780015_INSPECTIONS_20171231

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 • •
Fayetteville Regional Office
T
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor � C
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C
Andrew McCall, Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
July 13, 1995
Mr. Jimmy Vinson
Environmental Resource Manager
Browns of Carolina, Inc.
Post Office Box 487
Warsaw, N.C. 28398
SUBJECT: Compliance inspection
Browns of Carolina
Swine Farm # 24
US Hwy 20 Near St. Pauis
Robeson County
Dear Mr. Vinson:
�L'1-3.
On Jure"12, 1995, a cursory inspection of the subject animal operation was performed
by the Fayetteville Regional Office. Please find enclosed a copy of our Compliance Inspection
Report for your information. It is the opinion of this office based on the information provided
by Browns of Carolina, Inc. staff and observations made during the inspection that the facility
is in compliance with 15A NCAC 2H, Part .0217 and the Animal Waste Management is being
properly conducted.
PIease provide a copy of this report to the individual farm owner or manger and should
you Have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office at (910)
486-1541.
Sincerely,
;��? pll;--�
Paul E. Rawls
Environmental Specialist
cc: DEM Compliance Group
Wachovia Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043 Telephone 91a486-1541 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH & NATURAL RESOURCES
. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
Farm !lane/Owner
Inspection Date
Fare No.
Browns of Carolina,Inc.
July 12, 1995
24
Mailing Address (Farm)
Browns of Carolina, Inc.
Farm No. 24
SR 1980
St. Pauls, N.C. 28384
Facility Telephone Neer
,[phone]
All comments will be discussed in the Comments Section.
SECTION I
Animal
Operation : SWINE
SECTION II
y N Comments
1.
Does the number and type of animal meet or
exceed (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
X
2.
Does this facility meet criteria for Animal
Operation REGISTRATION?
X _
3.
Are animals confined fed or maintained in this
facility for a 12-month period?
x
4.
Does this facility have a CERTIFIED ANIMAL WASIE
MANAGEMENT PLAN?
_X_ _ _#1_
5.
Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
X _#2_

Administration and Program Management Com-ents
6. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc. X
SECTION III
Field Site ManaggMCnj YN Comments
I. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of USGS Map
Map Blue Line Stream? X
2. is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream? A
3. Does the facility have adequate acreage on
which to apply the waste? _x_._. _
4. Does the land application site have cover
crop in accordance with the CERT EICADON PLAN? _X_
5. Is animal waste discharged into waters of the
state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or
other similar man-made devices? X
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices (BMP)
of the approved CFRjIFICATION? _x__
1. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approx. ,8 ft.) X i
8. Is the general condition of this animal facility,
including management and operation, satisfactory? _x_
SECTION IV Comments
1. Farm has a certified waste management plan based on comments from Browns of
Carolina staff.
2. This farm has not yet land applied waste.
3. Current cover crop is grain sorghum.

78-1b
'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
M15WA
'T
,&4�ja
C7EHNR
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Water Quality Section
July 13, 1995
Mr. Jimmy Vinson
Environmental Resource Manager
Brown's of Carolina, Inc.
Post Office Box 487
Warsaw, N.C. 28398
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
Brown's of Carolina, Inc
Farm No. 21
SR 1907
Robeson County
Dear Mr. Vinson:
a.Jy
Ong 12, 1995, a cursory inspection of the subject animal operation was performed
by the Fayetteville Regional Office. Please find enclosed a copy of our Compliance Inspection
Report for your information. It is the opinion of this office based on the information provided
by Browns of Carolina, Inc. staff and observations made during the inspection that the facility
is in compliance with 15A NCAC 2H, Part .0217 and the Animal Waste Management is being
properly conducted.
Please provide a copy of this report to the individual farm owner or manger and should
you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office at (910)
486-1541.
S� PC
Paul E. Rawls
Environmental Specialist
cc: DEM Compliance Group
Wochovia Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043 Telephone [phone] FAX 910-48&0707
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH & NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
Faro Name/Owner
Inspection Date
Faro No.
Brown's of Carolina,
July 12, 1995
21
Inc.
Mailing Address (Farm) Facility Telephone Number
S.R. 1906, St. Pauls, N.C. [phone]
All comments will be discussed in the Comments Section.
SECTION I
Animal Operation_y": SWINE
SECTION II
N Comments
1. Does the number and type of animal meet or
exceed (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
A(
2. Does this facility meet criteria for Animal
Operation REGISTRATION?
X ____
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained in this
facility for a 12-month period?
x
4. Does this facility have a CERTIFIED ANIMAL WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN?
_X_ _ _#1_
5. Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?

Administration and Program Management Comments
6. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc. _x_
SECION III I
Field Site Management Comments
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of USGS Map
Map Blue Line Stream? _ I(
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream? _
3. Does the facility have adequate acreage on
which to apply the waste? _x_
4. Does the land application site have cover
crop in accordance with the CERTIFICATION PLAN? _x_
5. Is animal waste discharged into waters of the
state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or
other similar man-made devices? X
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices (BMP)
of the approved CERTIFICATION? _x_
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approx. .aft.) X _
8. Is the general condition of this animal facility,
including management and operation,' satisfactory? _x_
SECTION IV Comments
1. Farm has a certified waste management plan based on comments from Brown's
of Carolina staff.

Inspection notes:
This facility consists of
2 barns Breeding, Gestation, farrow 1000 swine each
7 nursery barns 720 swine each
1 lagoon 4 acres in size
Lagoon Location
Lat 34 50' 17"
Lon 78 55' 13"
Photo Time 12:08

BROWN'S OF CAROUNA, INC.
e 1 t P. O. Box 487
e 303 East College Street
t Warsaw, North Carolina 283S8-0487
Phone Number - 919L293-2181
EKNOM BULLARD Fax Number - 919-2934725
2000 FAREM 3D FEEDER
lS1S-TA2B as o
iI i..fx1d wq�A > I -.
1_
C
�jG.an�r✓ am• h ti
1723
Ic
1976 !� •.1906 19 T i92? 1971 � 1S
41 fi 20 >
! Ms. 1971•_
190a 1906 i :VIP
. ' WV
�
1920 , • 1921
* 1979 1907.
0 7 Ockload ; .6 ti 1424
1.Q i 9a0 •e ? 7•
1919 T
1726 1907
�s D T, f 1990 v06
9776 �o! !y 1726 IF
ppp• 1,639
1777 .3 , .� •�,
r i •� .2
1916 100b
1732 .7 M�� 7� • J i= 1979 15
1006 9
g1733—*
3
.f
17da ~' �a"rro wf
20 _
i ! "• �'� J:,.0 t 006 1 T3 , -*
1 f5 37d0 1739 .? ]�
-r ECMONS: EXIT I-95 AT ST. PAULS CN TO HIGHWAY 20 EAST, JUST MrSIDE OF ST. PAUL TAKE STATE
ROAD # 1907. FROM 1907 TAKE THE 2ND ROAD TO THE LEFT SPATE ROAD # 1906 FARM WILL
APPRX. ONE KMZ CN THE RIGHT. LOOK FM FNrRANCE SIG4.
DIR-T:rCVS FORM , TAKE HIGHWAY 0 87 APPRX: 5 mIIES PAST TAR =.T-, TARE
A LEFT HICHWAX # 20 WEST APPRX: 4 MI.iFS TO CHICKEN FOOT ROAD, T M RICE MM
C ICPMN FOOT ROAD GO APPRX: 2 MIIMM TO SHAW KEE T ROAD, TAKE A L1D:T IRM ROHESON
C>~ LWr!(, APPRX: 1 MTrE TD STATE ROAD # 1906, TURN RIGRr FARM IS CNE MILE CN THE
RTP?r.

f State of North Carolina
A. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Fayetteville Regional Office
-«
.lames B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N F� Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Andrew McCall, Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
May 17, 1995
Mr. Jimmy Vinson, Manager
Environmental Resources
Brown's of 'Carolina
105 East College Street
PO Boz 487
Warsaw, NC 28398-0487
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection.
Brown's of Carolina (Farm 24A)
Robeson County
Dear Jimmy:
On May 10, 1995, an inspection of your animal operation was performed by
the Fayetteville Regional Office (FRO). Please find enclosed a copy of our
Compliance Inspection Report for your information_ It is the opinion of this
office that this facility is in compliance with 15A NCAC 2H, Part .0217, and
that Animal Waste Management is being properly performed.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact
me at [phone].
Sin c rely,
Grady Dobson
Environmental Engineer
GD/mla
Enclosure
cc: Facility Compliance Group
Wachovia Bullding, Stite 714. Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043 Telephone [phone] FAX 910.48"707
�. An Equal opportLnity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ ICYL post -consumer paper

1.
A' ,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIROMWENT, HEAT S NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMMNTAL IGANA iEIENT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
Brown's of Carolina I May 10, 1995 I 24A
CPO Box 487, Warsaw, NC 28398 t [phone]
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
SECTION I
Anjmal Operation Tyne:
Horses, cattle, swine, poultry, or sheep
SECTION II
1. Does the number and type of animal meet or exceed
the (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal Operation REGISTRATION?
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12-month period?
4. Does this facility have a CERTIFIED ANIMAL
WASTE MUI MGEIENT PLAN?
S. Does this facility maintain waste management
records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
5. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc?
ROM
Rom.
oi�

SECTION III
Field Site Management
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
Map Blue Line Stream?
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream?
3. Does this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
4. Does the land application site have a
cover crop in accordance with the
CERTIFICATION PLAN?
S. Is animal waste discharged into waters of
the state by man-made ditch, flushing system,
or other similar man-made devices?
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices
(BMP) of the approved CERTIFICATION?
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approximatelyt �)
B. Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
SECTION IV
Comments
Section II (5) & Section III (4) (6) (7)
ee
♦0�
0■�
0�0
o■�
This facility is relatively new and does have a certified waste management
plan. The lagoon freeboard is in excess of 9 feet and has not to date been
pumped onto the fields. Irrigation equipment is being installed and the
appropriate crops will be planted to correspond to the the certified plan.
More than adequate land area is available to land apply waste once necessary.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
MA,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Fayetteville Regional Office
i .
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor C
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary D H N
Andrew McCall, Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
May 17, 1995
Mr. Jimmy Vinson, Manager
Environmental Resources
Brown's of Carolina
105 East College Street
PO Box 487
Warsaw, NC 28398-0487
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
Brown's of Carolina (Farm 24B)
Robeson County
Dear Jimmy:
On May 10, 1995, an inspection of your animal operation was performed by
the Fayetteville Regional Office (FRO). Please find enclosed a copy of our
Compliance Inspection Report for your information. It is the opinion of this
office that this facility is in compliance with 15A NCAC 2H, Part .0217, and
that Animal waste Management is being properly performed.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact
me at [phone].
5inc ely,
Grady Dobson
Environmental Engineer
GD/mla
Enclosure
cc: Facility Compliance Group
Wachovia Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Acton Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

f�
l
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARMEXT OF ENVIROMIENT, HEALTH i NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIROMM TAL MANA(;EIO±NT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
Brown's of Carolina IMav 10, 1995 1 24B
PO Box 487, Warsaw, NC 28398 910 293-3600
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
SECTION I
Animal-- Operation Ty2g-.
Horses, cattle, swine, poultry, or sheep
SECTION II
I. Does the number and type of animal meet or exceed
the (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal Operation REGISTRATION?
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12-month period?
4. Does this facility have a CERTIFIED ANIMAL
WASTE MANA013KOiT PLAN7
S. Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
6. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc?
OEEM,
O00M
�1�,1

SECTION II
Field Site Management
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
Map Blue Line Stream?
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream?
3. Does this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
4. Does the land application site have a
cover crop in accordance with the
CERTIFICATION PLAN?
S. Is animal waste discharged into waters of
the state by man-made ditch, flushing system,
or other similar man-made devices?
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices
(BMP) of the approved CERTIFICATION?
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approximately �8 ft.�n)
S. Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
SECTION IV
Comments
Section II (5) & Section III (4) (6)
gee
mom
OHO
No=
is=
mom
go=
This is a relatively new facility. A certified plan is in place, the
irrigation equipment is being installed and the appropriate cover crop will be
planted in accordance with the plan once the lagoon reaches pumping levels.
This facility has adequate land area for waste generated from this swine
operation.

State of North Carolina I"
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources Ar4j
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor mom
ID F H N F� Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Andrew McCall, Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
May 17, 1995
Mr. Jimmy Vinson, Manager
Environmental Resources
Brown's of Carolina
105 East College Street
PO Box 487
Warsaw, NC 28398-0487
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection.
Brown's of Carolina (Farm 21)
Robeson County
Dear Jimmy:
On May 10, 1995, an inspection of your animal operation was performed by
the Fayetteville Regional Office (FRO). Please find enclosed a copy of our
Compliance Inspection Report for your information. It is the opinion of this
office that this facility is in compliance with 15A NCAC 2H,'Part .0217, and
that Animal Waste Management is being properly performed.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact
me at [phone].
Sin' rely,
� c��jLQ�
Grady D _ son
Environmental Engineer
GD/mla
Enclosure
cc: Facility Compliance Group
Wachovia Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ I post -consumer paper

r
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONNMNT, HEALTH Z NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ZNVIRONWWTAL MANAGEMENT
Fayetteville Regional office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
Brown's of Carolina I Mav 10. 1995 1 21
PO Box 487, Warsaw, NC 28398 L (910) 293=3600
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
SECTION I
Animal Operation Type:
Horses, cattle, swine, poultry, or sheep
SECTION 11
1. Does the number and type of animal meet or exceed
the (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal Operation REGISTRATION?
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12-month period?
4. Does this facility have a CERTIFIED ANIMAL
WASTE MANAGEMENT FLAY?
S. Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
6. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc?
teem;
11■
OEM
o��J

SECTION III
Field Site Management
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
Map Blue Line Stream?
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream?
3. Does this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
4. Does the land application site have a
cover crop in accordance with the
CERTIFICATION PLAN?
5. Is animal waste discharged into waters of
the state by man-made ditch, flushing system,
or other similar man-made devices?
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices
(BMP) of the approved CERTIFICATION?
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approximately
8. Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
SECTION IV
Comments
Section II (4) & Section III (4) (6) (7)
ee
!IN
mom
IBM�
mom.
This facility was built prior to the February 1, 1993 deadline and a certified
waste management plan was not required. This facility is registered and does
not need to have a certified waste management plan in effect until December
31, 1997. However, the spray sites are being prepared for pertinent spray
equipment and the lagoon will need pumping within the next 3 months. It is
our understanding that this facility will be certified prior to December 31,
1997. Adequate land is available to handle the wastewater generated from this
facility.

ARE
COMPLAINT REPORT FORM
3
Date Received Complaint: April 19, 1995
Complainant's Name: Mr. Glenn Brisson
Address & Phone No.: [phone]
Type of Complaint: Swine Operation Brown's of Carolina
Location of Complaint/County: Farm No. 21 on NCSR-1906, Robeson County
Date of Investigation: April 25 & 27, 1995
Investigator: Ricky Revels, WQ Section,
Samples Taken: Yes: X No:
Narrative of Investigation Actions and/or Recommendations: Mr. Brisson showed the
inspector ponded water on his property, that was believed to be animal waste from a
near by hog lagoon owned by Brown's of Carolina. A Fecal Coliform sample of the
standing water taken on April 27, 1995 revealed 2/100m1. It is apparent by the
analysis results that wastewater from the lagoon is not impacting the Brisson
property.
Other Sections Involved:

Microbac Laboratories, Inc.
MI CROBAC �`-i-
817 CASTLE ILAPIE STREET I1C g37'71,I
FAYETTE':ILLE, NC 281303 USDA
[phone] f (910) 864-i774 (1'ANj
.AIR FUEL WATER FOOD WASTES
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS rET"
CLIENT: NC DEM
ADDRESS: wachovia Building, Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301
CONTACT F ERS014: Mr. Paul Rawls
ACCOUNT NUMBER: #IN003 -
SAMPLE ID: 1.Ponded water - ID #95WE42259
4.
DATE REC'D: 04/27!9b SAMPLED_ 04/27/95
SAMPLED BY: R. Revels
DELIVERED BY: R. Revels
SAMPLE CODE: Waste watei, Grab
REFEREIICE: -Bris'sors'-."Faun -
DATA REVIEWED BY;
DATE REPORTED: 04/28/95 +
+ : + i : + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + f : + 4 a.: + i + + '. + + + + + a . 1 . r f i + + : i f r + + + i i + i + +'
ANALYSTS METHOD 3 2 3 4
COLIFOPIA, FECAL (per 100 ml) SM16 909C 2
COMII41E14 S: < = Less than
= Greater than
PAGE) OF I
The dam and otlrr irdorroatlnn -*ftmd on d * and cdlw aCo�pan m d—.m. rap.sant onh th. san�l.(s) andyta.d +� t;no_
. d.nduponth.dstiotan a if not to be npmAioad whofr W in pan tm adw*WV or other pug o.a. wO wr tmn app
tram re tata ry.
USDA-EPAAMH Tastrm Food Swde im C.o muff p Cbwrk l Bid M6orobiolo&W Ais"M and PXSBR dt

• g h'9U - - r. is s �., � -.:, , - - .., ,�,y. t . 4n A y �`�s
- ❑ DSWC Animal'Feedlot O eration evlew � � y' �'
Facility Number
n 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection 17—7��
Time of Inspection 1 1 2; 3b 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Tire (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: ❑ Registered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
❑ Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection includes travel and processing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated:.... .......... _.. .. r. ....�_..� .. .... _ _ ...._..... _ ....
Farm Name: ....�..�.� 6 ..._._.._ ..... _.... Connty:..X��� -----.
r
Land Owner Name: �3f`dtgm. 4.......CQr Q.l!K -''�... ........ Phone No: OLO
�_2� 6 — 1 �gb 0......
FacilityTitle: .... ..... _....... ........_................_.. Phone No: ... ........ .r.... ......... ............................
Mailing Address: �� �.,� g ��-.. .... _.__, .... _ .- .......... 41-7.._. _._.. �... 2.1�....
Onsite Representative _ .. _ ........ _ ... .._........._. Integrator:��9,!._ ._..._.. _.
t O Follow-ua of DWO i
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude Longitude 0�0`Du
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
_aCnrrent av °M s%'DeSi zx xv xino
x De'ign�,. gn, Current��©es�gn >Current
�Swin0i --� 4y t _x a Vim.. �6 �..,F Carrie �&? hg ww w.;
• .v. : a 9C8 aci , hl'O UlatlOn � ° �U•1 ? :C8 aeiW'PO ulatlon 'as�"��zC2 : Ca RCI yP0 pl8tlon :
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑" ❑ Pairy
} ❑ Feeder to Finish 04,10 Non -La er ❑Non Da
?: Farrow to Wean 00 p 4,
Farrow to Feeder Total Ca Design paeity& 12.00
Farrow to Finish
- Total SSLW`
h" ❑ Otlteifi }a� �e> �- e°F zk;� :,,
i"'"?�=.;;:"�°9`x'•e.'^-;�rce�z> ,,,,ta-•,:«.��,h,.W .:::. _.. �°.':.`6*„x�_`�-va',�"��'. ;¢',.�a'�`�#` '.-?� _��r�s. ^*�'�"?::,,fie. .'�xa"�`.., �TM''. a''��`k zy�,�<
Nuin, of Lagoons f Hotding°Ponds ❑ Subsurface Drams Present
❑ r Lagoon Aea ❑ Spray g p y Field Area
a `cam`
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. 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 Surface Water? (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)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes /qNo
❑ Yes tNo
ElYes
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ANo
Continued on back

Fa =fity Number:.. �...1 �..
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding. PQnds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
Structure 4
1 I . Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Applicatiop
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(if in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes *o
❑ Yes Ig No
Structure 5 Structure 6
15. Crop type _.....9err ...................-.....-_..... ............. W....._...
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for Iand application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
For Certified —Facilities Ong
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes gNo
P,Yes ❑ No
a, Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes *o
❑ Yes P(No
❑ Yes ) No
❑ Yes Vj No
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes 0,No
❑ Yes E� No
A Yes ❑ No
J4 Yes ❑ No i
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No x
Continents'{refer to`questto s ll) Explain any YES answers and/or.any recommeQdations�or any other comments
<`E
Use drawings of facrhty to better ezplatn situations:"(use'add�bonal pages as necessary) }
here- are. 5t)me, Beefs rills e+,-H e. backside. eC ti e lggoor, nearer+ 1-he {ree bi%e, 4?
+ ,,m-V neeA -6 dbe. !rn11 eA i ., l La r ll� ll 1 1 _ I
R722�ke,& Was AO A(A)MP o.do:►`�1e a �'l,i �raCr�� Cefy iS Re�eQ 4b CO hrI�,de ;"SP�O
T-rr-iga'�ior. ways Pl(t",i94 p,,- 7-1(,-17, 1
Reearz�S I+_iCt•& ie_-U�j-u7dj + Cn-'Ple -j.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Hate: 7 —/7— 97
cc: Division of Water Quality, fl',6ter Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

4
Feedlot U6e
F.4b_-r* &tDrual
Routine OComplaint OFollow-up of
I Facility Number D--E= I
Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 12'. 00 :124 hr. (hh-mm)
I Total Time (in traction of hours
Farm Status- tKRegistered [3 Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
13 Certified 0 Permitted or Inspection (includes travel and processing)
D Not Operational Date Last Operated: . ..... . ..... . . ....
Farm Name: 2.. _50^_ F 9, o
County: .. 26,
Land Owner Name: _3.rDu_)r\'S
Phone No:
Facility Conctact: Title- Phone No:...._......_
Mailing Address: 2139T
Onsite Representative: integrator:
Certified Operator: _2Q4t)_ . g1�7 e ... ___..... Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
t
er
....... . . ....
Latitude 0 & " Longitude
Tvne of Operation and Design CaD2CitV
u -D
Ca aci D elation
JO Dairy
Feeder to Finish ❑Non -La er4MIE] Non-Elia
N
QU,
'wit_7 9 ('0
%M
'Cao
4T
Z rl Farrow to eedCTI "A'dk�
Farrow to Finish
0 Other
NIMMI-1
T$d. 10 Subsurface Drains Present
9
Vl;
M Lagoon Area
❑Spray Field
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: 0 Lagoon D Spray field 0 Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (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)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
• Yes XNo
• Yes PNo
❑ Yes P(No
❑ Yes j No
/V
El Yes V�No
• Yes f4No
• Yes �NID
0 Yes A NO
Continued on back

# 1~ acility Number:..,
6. Is'�acility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
L
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures agoons and/or Holdina Pondsl
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
Structure 4
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes *o
Structure 5 Structure 6
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WQMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type 11 e r Y+1 dLa.. .... ... ...� _ .......... ...... r ..._
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
For Coed Facilities Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes PNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes a No
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes j(No
❑ Yes kNo
❑ Yes Ia, No
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
PkYes ❑ No
❑ Yes o ?
❑ Yes No!
Comments (refer t&questton`; Explain any, YES answers' and/or any recommendations jorany other comments V,£
Use.drawings,of facility�to better ezplatn situations: (use'addtttonal pages'as necessary} �;
a. f1 . _ r1 .:,.
Z-/here. WqS Ro CAu3rL4P amSi4r-• A eopy 4 (feeleA y4t) Ce,,1AA,
Lagoons were Pt&- Br�-
AeC-4C>r`j W -C t- e
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: 7—) -) --q -1
cc. Division of Water Quality, water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

r k
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation [] Other Agency
0 Division of Water Quality
10 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWO inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other 1
Date of Inspection®
Facility Number
_j Time of Inspection o7 • / 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Registered JK Certified © Applied for Permit JN Permitted (] Not O erational Date Last .Operated:...,,_....
r r_ fJ
Farm Name: Via!'? S..d' ...�� rolt+tcx........ta4r .. � . County: ................ i1fl.....CSa......................................
.....
a96 .1g�
Owner Name: ............l*!'? 5 ice,........ Phone No: .....•---......•--------..............----......
Facility Contact: ............. Gf P L.......kJ f.de(n.......... Title: ...................................... Phone No:................
Mailing Address:............
........................... x.........._Y12.........................................................wr............... a
Onsite Representative:.......�QC�C........ Integrator:...... �s �...
.................
Certified Operator ...........&O . . Operator Certification Number,........../ y�I
Location of Farm:
Latitude =• 0' 0" Longitude =' 0' 0"
d„ ° Destgn Current-.,Des*gn"Currents
Destgn Current `
`Capacrty PopnEaLau Paniti`y Capacity =:Population Cattle Capacity« Population
Wean
" ❑ WEE
.. , s
`_ ❑ Layer Dairy
s. eeder
,r.
FeFinish
T ' ❑ Non -Layer ', ❑Non -Dairy �.
u ❑ Farrow to Wean
❑Other
Farrow to Feederj
a h
❑ Farrow to Finish
u Total Design Capaeitya
Gilts
�.
- x
Boarsotal
EE]
SSLW
--
i 3,a
�Numher gf Lagoons / Hoidwg Panels
;� * ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area I[] Spray Feld Area
a� " > ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System�f
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes XNo
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 Surface Water? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin? _ NlA
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes X No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes XINo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes jEf No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes ;W No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes P(No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes P(No
7/25197 Continued on back

i
F acuity N umber: %r — IS
8. Are there Iagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (La goons Holdin Ponds Flush Pits t:tc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure 1
��I
Structure ?
Structur 3 Structure 4
identifier: iovt�(
_ �1�,
.....0.�............. ..................a....
Freeboard(ft): ..........r�....... .............................
........_
..........................
l.I
. j J....... ..... ..................
D[�r ............................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Cl Yes ANo
❑ Yes ONo
Structure S Structure 6
....
.................................................................
❑ Yes A No
Yes ❑ No
Yes ❑ No
Waste Applicalion
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .................... LrlQ .....t ?�1.1!�1e1� .........Ze,
16. Do the receivingcrops differ with those desi noted in the AnWaste Management Plan AWMP ? p €V ( ?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit'?
13 No.violations or deftciertcies.were noted -during this visit.-:You.will receive no further
eorrespondenee about this'visit:•.:
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ,� No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes X( No
>6Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 14 No
❑ Yes g( No
❑ Yes 14 No
Camments;(refer to question #) Explain`any AS`answers and/or any recommendations"or any other ce men4M,s - Y
iJse drawi'ngs.of facility"to better;e�xplainsituations. (use additional pages :es:neee5sary)
f j+ Ia. �c- 7" wev -sew Svxo� .tea A~ CM lozck
s ,, Q7
-- �p
Gt9w ,�/ - T AM
7/1 � - PQr" A^P d 441 �^'J l /25/97 ,r
Reviewer/Inspector Name �'� ,Fps-ti hr
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ^' 0! Date:

Facility Number: Date of inspection:
Additibnil C' -n nints,and/or Drawings u
I
G+J-dam' caN",L,
aw au.CL- r C4_;V �
. d fly
4-0
41-3vey 1

W 11►
Permitted 13 Certified ❑% Conditionally Certified 0 Registered E3 Not O crational Date/Last Operated:
Farm Name: -.- r.' y1�- Caisnty:..........�D.`�•••'p-Skitip.............................
.................................................................................
Owner Name:....... e1QAn-.5. ......
..Q..T.....-....(.fezro.. //"'n.�.. ,/P,�hone No............7 ?l�f .—..I pa
Facility Contact: .....(�/E/! J......11Q �''�--.. Title:-.........:....�N( .:......... ........... Phone No:.......................-.......... ...-.......-
Mailing Address: .......�/ r l...fl..�.... ..... ........wa.r s .............................2. 3 rY
Onsite Representative:..�y.. .. Integrator ...................
Certified Operator: .Q. .w.....I............ .................... Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
t............................................
Latitude ���� C].� Longitude
Design
awtne Capacity Population
der
nish
60
ean
KFarrow
eder
Z4v
nish
❑ Gilts ,
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I 1 ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I ID Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity SSffJz7
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation (If yes, notify DWQ)? ❑ Yes ( No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other f
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'! ❑ Yes No
b. ll-dischargc is observed. did it reach: ❑ Surface Waters []Waters of the State ❑ Yes No
c- If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in galltnin? W l
d. Dios discharge bypass a lagoon system? ❑ Yes Po
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes &No
3. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes VkNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus StOTM storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6�No
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches): ............. _.................... ..--....--.......-..-........................... --5----................ .................................... .................................... ................... .................
1/6199 Continued on back

V . ,1`6
Facility Number: '7ej� — / s J Date of Inspection 2.2 �
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, Yes �No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed andlor managed through a waste management or
closure plan? I � ❑Yes 0No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7_ Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes PO
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes o
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required top of dike, maximum and minimum
liquid level elevation markings?
❑ Yes No
Waste Application
10,
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes gNo
11.
Is there evidence of over application'? ❑ Pon ing ElNitrogen
❑ Yes No
12_
Cro t f r ovLtA CL
Croptype *.........
.6 .........J. tt L?.�a . �4. 4 C4 L es�
13,
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes 'KNo
14,
Does the facility lack wettable acreage for land application? (footprint)
ElYes gNo
15,
Does the receiving crop need improvement'?
❑ Yes ONO
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes ONO
Required
Records & Documents
17,
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes 0—No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes 4-No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement'? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes [ NO
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes XNo
21.
Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes KNo
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
discharge, freeboard
❑ Yes �No
(ie/ problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes KNo ,
24,
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes ONO
JL. No.violations-or. deficiencies were. notedduring this:visit:. You wrill.re�ceive no further...:.
: • corr-espofidei►ce' about: this :visit. : . ........ . . . . . . • . • . - ... • . • : • . -
Comments (rerer to question_#):- Explain any YES answers and/or any irecommeiidatrons or any other comments
Us'e'd n_ gs of facility to letter explaid'situations. (use additional pages as necessary)
/'► rrh �bh,& tjaacf &-)a / /1?4�'it �4il t I I&
6-"4 PQ,-g/re_5,
Gros�or`� 0 - bGk
c'p -t' CCgo0�'- CL+ sow _GL , L5 bee"_ ad4- sre'if 1045'
Y
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: 4/ ,77 T 4
1 /6/99

,G Q Division of Sotl atid`Water_Conserv'ation -..Operation-Review - = 3
E Division of Soil and: Water :Conservation =Compliance IivspechOP,
�
- Division of Water Quality .Compliance Inspection -
.� _ _. _
=. ` -OtherAgency Operation "Review
149 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ infection 0 Follow - f DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number ��' / g' Date of Inspection / 2
Time of Inspection / ' _7 v j 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Iff Permitted [3 Certified [] Conditionally Certified [3 Registered 0 Not Operational I Date Last Operated: p ..........................
Farm Name: ..........'vy,e✓n f� _,2 y County: ............. ........__ .....................
Owner Name:......Phone N
...................................j..............................................o:�lG
Facility Contact: � �...... ' '.. .. ...Title: ........................ Phone No:
MailingAddress: .....�.. ..%�va ...... &�.......... ..'�.���r�...................................................... .........................
Onstte Representative ,. Integrator:......... ................................ leek=o�-✓-�+
�:....................... �3.
Certified Operator: ............ ................................. Operator Certification Number:........................... ........
Location of Farm:
Latitude �`�� � Longitude
.Design Current ` -: Design- Citrreiif:...
Swine Poult
< Capacity Po ulatiop ty capacity Po ulation Cattle
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
S-VV
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design°GapacitY
Total SSLW
Design -Current:-.,"..
rapacity Population
Number of Lagoons. ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ID Spray Feld Area
Holding Ponds / Soltd Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System =
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: []Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
h. 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 ycs, 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
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes No
[:]Yes No
[:]Yes P�'No
❑ Yes �ffNo
❑ Yes} No
❑ Yes fgNo
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): i1 // 2 r .............. ................................._ ................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
❑ Yes ;R No
Continued on back
3/23/99

'Facility Number: -- Date of Inspection
0
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes kNo
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
KYes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
`
❑ Yes O
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes X No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes ANo
12. Crop type u.111W
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes XNo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes RNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes P No
c) This -facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes [81No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes N No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes KNo
Required Records & Document,,;
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
ElYes NNo
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
Yes bfNo
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (i 4irrigatio freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
XYes j5kNo
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes to No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes /KNo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
Yes
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ (KNo
23. Did Reviewerfinspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes eKNo
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
! '
El: Rio yiQlati ris:ol- ft. ticie dic -g Were nQtea 0irrttig �hls'vislt: • Y. %ill•t�eeeive tno further
Torres oridence: a�otit this visit- .. • ...: ..... ::: :
Comments (refer to question #) Explam"any YES�answers ati-d/or any recommendations of any other comments: r
Use;drawtngs of facihtyrtobetter explain situations (use:addtt,onal pages as necessary) ,t - ,- -:
e - .".s-y^+.-.-.-..-� '• _.^.-eT .-...1. _..-..io.
$. 4v� ca(!�'�.E ���r l ,clued �ef�s�/�,� P.e .��c�•.q>/�.� ,�LJ�a `
,;2 S ' %C A4
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ���,�- Date: ��l Zcz

r
Faci4y Number: 7 — Date of inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below AYes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
28. 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)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes *0
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blad"e(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes gj No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ,[No
32. Do the flush tanks lack.a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes 0
tlona fwommeptsLaq-d Dr' rowings Y- `
.k.

J31m5 3N,101 TVS
Type of Visit WCompliance Inspection 0 operation Review (V Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ® Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: -I -f!i Arrival Time: %:Od A- Departure Time: �'i QD w. County: deU Sk— Region:
Farm Name: 15;LYA--,- #- 7 'k4 q ZI _ Owner Email:
OwnerName: M cw t✓ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title: 1'ViA✓ _ Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: rt
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o = I = Longitude: = ° = = u
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine "Capacity Population
Wet Poultry Capaciity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
❑Dai Heifer
Farrow to Wean
a
Dry Poultry � �
❑ D Cow
�_
Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non-Dai
El Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other s
❑ Turke Poults
zw
❑ Other
❑Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes 14 No ❑ NA [I NE
❑ Yes
6 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
JN No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
g] No
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
ElF Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 7g- /5
Date of Inspection 1Z —/—O
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes lNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes [34 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
']of z
2-- 1-7V#Z--,3 7WZ—JD
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: SD L.) C
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): _. 7�, 2 53
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [A 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 29 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
$. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require Yes No ❑ ❑ NA NE
maintenance or improvement? ❑
Waste Ai mlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? r
A
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
[]Outside of Acceptable Crop Window Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) j L, j a_
13. Soil type(s) / Vn it LA-Q
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
1$ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
No
❑NA
❑NE
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
�No
El NA
El NE
Comments (refer to question. ft Explain :any YESanswers'andlor any recomitiendatioas or any other comments
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary).:
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Phone /Q 33 .3 33V
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
Page 2 of 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 7 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists El Design El maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �' No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 1� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
V
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
`ice No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
(3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2T Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
``t' No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
V1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
F3 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
(fJ 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
i 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
V3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit • Compliance Inspection ` 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit • Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: fl; S County: Region:
Farm Name: 95 0 7 " Z p Owner Email:
Owner Name: &/U'1�02xld Aeb 4fJIV Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: ^ RCNdt, �4+ti4Q��G�
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator: ��� Blyd•L✓/✓
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: 0 O = ' [� « Longitude:[--] o E= , E
Design Current
Design
Current. Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry
Capacity
Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish ❑ La er
El Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Wean to Feeder
_ ❑Non -La er
® Feeder to Finish 1040
❑ Farrow to Wean I I pry poultry
El Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder 2-40
❑ La ers
❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts on -Layers
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Pullets
❑ Boars
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
❑ Turkeys
Other ❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other ❑ Other
Number a€ Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
t9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a_ Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
NJ 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
XfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
Pd No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: 7 S— /S Date of Inspection -07—
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes �0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a, if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: '744'Z— 3 _ Z Z5o2
a,FrON
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):Su5�-
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [M 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 [ rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes [1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes [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?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window /❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
�!
12. Crop type(s) Rey- v4 " d c L. 5►f'�7 1ita�. S/sfQ�i�ei�a.`ni {eve
13. Soil type(s) 111p W oL s
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAW MP? ❑ Yes [9No ❑ 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 29 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):'
Reviewerlinspector Name i e. Zt V e—f 5 Phone:
Resiewer/Inspector Signature: Date: G —07— Zad w
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

r
Facility Number: % — f jr Date of inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [�JNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El 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
CRNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
QgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
EgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
L@ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
JR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
XJ 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
9 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
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
X] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments,andlor Drawi
: ._
... r
Paige 3 of I2128104

�-- y®,Davtston of�Water Qualtt} -
--_, : �� .
rMfN:umber $ 15 Q sl n f�Spll and Weer Conservat2on
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit O Routine 0 Complaint Q Follow up O Referral O Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ��Z '� Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: P-06esv^j^j
Farm Name: - Z Owner Email:
Owner Name: nA 4 t.-p-hPhone:
Bailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facilitv Contact- Title:
Onsite Representative: �aaIV�Vtleil�
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phone No:
Region: FRO__
Integrator: /+�I �+��>l w. IBt✓/�
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = O = I = 11
Longitude: 0 0 0 6 = ff
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
I❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other I EA
Discharges & Stream impacts
1 _ Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Cattle
Design Current,
Capacity Population
❑
Daia Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Wig Heifei
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cowl
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, notifv DWQ)
2. Is there evidence ofa 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 [ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
CZ No
❑ Yes
[K No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 1 g - i Date of Inspection 1/ -Z 9- D 5
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfalI) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes C9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 74g2_ -1 . 7 µ4z -_2 . T4010J;0N
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 47 L%NI�CNE�.shi be►o�.s 1-4VL� 5C<iA R..-
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [XNo [DNA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes Dd No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
29 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
l l . Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
[N No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals
(Cu, Zn, etc.)
[]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l 0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate
Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window Evidence of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
f❑
12. Crop type(s) Z3t,-Af e t e4ec. [ a �a�G /�ta s, SI Lt �/� Kt i ICI
LO u ceseej
13. Soil type(s) /VbA
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination, ❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[3 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
i Explain:any=Y,ESrh
Reviewer/Inspector Name ��i �¢.V. .�'S Phone: (9/0) gia -/S
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ft Date:
12128104 Condnued

Facility Number: `7 g - j 5 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [S No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes EN No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers El 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?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32_ Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Add tioaaiACommetEt9 iind/or Drawli
❑ Yes
[8No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
• ® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[H No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[]Yes Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
CgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: !a/1 s" /� Tune• � : /�
Faciiity Number rJ
Q Not Operatioual Q Below Threshold
P Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Fart Name: G �ci r +�*. '} _ . .� _ _ _ _ .. County- .... �o �s��v •• I' �'Z>
Owner Name: cy ------ Phalle No:
Mailing Address: _ „_ oi� _ �_.` �a c� 1�7�, /r, /V c ,5
Facilitv Contact:
Title:
Phone No:
Onsite Representative: /-)-,a en a A"r ` •✓ Integrator. ��u' ,hy '-gee w
Certified Operator- -r J A n S • �* it�a Operator Certification Number: �
Location of Farm:
•
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �• �' Du Longitude �• �' �u
Desagu Carrertt Desga Cnarmt Current
Swine Po ` 'on__'Capacity.'KPo lion. Cattle -.po on
Wean to Feeder = Layer Dairy
Feeder to Finish Non -Layer Non -Dairy -
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder /Z o o Other
Farrow to Finish - TO81
D�st$n
Gilts _� {
Boars Tota1'snw'
N�I1er �LS�ODI3S �
Diseitarees & Stream Ln cts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated au ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a_ if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
C. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: !x^"�� a cam_____ � n/o-Ab,v
Freeboard (inches):
Y21I2M
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
/YM
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [I No
❑ Yes [I No
❑ Yes IS No
Structure 6
C

Facility Number: 7 ? -- /s Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes 0 No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or El Of No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancerimprovement? ❑ Yes E6 No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes l j No
1 I _ Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
ZD
12. Crop type ( rrn cr�Qa. ���. to,C, se" a / t G r z t "
13. Do the receiving crops differ with thoseldesignated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Odor Issues
17. 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?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
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
Air Quality representative immediately.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
ReviewerlInspector Signature:
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 1J No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes O No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes 0 No
'ram= ® Feld Copy ❑ Final Notes E
Date: /ol.2 5-/0Y
12/12/03
Condnued

Faulty Number: 7JO — /5- Date of inspection o%�
Reauired Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? U yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
jNo
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
[ gNo
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
O No
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewerlinspector fail to discuss review/mspecdon with on -sire representative?
❑ Yes
UE1 No
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[O No
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
0 No
NMES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, slip questions 31-35)
® Yes
❑ No
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
14 No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
O No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
M No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
09 Yes
❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall E31nspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
12112103

Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
1 Date of Visit: Time:
Facilim Number
..— ... loot Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: D County: k6I� e <,s,
Owner Name: J2 Ct,r`an. Crira L i A<_ Phone No: 1.00-0
;?,&A 8
'Mailing address: PtD i_ 6R,x 7 I i0znxr' (Jid 1i - /a G. _
Facility Contact: 9,Q (3C%M[ Title: _Soex-i A I Sfr __ Phone No: _ S4 i m
Onsite Representative: ka ('� rjt+L•`'kkf _ Integrator: R 0 <0 '
Certified Operator: r Operator Certification Number: 2, 3S1P
Location of Farm:
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �° �� Longitude
Design Current
Swine f an*rift Pnnnlatinn
❑ Wean to Feeder
EbD
® Feeder to Finish
14,Low
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow- to Feeder
® Farrow to Finish
Uo
260
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Ca acity Poritflation
❑ Laver I F
Dairy
❑Non -Laver Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons I :L I 10 Subsurface Drains Present II❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Manaaement'Svstem
Discharges & Stream impacts
1- Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach N ater of the State? (if yes, notify D WQ)
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in-al/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection 8 Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: I- < — _it'LZ -
Freeboard (inches): 3 S V 4 5
05IV3101 C.-I
❑ Yes IP No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
(8 No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: Yg — Date of Inspection •�3
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?
❑ Yes PQ10
❑ Yes QjNo
❑ Yes [� No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes �] No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate. gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes M No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes [�j No
11. is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes P9 No
12. Crop type (I fry'n Lsz �L 4- Sir- U 6!' aVrs CCe(
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWIbIP)? ❑ 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
Re aired Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
ERNo
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
[5jNo
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation. freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
5,No
20.
is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
P N-o
21.
Did the facility• fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
132 No
22.
Fail to notify regional DRVQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
g,No
(ie discharge, freeboard problems. over application)
23_
Did Reviewerinspector fail to discuss reviewiinspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[&No
24_
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[P No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
q No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
...-�=�.-..� : .. ___ra...r-
Comments;(refer to question fi..'UOISm any YES answers and/ar any recommendatmns.oraw ather commeats r
Use drawings- of facility to better explain situations. (tese addional;pages ssessary)� 0 Field Copv ❑ Final Notes
W iV�. Z/ W !'iar V L ��1• Q mot- 4- \,
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: = Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: qj — Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are them any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
05103101
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 14 No
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No

Type of Visit $Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification . _0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: �� ��� Time:
rOFaciliri• Number 7 /
Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: �Ylvk�.J e O [�Afl�!/''�� ��1��" �}7 County: /�4biEdr J
Owner Name: - -- ��,P_oc.�J r3� i/iaa ^7O�i►J.� Phone No:
Mailing Address: — _� %� �II,�. _,,, G✓.9��l✓ / y 3
Facility Contact: d • �,<< Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative- • Q &X•t//� Integrator:f
Certified Operator: _ JU��''�4 �,�ti� S.C- Operator Certification Number: Z3S~76
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' 0 0 u Longitude 0' 0 0
Discharges & Stream impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any pan of the operation?
❑ Yes �$'No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifies
Freeboard (inches): 1717 "_
05103101
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes PrNo
❑ Yes to No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes �rNo
Structure 6
Continued

Faculty Number: 70'--— Date of Inspection
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 anv 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?
❑ Yes [�iNo
❑ Yes PiNo
❑ Yes UNo
❑ Yes MNo
❑ Yes PqNo
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
$No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
PrNo
12.
Crop type
TZ
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
RNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
P No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
F@ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
KNo
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
KNo
Reauired Records & Documents
17_
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
NO
�`
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, de!�n, ems, etc.)
❑ Yes
XNo
19.
Does record beeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
�ffNo
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
IgNo
21-
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
o
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
RNo
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Cutnments (refer to gtsestioi #)' Epany YES susv eis andforat►y recaniutendatutns nr anv.other comments. _
Use auig`s ofai�rtv"to better ezplatrt sitiiatioiw( a additional pages as necessary l t=
f dr-w
_ .. _ �.. � .�. Field Copv Final 'Notes
al -
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

ri
Facility Dumber: 7 -- Date of Inspection /
Odor Issues
25.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
FO Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
No
28,
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)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
,�] No
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_)
❑ Yes
XNo
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
W No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
,1 No
.Additional:Comments.and/ar Drawings:
a
05103101

i
(Type of Visit Pq Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit PA Routine O Complaint. O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other I ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time: 1
Nat Operational 0 Below Threshold
Kfermitted 13 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name:..s...... 5... .. 2.�........_ county:...... A.AeSG>�� ..................... ... _.
Owner Name:..... .row n. S.....d .... a r k..Iin:.�....................... Phone No......... .r�v. �� ........ .._..__ .
4
Facility Contact: ........1[ _ .O'rL!n&�.......... Title: __ Phone Phone No:.............
Mailing Address: SQA `�.... _. .. ..... ............ ...................... ..... j.__l�1
Onsite Representative: ... .-..f..�.�.....r !................................... Integrator:......_ .......... .............._...
..... ...................
Certified Operator . e„ 2 3�
pe •......,. !'............................Cc,i_"..............._..._.._._... Operator Certification Number:,
Location of Farm:
© Swine' ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • A 64 Longitude • 9 �u
- -
Design ,Current Design Cuirreat
:.5vvtae
; . .:..Ca...,; , Po elation
-poultiry
Cri' ' ci .. Po elation °- - Cattle =
eeder
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
_-Finish
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
Wean
Feeder
FF
OtherFinish
TOW Desigtn.Cepacity
'Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holdmig Ponta / SE►Lid'.Trips; ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon. ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed- what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: ......r�+tr�4}................
Freeboard (inches): 412 L[
5100 I
❑ Yes / No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes 5�4o
❑ Yes flfle-
❑ Yes
Structure 6
Continued on back

J
Facility Number: Date of Inspection ^D
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes jI No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes �No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes o
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes o
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ANo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessivy Ponding KPAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload J(Yes ❑ No
12. Crop h'Pe % '� I"a zed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designate4n the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes P(No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
XNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
kNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
[No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
k No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
$(No
Reuuired
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
$ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
VNo
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
NNo
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
KNo
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
9No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
RNo
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
CKNo
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
yiQrttiQnls:eir dc�000mere pgtet} d>srrizig tjt4s'VWjt; Yoi>t ec ipe ti iri;ti �r .
•cotes•deace:a]wutithis��sit:--•�--•�-• •--- • .•-• -...- - - - - - _... .
��• /(41f A LI�IDM �9 Ga3GL3 ��C�p� �i a r
w 8 .�*JS r..dy� S'f'fq��� *. .
P � �
NeeJ l ou� ba&ksta�ts
Reviewer/Inspector Name -
.F
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5100

Facility Number: 1? _.1 Date of Inspection
Printed on: 1 /4/2001
30. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (Le_ residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
31. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
32. 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.)
33. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
34. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ YesANo
❑ Ye No
❑ Yes 11'\No
❑ Yes 11�o
❑ Yes ❑ No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Reviewer/Inspector Name = F�F b 3i 5=
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
01/01/01

Type of Visit d Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit t Routine O Complaint O Follow up Q Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: I G Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: County:
NqpFarm Name: -Owner Email:
Owner Name: W flAc Phone: _
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: l fK0015 Title:
u
Onsite Representative: Cbh
Certified Operator: n
Back-up Operator:
Region: FA0
Phone No:
Integrator: &1j'0_4 �' ac
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = e = 6 a u Longitude: = ° = 1 = W
Design Current Design Current Design
Current
Swine Capacity Population Weto�altry Capacity Populon$ a Capacity
Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
I❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish I
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
oult
❑ Layers
❑ D Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
� x`
�-N umtier.� oUStructures:
Other
El Turkeys
❑ `I'urke Poults
❑ Other ❑ Other
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
hm
p NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
PNA
❑ 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
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12128,104
Continued

B
I,
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection e
Required Records & Documents
19. 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 ❑Maps ❑Other
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes No ❑NA ONE
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes P 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?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
r No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes
91No
El NA
El NE
❑ Yes
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes;No
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
V?No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�SNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
1PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12/28/04

• Facility Number: Date of Inspection I SI�Z�SI,/Q I
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ElNA [INE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ElYes No NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Struc /-rye 2 Structure Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in).
Observed Freeboard (in):
r
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 P
No ❑NA ❑NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes )] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ElNA [INE
ElExcessive Ponding ElHydraulic Overload ElFrozen Ground El Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.) Lr
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Cro indow ❑ Evid nce of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) r
"�, 0WUqW
13. Soil type(s) No ks AP
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
LoNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
PI No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
P] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES; answers and/or any recommendations or any otberpco�mments '
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):. s
Reviewer/Inspector Name I Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 1
Page 6 of s IZIZVU4 Uontinuea

Type of Visit 0 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 ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ���] Arrival Time: Departure Time: D-'LYl County: O h Region d-2-1-p
Farm Name: y Owner Email:
Owner Name: f Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physics! Address: ke Facility Contact: t'""'t f3 �4 Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: _ Integrator:� - 117
U-41-1,
Certified Operator: �1 D Operator Certification Number: / U0S4
Sack -up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = e = 1 = l{ Longitude: = ° = I =
Swine
Design CurrentT
Gap ty. Popes on Wet Poultry
Design Current ,
Capp City P�opula n Cattle
Design
Cap sty
Current
Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
I
Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to feeder
❑ Non -La er
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
-
❑Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
i " ❑ Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
a ers
El Layers,
❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
❑Giits
� ❑Non -La Non -Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
El Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 10 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
ONA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
INA
❑ 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
,
0'NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number:
Date of Inspection S /
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
11'es
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
P NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 SlPcture 3 Structure 4
Identifier: tw!
Structure 5
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
N y
c7�lr
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
0
[INA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
@2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ®No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require El NA [I NE
maintenance or improvement? El Yes � No
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ElNE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 54 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) RQVVVLt.( & L_t7"l1�1, . 7%1t CT,,ZUJV tE!��
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
P%No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
in No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[:] Yes
N 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
r
F) No
❑ NA
❑ NE
omments feAto gnesbon## •Explain any YES ans�a�ers and/or anytrecommenyd�attons'. j any other comments.
� �.n1..�iSls�.y.. � 3 - �3�'i�f� "1R• Y
,Use drawtng5 of facilityto betteraeaplatn srtuateons: (use,additZona! pages as essary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name — Phone: 3YJ
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: ,XI Oq
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

i
Facility Number: j Date of Inspection r o 9
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 55 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ ❑ Maps
Design
g p El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes V3 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 T No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23_ If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
NkNo
❑ 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
1] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
iA No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additionah.Cammedts and/or Drawut A.
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit O'Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit GHCoutine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 3- �- D Arrival Time: �� S� Departure Time: h`�O County: 46GZ'50 r./ Region:
Farm Name:�`^'t Owner Email:
Owner Name: �"f �'"`�Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ��+�Jr`•4Gr��✓ Title: �"�''�"' Phone No: Onsite Representative: Integrator: /K��� Z?/Zr4fA//
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [� Q = [� « Longitude: [� o [� t = «
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacih Population
Wet Poultry C►►opacity Population
@attle Capacity Population
❑ WeanaFeeder
❑ Layer
❑Dai Cow
❑ Wean
❑ Non -Layer
❑Dai Calf
21 Feede
❑ Dai Heifer
Farro
l
❑ D CowFarroZAo
❑n-Dairy
❑ La ers
❑ Farro
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑Non -La ers
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
_
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Turkey Pouits
Number of Structures:
❑ Other
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1 _ Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
9 No
Cl NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
[P 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. [s there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
5M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12128104
Continued

.. i
Facility Number: 7VI — �.S
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes CYNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes OPNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure i Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: Sri 1
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):. / 1�+
3S h
Observed Freeboard (in): 35 ., „ �z _ (o
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes [KNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(iel 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 �O 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 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10_ Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need El Yes ®No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 1E 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 AreaILL
1
12. Crop type(s)1Eer"-L1� t ` M:Z Gs r �� ; 5OM [ e5 /Gi,
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
RM 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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment'?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments refer to question - � � 3
( q #}:.Explain any YES answers and/or.any recommendations or any;o6iier comments -;:
Use drawings.of facility. to: better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
w
pp
Reviewer/Inspector Name _ _ phone:
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: % $— Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [RTlo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [!I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists El Design El 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 I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 91 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
J2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
© No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
JB 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
3 I.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ 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
,M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Ii ype of visit: W uompuance inspection V vperanon xeview v btructure r vatuanon t-J iecnmcai Assistance
Reason for Visit: 4D Routine Q Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: /j Arrival Time: 70WkDeparture Time:.` Zq ounty: 695-�
Farm Name: 1-f H Z Owner Email:
Owner Name: Ott C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: / 4 jr,e- ` c4dC/ Title:
Phone:
Region: r__A®
Onsite Representative: Integrator: ��/f Awwo
Certified Operator: �b V�r� CC�,L. Certification Number: 30
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current Design Current Design Currenlig t
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
I
INon-Layer
I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
44 {BOO
12vo
�~ Dairy Heifer
Design Current Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Layers Beef Stocker
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
_
Othe
Other
keys
key Poults
Other
Dischartres 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)?
[:]Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes [:]No
[ NA ❑NE
�NA ❑NE
d. Does the 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 [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

ivacility' Number: - / Date of Inspection: - j-
I
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
(� NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: 15011/ -T �
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 36- 37
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-5 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
[] Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes X] 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 DriLQ/
Application Outside of Approved Area
�"�12. Crop Type(s): WDt SS 6
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those deltnated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
l9. 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 (A No
[-]Yes rO No
[:]Yes [P No
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes Q§ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ WUP ❑Checklists [] Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes P No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" 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
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - 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 P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes T No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
[:]Yes [ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
T
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWW?
❑ Yes ] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional-recoinniendations;or any -other comments:
Use drawungs:of facility to better explain sitiiatiuns (use additional pages as necessary)
w�
S,
Reviewer/Inspector Name: �Q Phone: 91D�-/f33• -3 ?0D
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 3 of 3 21412011

Type of Visit: v Compliance inspection V operation Review V structure Evaluation L) 1 ethnical Assistance
Reason for Visit: i Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: *11 1 Z I Arrival Time: Departure Time: I 0"I :V0k2-. County: A0 VG�
Farm Name: `1�1—J'Td+� Owner Email:
Owner Name: PA U*D ,6kV ) n -r L 5— Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: �p (,�
GjFacility Contact: !' i 6 Title: Phone:
W
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: TOL, rp h
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Region: rpw
Integrator: lVlUAW (,tom
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design`Gurrent
Demos*gn Cnt
Design Current
Swine ° Capacrty�, Pop.
Wet Poultry
_� Capacity 1'op*
Cattle Capacity Pop.
��
Wean to Finish
Layer
iry Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
I
i Calf
Feeder to Finish
�"
�4_�s
Dai Heifer
Farrow to Weanwr�y�
Design°Cent''
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
2ApO
D , P,oulta
act Po
Non-Dai
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
r �
Turke s
Otheri
Turkey Poults
Other I
I 10ther
Discharues and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
1P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
O NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
1P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
[n No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
No
1�_-Mga NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure`3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: So W r- -T/ i tit
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
I
Observed Freeboard (in): i r `r ` , g Lt #
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
U Yes
[g No
U NA
U NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
F9
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
jpNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
TT
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
1p No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Qg No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
[] Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
0 Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
L�
❑WLTP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis [] Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
[] NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

1~acili Number: -115 Date of Inspection: 317117
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No [DNA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? [-]Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ YesgNo
No IV- NA ❑ NE
Otber 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 I'M No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes No
[:]Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ONE
❑NA ❑NE
(Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers,and/or any additional recommendations or any other�comments. I
Use`drawin s' of facility to better explain situations (use. additional pap_es as necessary):
?, (OLI (2-.
S4 vi-ik 3Ni7-,
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 0 33W1111
Date: (TItv
21412011

Type of Visit: 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation p Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint Q Follow-up Q Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time:1 M�oCa4Departure Time: �•, County: RoBEx Region: JRZ
Farm Name: riff y-a 1 Owner Email:
Owner Name: MU !LAj `gt_OW9Nl LLC- Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: t rY10t?S Title:
bj
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
1011$A [ Girl
Back-up Operator: 1'ke Anenc 5
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number: A3510
Certification Number: 905q 7V _
Longitude:
Design
Current - "=- '`
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity
Pope- tl'Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
ILaYCT
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
I I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
4 (Lip
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
'"
Design
Current
Cow
Farrow to Feeder
A 00
P.
Non-Dalry
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
"u.
Turkeys
Other
Lro.
` '.:
Turkey Poults
Other
- - - -
a
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other_
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d_ Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [�q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
[—]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes P No
[:]Yes U1 No
NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
[�NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page l of 3 214,12011 Continued

Fscili 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 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
to
Structure 6
Identifier: SoW AVE In W
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Freeboard 3 t]
Observed (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
%% No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
T
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes F No [DNA ❑ 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 Windo�w�.,�J^ /[❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): L. asf a Rum" �C�W GSS (d� tT;S�Jr Sfi . �iri I) _
13. Soil Type(s): Piol Qk— PtA Wwinam —WaB
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those desigilated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design [] Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes FZ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [—]Yes " No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes q] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes W 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)
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes W No
31. Do subsurface file drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [:]Yes No
Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes No
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes No
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
0 NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Comments (refer to question
iUse'deawings of facility to better ezplaln situations (us .e•additional -pages as necessary).' Y er'co menu.
x ain an YES answers and/or an additional recommendations or an . h
R-ece4s rev (e,-re-J
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
L
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 10 -3SCb
Date: 11
21412011

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number. 780015 Facility Status: Active
Permit AWS780015
❑ Denied Access
Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Dale:
Reason for Visit Routine County:
Robeson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit 02/06/2017 Entry Time: 01:00 pm Exit Time: 2:00 pm Incident 9
Farm Name: Farm 7442
Owner Email:
Owner. Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: Sri 980 2673-B Oakland Rd
Saint Pauls NC 28384
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator.
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude:
34° 49' 32" Longitude:
78" 56' 37"
95 south from Fayetteville. left on 1726 to 1980. farm on left 1.5 miles.
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 O1C(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Tide Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone :
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone:
Primary Inspector:
inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
74421 D = 58"
Robert Marble
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Perrnit: AWS780015 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780015
Inspection Date: 02/06/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
❑ Swine - Farrow to Wean
1,200
Swine - Feeder to Finish
4,600
Swine - Wean to Feeder
3,560
Total Design Capacity: 9,360
Total SSLW: 1,247,400
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
TWA
19.50
52.00
Lagoon
7442-2
19.50
51.00
Lagoon
7442-3
19.50
Lagoon
7442-4 ISOLATION
19.50
Lagoon
7442HB
19.50
Lagoon
7442N
19.50
Lagoon
7442S
19.50
Lagoon
ISOLATION
19.50
page: 2

Permit: AWS780015 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 780015
Inspection Date: 02/06/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
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
❑
M ❑
❑
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 (LeJ large
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
E ❑
❑
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 NgNa No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
maintenanoe 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 100/o/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: AWS780015 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brawn LLC Facility Number. 780015
Inspection Date: 02/06/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Norfolk loamy sand, o to 2%
slopes
Soil Type 2
Wagram loamy sand, o to
6% slopes
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ ❑ ❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ 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?
[] ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of property operating waste application equipment?
❑ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yea No 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 ❑
El
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
E ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS780015 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780015
Inspection Date: 02/06/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na 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?
❑
01111
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?
❑
N ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
E ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below.
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure -to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑0
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31, Do subsurface file 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 Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on -site representative?
❑
N ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

0 Division of Wafter Resources
El Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 780015 Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS780015
Denied Access
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit: Routine County:
Robeson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 03/16/2015 Entry Time: 12:00 pm Exit Time: I:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name: Farm 7442
Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brawn LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: SO980 2673-B Oakland Rd
Saint Pauls NC 28384
Facility Status: Compliant Not Compliant Integrator.
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude:
34" 49' 32" Longitude:
78' 56' 37"
95 south from fayenevitle. left on 1726 to 1980. farm on left 1.5 miles.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col. Stor. & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: James Brian McGugan Operator Certification Number: 986752
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone:
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone:
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS780015 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780015
Inspection Date: 03/16/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine -Farrow to Feeder
1,200
Swine -Feeder to Finish
4,600
Total Design Capacity: 5,800
Total SSLW: 1,247,400
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
7442-1
19.50
25.00
Lagoon
7442-2
19.50
30.00
Lagoon
7442-3
19.50
Lagoon
74424 ISOLATION
19.50
43.00
Lagoon
7442HB
19.50
Lagoon
7442N
19.50
Lagoon
7442S
19.50
Lagoon
ISOLATION
19.50
page: 2

I
Permit: AWS780015 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780015
Inspection Date: 03/16/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
01111
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)
❑
❑ E
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the Stale (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ N
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na 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 (LeJ large
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
❑
N ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
E ❑
❑
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
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?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS780015 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780015
Inspection Date: 03/16/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Aoolication
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Norfolk
Soil Type 2
Wagram
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
M ❑
❑
Management Pian(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?
❑
M ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
M ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
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: AWS780015 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780015
Inspection Date: 03/16/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No No 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
❑
M ❑
❑
(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 PDA 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?
ONE][]
27. Did the facility fail'to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
M ❑
❑
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,
❑
M ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

f
0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ OtherAgency
Facility Number. 780015 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS780015
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Robeson Region:
Date of Visit: 03/18/2014 Entry Time: 02:00 pm Exit Time: 2:30 pm Incident #
Farm Name: Farm 7442 Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC Phone:
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: Sr1960 2673-B Oakland Rd Saint Pauls NC 28384
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34" 49' 32" Longitude: 78" 56' 37"
95 south from fayetteville. left on 1726 to 1980. farm on left 1.5 miles.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
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: Dale:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Lagoon levels:
74421 = 39"
74421 D = 54"
74422 = 30"
Records reviewed 2126/14.
Site visit 3/18/14,
❑ Denied Access
FayetlevUle
910-296-1800
page: 1

A
Permit: AWS780015 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780015
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
rl Swine -Farrow to Feeder
❑ Swine - Feeder to Finish
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
7442-1
19.50
Lagoon
7442-2
19.50
Lagoon
7442-3
19.50
Lagoon
7442-4 ISOLATION
19.50
Lagoon
7442HB
19.50
Lagoon
7442N
19.50
Lagoon
7442S
19.50
i.agoon
ISOLATION
19.50
page: 2

Permit: AWS780015 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780015
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na No
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
[]
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑
❑
b. Did 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)
❑
❑ 0
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na No,
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 (Le./ 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?
❑
M ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na 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 > 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: AWS780015 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
780015
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
lras NQ Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Norfolk
Soil Type 2
Wagram
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ 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?
❑ M ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
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?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
j]
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS780015 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780015
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Ye
No Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
Cl
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
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
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?
❑
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 Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
0
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

M Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number.
780015 Facility Status:
Active permit: AWS780015
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Robeson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
03/11/2013 Entry Time: 08:30 am
Exit Time: 9:45 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Farm 7442
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-295-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
Sr1980 2673-B Oakland Rd
Saint Pauls NC 28384
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 34° 49' 32" Longitude:
78° 56' 37"
95 south from fayetteville. left on 1726 to 1980. farm on left 1.5 miles.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: John S Cain Operator Certification Number: 23570
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 2115113
Site visit 3111113
page: 1

Permit: AVVS780015 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 780015
Inspection Date: 03/11/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Feeder
1,200
Swine - Feeder to Finish
4.600
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
7442-1
19.50
Lagoon
7442-2
19.50
Lagoon
7442-3
19.50
Lagoon
7442-4 ISOLATION
19.50
Lagoon
7442HB
19.50
Lagoon
7442N
19.50
Lagoon
7442S
19.50
Lagoon
ISOLATION
19.50
page: 2

Permit: AWS780015 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780015
Inspection Date: 03/11/13 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na He
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)
❑
[10
❑
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)
❑
Elm
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
if yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS780015 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780015
Inspection Date: 03/11/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Nortolk
Soil Type 2
Wagram
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
■ ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
E ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
O ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No No Ne
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?
❑ E ❑ ❑
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: AWS780015 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
780015
Inspection Date: 03/11/13 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?
❑
M ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
M ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
moo
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 ❑
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
page: 5