(_t`, is3 1okl, ��'i7 !` ���I.. {1!'� 's1�`Ti# {��#. ,rar,;S;:r a�a>^hf.f°xi7iE tt,? `.� Y •• � �. '.
"k� ,1 �H Es€i;; ;', >>il`I?I � #+�• r#: k :' a .�i�; �fE� 'ii�k o aS�� ,�1 �-fOCither; A,tettCy;�# �i¢'e..��ls""3L���s,kaw.:s('.�!„.� `��ia.s««v!t ir°§. �t�a �� '_ t3alik iK}'� t,�1� ,{ f�€`�,3; "� iti �e' � x+�,.�#"S 1€�r�'� .� -.`o- as.
:ac,�Es. si;�c�f+i �# �'�'#["' -'i l � se«��� ,�i� �"�,: `t r �� °r :� ? , . , , a . � . , a_ i,. a:'•,e � a .:.i ' �'s_. ». ».. s�.»� .:..!'". �:f�
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason far Visit *Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0,Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Datc of Vkit: .3 3 Time: - Q b
Facility.Number D
Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ®' Certiified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: __ J)C)4' Qd-13 a 7[. Pm " 4A County. a
Owner Name: 4+121n % J lAne..t ( L6.,CJ6 Pc r Phone No:
Mailing Address: P Qf 66k .341 111 C X9 3 x
Facility Contact: J-P f Cnnjr J:611 Title: ae49 . Phone No:
C7�c,1 o x m
Onsite Representative: r Integrator: m.t ►.n ,n„
Certified Operator: E =LAG e'.r't1L 27-1 /V A Q-r Operator Certification Number: 2"i Ci I f
Location of Farm:
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑Horse Latitude • 9 0` Longitude • 1
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine -Capacity Population Poultry Ca acity Population Cattle Capacity Po ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Laver I ❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish JE1 Non -Layer I I ❑ Non -Dairy
® Farrow to Wean
FrowFeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts .
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons 0 + ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 3 rav Field Area'
-:Holding Ponds /Solid Traps ` ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System ;,
Discharges 8 Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any pan of the operation?
Discharge ori,inated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Sway Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is obsenped, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
❑ Yes 5� No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes @ No
Structure 6
Freeboard (inches): 41�
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 44 —
Date of Inspection 0�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop hype Re.I'rn i, e & -4" Xlnk t"rri �^ D
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [R] No
❑ Yes [9No
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes � No
❑ Yes 5 No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
C@ 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
13No
Required
Rec—rd & DocuWCjjts
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
Jj�No
19,
Does record keeping need improvement? (icl irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
[3No
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
C�No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
[ No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence aboutthisvisit.
ffi ,h. +' ', v �x' as;, - +� r1 5. omme
Coiinments{referto question #) Explain spy YES anawe�sandlorany�recommentlations or any other comments r
i
�Us�e,&dWln s of facill to kictter ex lain situations: (use additionah a es aslnecessa ) "i
❑ Field Copv ❑ Final Notes
,.,P ...' ' Ja
AL .'i' d_. 43b Ei"iCual s"iiYk,? 01 r µ
74`^' r aSCIriJ- CRt. b 6 ���ra
Reviewerllnspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: a
05103101 % Continued

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

1�
��td�'�� yi����9`R�yy�5x �� s"��y n�, 4 .1^��s a'K+� •Divis�on,OF;WiIt@CQUAIity '�P' 1' 4; !a '� �{s'"A �" .�,
r O Division of!So'l and Water Conservation
ai ' 'S ` , L O Other AgenC�r t
4
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Y-21-20t14 'fink: 9:35am
facility Number 47 lU
E Q Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified U Registered Date Last Operated or Above •Threshold : .........................
Farm Name: M.-.A .............................. County: RAC ................................................... FRO
Owner Name: ................................................... .......... Phone No:(9.1.01.592:210.4 ........................................................
Mailing Address: !?. tRx 4�.................................................................... ..... C1GlAwk..N.C............................................................ 21832,9.............
Facility Contact:........................................................................•..... Title Phone No:...
Onsite Representative: .............. Integrator: ftagwood.]Farma.....................
Certified Operator: Eugg10.C..W.,. ........................... ZIMMcr ........................................... Operator Certification Number: 259.1.1 .............................
Location of farm:
)n the west side of SR 1216 approx..9 miles south of intersection with SR 1215
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 00 ' F 26 C6 Longitude
Design Current
Swine Ca `acit ::1'0 . u1ati0h
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
1700
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
uikry Caalit Population.Cattle , '
Ca acit '' Population
y`t
❑ Dairy
. n
Number of Lagaons 1 ,,T
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ® Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at; ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ®Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ® No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ® No
e. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? NIA
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 an adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
y p p p g ❑Yes ®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): ...............3.9.........
....•.................................. ............. I....................... ......................................................................
12/12/03 Cnnlinued

4_ --
Facility Number: 47-10
Date ot'Inspectiion 1 1-21-2004
5: Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes,'and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Annlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
13. Do the receiving crops difrer 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?
18.
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.
Comments (refer to question #):. Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Usc drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use'additional pages as necessary): Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
On 1-20-04 a represenetive of Premium Standard Farms called and left a message about a pit that had developed a leak. Waste had leaked
out next to the confinement house. Their recovery crew was pumping the waste back to the lagoon. They estimated they had lost 897
allons. LCB visited the farm on the morning of 1-21-04. The crew was working to recover all the waste they could and none had
reached surface waters of the state. While on site the lagoon area was inspected as well as the wooded area close to the houses. The
remains of a small pig were in the lagoon and farm personnel were asked to remove it from the lagoon and dispose of the carcass in
accordence with their NPDES Permit and State Vet. Regulations.
,n:J.
Reviewer/Inspector Name l arry"Baxley
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Andrew McCall, Regional Manager
�EHNR
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
August 14, 1995
Mr. Carl' Little
Dogwood Farms, Inc.
Post Office Box 49
Clinton, N.C. 28328
Subject: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
Inspections
Dogwood Farms, Inc. Facilities
Moke-land Scotland Counties
Dear Mr. Little:
Thank you again for interrupting your schedule to assist in
the inspection of'Dogwood Farms, Inc. swine facilities in Hoke and
Scotland Counties August 10,'1995.
Attached please find a copy of the inspection forms for the
facilities visited. We ask that you forward a copy of the forms to
the appropriate farmers with our thanks for allowing timely access
to their f arms .
Again, thank you and Mr. Brian Spell for assisting in the
inspection process. If you have questions concerning the
inspections please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
er ,
Paul E. Rawls
Environmental Specialist
cc: DEM Facility Assessment Unit
FRO Regional Files
Wachovla Building, Suite 714, Fayettevllle, North Carolina 28301-5043 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Actlon Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Site Requires Immediate Attention: On
Facility No. _Al -I y
DMSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: wL In 1995
Time: A z2
Farm Name/Owner: M
'Mailing Address•. a qe
County: 4A6�e.
Integrator:
On Site Representative:(
Physical Address/Location:
s
Phone: (S 1 o) S'9 z _ ;L t o4 & 344
N%.�hone: t41M �q�2 - A 104 P, 34
Type of Operation: Swine —I— Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: _ i-ioo Number of Animals on Site: 11= sn" C r.ro.A ie cam'
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: ° oo ' _2L" Longitude: °
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon h sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches es r No ;zW1Sany
Freeboard:,�Ft. c`� --Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes orerosion observed? Yes or& (seepage Was
Is adequate land available for spray? Yes or No Is the cover crop adequate? Yes or No Not Evaluated)
Crop(s) being utilized: (spray Field or cover crop was not evaluated
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings? *or No
100 Feet from Wells? .16 or No
* Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or (&I*
* Is animal waste Iand applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line: Yes or No
Is animal waste discharged into water of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, orbther
similar man-made devices? Yes.or l+�o 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(waste management records were not
Additional Comments: _ er vie, d� )
Xhis was a very brigf inspection, a more thoroug"nspection will be conducted in the f-uture.
Please contact.DEM should any condition arise that _poses a danger to surface waters.
* This farm was not located on a USGS TOPO map to determine `.'Blue Line" status,
If you have questions concerning this report please do not hesitate to-zontact the ins ector
at [phone]. Please contact the inspector if the above information is incorrect.
Inspector Name
Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit
Use Attachments if Needed.
1` 5