780024_INSPECTIONS_20171231

13 Division of Soil and.Water Conservation -Operation Revtew
E3Division of Soiland Water,Consei�vat<on =:Compliance=Inspection .
® Division of Water Qualtty = Compliance Inspection
_... ,.,Q Other Agency Operation ReAew< z r'r r
I® Route Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DS«'C review Q Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection � lu Zv✓r a
Time of Inspection = / S— 24 hr. (hh:min)
® Permitted © Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified [3 Registered JE3 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
r
Farm Name: ..........�c.P� ... fir- .T..v:c:'.................--...._..................... County: ...... o...:Y. v
fl / ........................................."I...........
Owner Name: ; r1�-'` t_.....hf�r../....---................................... Phone No: .....(..�/�J� 3
Facility Contact: ........tifUl v^' .. aF?:n.�7.......... Title :.......................... Phone No:
ti
Mailing Address: �h.!...... Al 61fc�✓lr../�.C.....2.�.3��i[........ ...................�.....
Onsite Representative:_.......................................................................................................... Integrator: ........ )&l ...........
Certified Operator:..........iN._.._..-r��).�!t!4............. .. Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
...................
....................---.- - -----...........................-----...................................................................
. _................_............. - .........................
..
--..................:...
............................................................... �
Latitude �• �` �� Longitude �• C�° ���
Design Current . Design Current Design Current
Swine' -. Capacity Population Poultry. Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑Dairy
Feeder to Finish �'� �,�"Q ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other77
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
- ❑ Gilts x
s_LL Boars Total SSLW .' ❑- -_ .. � -
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes IkNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other / `
a. [f discharge is observed, was the conveyance than -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
Identifier: Freeboard (inches): .......... ,.?z/...qq
.,r 1..1 .......
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
5_ Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes y No
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ Yes
CR No
❑ Yes V No
Structure b
...................................
❑ Yes No
Continued on back

Facility Number: 7,f — Zsi Date of Inspection
6. Arc 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?
XYes ❑ 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 No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes ANo
11. Is there evidence of over application? []Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes X'No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops dffer with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes P(No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes P No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes �O No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes Q No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes XNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes No
Reuuired Records & Document,,;
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ,No
18. Docci[ity fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily availa�
(ie WUP •hecklists, design, maps, etc.) Ye
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil 5ami2le reports) ,Yes ❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes W No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes Off No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit'?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes j$'No
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 jq No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes XNo
�o viol'aii0hs'oi-• deficiencies •were h0fpii• OtWing #his'visit' - :Y:oi� wili•i eeeiye iio further
corresparide * 'e' ab' ' this visit: . .
Comments (refer to:questeon #) -Elcptarn any YES answers and/or any recommendations oT any other comments - "" - '
Use:drawm of fa ' _. W s r: ;
gs ciltty to bettei.explain srtuattons {use:addrbonal pages as necessary) ira t, —_,
-- �._ -
7; PjVv-d .d.P.o14e n4.Iro4Ca' �k• `�� ,� ✓d W -E o'v, r� ,a�/e 10
V I �✓�L✓� G/drSrS���� di✓ T/7�' iP� ��lt � !�.�. �Af.4 /i�.®� �f.Sdr�/�/� �/Y.cf/�
�y N�f`� � Go//C!',�✓�%1-Q/^�i '.' .Su, /.r?��G'� .9.V.r.L��. �pp.:�. ,4-:�`'tcJ.s{�"
Reviewer/Inspector Names"'
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: --/,2D ZllTi9
4/ /✓(/r �ivr/ �/I/.e'�f7�0 .b�-�'�.�'�� /r✓ tli�(�i� , xzs �i�z�ir%>

Facility Number: 7P — rf Date of Inspection / ZtliU
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below Yes ❑ No
' liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes *0
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 blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes b(No
31 _ Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? Cl Yes 0 No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes �(No
Additionai,,-Comments-and/orCd►Y111g5:- Tay - i_-, r' -

n
FariiliityvN laer "
Type of Visit: COTomplia ce Inspection U Oper tion Review 0 Structure Evaluation U Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: outine 0 Complaint Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: /`/ Arrival Time: ;3 Departure Time: ,` 3 i, County: .a_ r__ Region: 1 FD
Farm Name: �,( i,� r-d / Gzrrrz' 5, _a5n (f
Owner Name: +! V H -F, tU,")
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: �_Zfe�
Back-up Operator:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Title: tit)" c_- vl-' Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number: / "/ 4
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current
Design Current
rm
Design V
rentptle Capacityop.
Wean to Finish
La er
DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
3
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Design Current:
©. Poul Ca ci ��P,©
Layers
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder'
D Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish"'
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Boars
Non -Layers
Pullets
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Turke s
Turk e Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA
x
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes No ❑NA ❑NE
441,
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA WR E
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA E
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - L Date of Ins ection:
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 t Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): /
Observed Freeboard (in): _57 '4,64"- Fair (—e_024
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? [] Yes CR No [j NA Q 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 DWR
T Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
[] NA
J4 NE
& 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
those designated 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?
❑ Yes 2] No ❑ NA
❑ Yes [A No ❑ NA
[:]Yes No ❑ NA
❑ Yes No ❑ NA
[:]Yes No ❑ NA
NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
Reuuired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ONE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ®.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists [:]Design ❑Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall [:]Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 54No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes U�J_No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: % - P Date of inspection: 11-13-17
i
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [M No
25. Is the facility out ofcompliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ® No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ® No
Other issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes ® No
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 E�jNo
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 21 No
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
❑ 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/[nspector 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
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Comments refer to uestia' y ( question #)': Ezpl>iiin any YES and/or additional recommendations or any other coMmeots.:;.r- , .
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages: as necessary).,;,,
,✓✓ 1
V; Y,4
'74 j
1
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 11—/3—,;;�U/
Page 3 of 3 21412015

w
Type of Visit: -? Coroutine
nce Inspection U Operation Review U Structure Evaluation U Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: —/ Arrival Time: i i v_� " Departure Time: : D� County: ) b Y,3-,Region:
Farm Name: 6Vaai Owner Email:
Owner Name:�� 77 f,(f� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ���,(/�r�� Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:-��
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Integrator: - " I r/'1 /
Certification Number: _ 14r�>_/ 4=1
Certification Number:
Longitude.
Design Kc.urrent
Swine "i Capacity In
Wean to Finish
Pop. `
Wet Poultry
Layer
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
i, Design Current
Cat#le Capacity Pop.
DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
Non -Layer
Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dai Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D . P,oul
Ca aci
P.o .
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
ms�i
Is
I'I
Pullets
Turkeys
Beef Brood Cow
p t
Other p
1
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters ofthe State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes [a o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
[-fo
❑ Yes
E] No
❑NA ONE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - -4f JDateof Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? [] Yes No
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Identifier:
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3l
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 [a'*No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes E]�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [l] 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 [3-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10_ Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes El -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 ❑ EvidenceofWind Drift /❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Types):C p✓'!? 1_w` �5> r.��� / G�IT�=—.�/.ern /era; L / r
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
E]'<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
[�J'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
FNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
El"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
[J'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 �lo
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall 0 Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1 " Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes �o
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 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Ins ection: /
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes F,7r 10 ❑ NA ❑ NE
25_ Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [ o ❑ 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?
Ifyes, 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
ga o
❑ NA
❑ NE
[] Yes
[]'<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 0'1'qo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [n"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E rvO ❑ NA ❑ NE
�o
❑NA
❑NE
[TNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Q'�lo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
Comments (refer to question # ): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other cbmments,
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Nam+ 1
1 Zf-- LI? Iz&
UJ
k1r � � >� �� D�vup O''`� ✓'7 r_ JL t�� -� ,�"1� r Vh-�L�/�J
I
-77 T/i w t o- .
_:�7e 7t 7s 04�e_ cif 1170
fir! in h IWJ /yl��t' � f z'�".�rrt%✓�'r �'`� h?t.�.r�3 � �-L C 1 r-.r�r f c� T/t %s �a rr-
%x-T / A 7--
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatui
Page 3of3
Phone:
Date:
214120l S

IN
Type of Visit: Q Compliance Inspection U Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint ollow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: — — / Arrival Time: {y ; c� Departure Time: County: Region: /LT t7
Farm Name: Lt),.r y f=a f4,1 Owner Email:
Owner Name: i4a __J_7,_ jar Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: -j-0 Title: O J h T-�� Phone:
Onsite Representative: r � Integrator: �i1 /
_ _ r%1 -
Certified Operator: Certification Number: 1JP1714
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification ;Number:
Longitude:
�• p Dent n Current . Wet i'oult . CaknG49rentz , Design Current
�.
Swine Ca actt Po aceestgCapacp ypp a
Wean to Finish La er FDairy Cow
Wean to Feeder Non -La er Calf
Feeder to Finish V- j¢ - aHeifer
Farrow to Wean D'eR x u"rrent Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder Dry P,oult . Ca act Pa Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish Beef Stocker
FW.
Gilts Beef Feeder
�Nj
Boars Beef Brood Cow
r y
f
tJtherTurkeyx r.
r
r
Other h;np
Layers
'Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Paints
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)`?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
?. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Z] Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes I n No
❑ NA ❑ NE
[] NA ❑ NE
❑ NA �] NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

-j 1117acility Number: % - '__7_ jDate of Inspection: -1
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Spillway?:
®No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
Designed Freeboard (in): �Z 7 _
Observed Freeboard (in): 13
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
[Y�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
a No
❑ NA
0 NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat,
notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Eg 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. 5S Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraalic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus 'Z Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop WindowL l ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): u)��-:✓`
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated 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
19, Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20, Does the facility rail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
® NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA J�q NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [S NE
❑ Yes [:]No ❑ NA Cn-NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [j NE
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Designt ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. 4Yes ❑ 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 rail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
23. If selected, did the facility tail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA �NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ONE
❑ NA ®—NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

y Facility Number: T r- Date of Inspection: 3 —, � r-- ) 5
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ® NE
` 25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 0 NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Ef Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Yes
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
1�}-C_ I� �I� ; p� ('a � v� cZ�J c� bus-�s•
i�f%��re'
ice' m C wv
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatut
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date: ;��
21412015

I::;;— -3--2
Type of Visit: q, Compliance Inspection U Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: outine 0 Complaint ollow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: � Arrival Time:/0 : ?% Departure Time: flc7 County: 4v Region:
Farm Name: ,l,r _ rr� �y�—�� �, Owner Email:
Owner Name -
Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: I 2. Title: _ Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:`` -
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
{C•urrent
Design -Current
15
tDesign
Design Current
Swine
p�city. = Pop.
=10ultry
Capacity Pop:r
Cattle -
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
RLao�n
er
Dairy Cow
_
Wean to Feeder
N-La er
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish5;
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Cu rent
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Ca acit
Po p.
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Bears
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
T
Turkeys
Qther
=z
Turkey Poults
-
Other
Other
DischarLes and Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made`?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (pllons)"
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there anv observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA tNE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA 2_NE
❑ NA 0,NE
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

,Facility Number: 7 - Date of Inspection: %
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA Ej�NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
Eig- 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
[54 NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7_ Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
_54—NE
8_ Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
ENE
(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
[A -NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks; or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
NNE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Dg-No
❑ NA
ak_
❑ 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? ❑ Yes P!rNo ❑ NA taNE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA EZNE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [?f-NE
acres determination'?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
P�LNE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment'?
0 Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[ E
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 tail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check
the appropriate
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
WUP ❑Checklists [Design [Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If ves, check the appropriate box below. Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard aWaste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ,E�E
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA _(2_NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA lEg-NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [ E
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ® NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA C2�NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA JZ 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
[Z No
[] NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
[] Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft. Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
7;41
/x
.ma c r"P,
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatui
Page 3 of 3
Phone:12 0 x1/
Date:
21412015

(Type of Visit: Q Compliance Inspection U Operation Review BStructure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral O Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 71
Arrival Time: ft�J Departure'rime: County: sot Region: f Tiy
Farm Name: CJ0k.,F;L tJ s- Zr c Owner Email:
Owner Name: 'T, t. fe— eiLl-.011 Phone:
Mailing Address: J ef ?,e �4L
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Z-u L1 (Ja "o Title:
tC
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm -
G
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: `![ R —.S
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
esignC.urrent
Design
Currents Design Current
Swine
��
CapacitvspE ;,Wet Poultry
Capacity
A
Pops Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
-„La er_-
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -Layer
Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish
g e%
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
gip,
:.
Design
Current -= Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder`
4•T
D Po_nit
Ca deity
P,o Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Beef Stocker
Gilts
g,
Beef Feeder
Boars
Fjrrz
Beef Brood Cow
a�T
_
Other_.,-'
-
Other
R
La ers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Points
Other
Discharges and Stream lmoacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
EjXe's
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Stnicture ❑ Application Field Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
''es
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes. notify DWR)
�es
❑ 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, notily DWR) Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any pan of the operation?
�es
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes ❑ No 2i NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge'?
Page 1 of 3 1/4/1015 Continued

Facility Number: $ - Date of Ins ection: 2 a (ie�
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? Q es ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. Ifyes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes Q,5ro_ ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): T
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
E�Ies
❑ 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
O 'es
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
0-Ifes❑
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[2'flo
0 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
-- s
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?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
I5. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination'?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ 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
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

FaciliNumber: - Date of Inspection-2-6 DC %
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
" 25. is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA ❑NE
❑Yes [:]No DNA ONE
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA ❑NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
4e" 6 m NC_oe!!-() wtr,�C fp4r-Ce
44 0-, T-kv4,-c de- T Zoe Z,,Cb, -/r,�flr-e �Oc'-'P a -3
&Rt4�A'4� C -IuA4 `j a�� �'�eq�ts �'� d Ci co.�Ql� of T`{ c 4 fuses ak „fir -°y
-KX a� 1.c+x4C &-w )tuc 4a, {,►c � vt4_4-,rk,A Ct
ft
f- VV v a✓19rEck 0 11f,4t/4
I 1
0`
Reviewer/]nspector Name: _ i� rp �? Phone: %- ct 33 3-?,? Y
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: l 0 0q
Page 3 of 3 21412015

.
Type of Visit: UCance Inspection V Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: s— j fo Arrival Time: Departure Time: 7 County: Region: L
Farm Name: Ujo d G? rl?1 _T�_c-, Owner Email:
Owner Name: 1 BH "- Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Z" .�r�i �T Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: S_ integrator:
Certified Operator: s' Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Design
Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity
Popp-
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D . P,oW
Ca sei
1'0
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
OthWerm
-
Turkey Puults
Other
y:...:^'LswsA1HA6B:PG�I1ViGRRAi�-
Other
Disci es and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
L&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
JKNo
0 NA
[] NE
Page I of 3 ` w 21412014 Continued

IFacWty Number: - Date of inspection:
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
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): (o
Observed Freeboard (in): ,fir
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
N 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
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
aYes
R f o
❑ 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
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11 _ Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes &No ❑ NA
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc_)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable CropWindow ❑j Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application
/jOutside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): '0'-n- 16D'-'
13. Soil Type(s):
❑ NE
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
La No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
(a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes71
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
[B 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 M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes E&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes S-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

[Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: S
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [L No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes CR_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 MNo ❑ NA [] NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA [] NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes [RNo ❑ 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 0,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 Mi o ❑ 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
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑.Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
1?9.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question # ): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional panes as necessary).
� � d -Tv o�
(,, , .-i � /ems , �— !•d' �� /l a-�-- ;✓�7mr fJ�"'-c �0 �
to
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Phone: �lV �33-5 fb
Date:
21412014
Page 3 of 3

0
Type of Visit: (PComp lance Inspection O Operation Review p Structure Evaluation p Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: outine p Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: , L / Arrival Time: D: DO Departure Time: County: v'ti- Region: -Fpc,)
Farm Name: Wa�� r0ep"_4 ANC Owner Email:
Owner Name: wa 0d Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: rLq i ,, -Z Uj'r- Title: §Wcjii t-I Phone:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Bach -up Operator:
Location of Farm:
1 jo0�%s_
Latitude:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity P.
Wet Pmoultryapacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
Dai Cow
Non -La er
Dai Calf
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
3
airy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Dt. 1?oul
Ca aci
P,o .
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Gilts
Boars
Turke s
Other
Turke Pouets
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes [2�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 DWR)
❑ 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 DWR)
❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
C2[,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page l of 3 V412014 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus stone storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[Z�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
DNE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 30
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6_ Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
®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
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NF
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
[g 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): GD��fflhr �Sp-��n�
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
F70`1 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
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
E[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[F,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Ree wired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[2. No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [&No
❑ 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 MNo
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes allo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Faciti Number: - a q I Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [H No ❑ NA [] NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26_ Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to property 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
CEI No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
®,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[] Yes
®,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes to No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes M No
[:]Yes gLNo
[:]Yes ®.No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Np�r. � � G�Or1�� gam-►- �a-��''�- g r�� �.�ofzj C��cI,
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
21412011

alms �6 U-J'k- « _ 60
(Type of Visit: (5Co7 fiance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral O Emergency O Other 0 Denied Access
C
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County f of Region:
Farm Name: J p _4C Owner Email:
Owner Name:�� 2 �� Phone:
Mailing Address: J_ O I �-011 WAUA_rYr."
Physical Address:
_?_ ell i�g
Facility Contact: Wat,& CO Title: O[)gf�4 Phone:
Onsite Representative: [ t Integrator: W Its -
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number: L
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Curicent
DesignCurrent
Swine Capacity Pap.
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Nan -La er
_"k
Mesign
CattleCapacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Design Ciirren't
D �1'oulCa Ci riPo .
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
113eef Brood Cow
Gilts
Boars
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify 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 2< ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[[�NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[g-<A
❑ NE
[:]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes EKIC
❑ Yes FP
[D,XA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

IFacility Nutuber: - Date of Ins ection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
t Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
I
Identifier:
Spillway?:
ER-<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
011<' ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):__
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
EJ.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
L] o
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
2 'es
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
, V
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
[2 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
En"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
[:]Yes
0 '<Vo
❑ 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 Cro Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ pplication Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop YP T e(s) : cil
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
�]o
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
[1yNo
❑ NA
ONE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
E4 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ff 2<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
�
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
E C
❑ NA
❑ NE
20_ Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
E"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [ X-o
❑ 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 F-1-No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes u 'Vo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

X:::u iq'* �) 1
Ffactlity NdYnber: -UU Date of Inspection:__
14 4
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
[1] o
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
G2-Ko
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
[3 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to property 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? ❑ Yes [j,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes [j5,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
CPL 1 I U ,new' t
❑ Yes E( , ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E3 f4o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [Pl o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ff ]l o ❑ NA ❑ NE
S(o-�MU
YL&A o , �r2 e j2c vt.z v a,-(
'Cj� �-7
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date:
rol

_�)Ivk5 -7�dG7-xu(3 5i�
Type of Visit: (Com fiance Inspection O Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: E� Arrival Time: ! Departure Time: LJ �J County: Region:
Farm Name �Ct �/`a +r TAG Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ::Sd vl /lJ �'�P Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: ( Integrator: ` ^
Certified Operator: �[ Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Pop. --
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop. _
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
00
' >
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D . P,ouitrY
Ga aei
P,o P.
Non -Da'
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
113eef Feeder
Gilts
I
—.Non-Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Boars
IBeef Brood Cow
Other
Other
10ther
Discharaes and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
❑,?<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
IDW10
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
Q-11ro
❑ 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
❑�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
E]�M
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
i�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: I - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [E>6 ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes Fk<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
o
❑ 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
�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental threat, notify 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
U�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
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
��
[n 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 ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift Application
Outside of Approved Area
`Window
12. Crop Type(s): ► �[�' d '111
�]
13. Soil Type(s): _ E-9 ��/ Ca
t4. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[Z[,Iqo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[Z Xo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
0],?do
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
`
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
Q]A
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[dg'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reanired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ 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 ErNo
❑ 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 Inspectio;No
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
[:]Yes ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: C q jDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ 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?
GErNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Io ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �<o❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes liKo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
FL—Pfes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes DAo
❑ Yes rRI�o
❑ Yes 2No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments. I
Use drawines 1
of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
'j� 4V
sue. to -cola o-g,
Reviewer/Inspector Name: Phorq, j G' J ,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 3 of 3 21412011

f be gI-C�0) a
Type of Visit: 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: routine O Complaint Q Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other Q Denied Access r
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: I 1610o grti I County: Region: i
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
2N
Title: b wf\zo' Phone:
Onsite Representative: Q Integrator: �'1 t,apl,�r L� 0
Certified Operator: h4 �� `JA�{� Certification Number:
R
Back-up Operator:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
�
�'..
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Pop.
Wet PoWtr3'
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
I ILayer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder I INon-Layer I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish Q $0
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D . 1P.oult .
Ca -aei
P,o
Non-Dai
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other =
Turk e PuuIts
Other
Other
Discharzes 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 C� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[]No
dNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[3�NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No E3"NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes [9"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: / - Date of Inspection: 114
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a_ If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure I
Identifier: 4.1
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 14q
�Na ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No \PNA ❑ NE
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes [J'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes O No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? [:]Yes E3"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes gNo ❑ 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 eNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 8 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ENo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs_ ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ EvidenceofWind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
/
12. Crop Type(s): �C f G `1 t CO �V t W+ \b.�r 5.G �ii t�0� 1 ) UA00
13. Soil Type(s): C:(2 '
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes E�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes 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
[0"'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
[—]Yes
[1 f No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
[] Yes
[Z 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 GXNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? [] Yes V No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21417011 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes E�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [2"'No "❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes [No ❑ NA 0 NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [�[No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
O
E 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
Q 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
dNo
❑ 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
Ea1Go
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
E3'rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[RIJo
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
[g<0
0 NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional reco - endations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary)
- Ss c Ur , �� cc� �g a �n �nss er xr, �� � b a \ c'
Acc�IDO rj ,
6..0 fk k Co rl'o Ieajtnq
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Revi ewer/] nspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
QN'azv�
Phone: glb'-- [p1
Date: UNJ
21412011

i ype 01 visit. k-w-k-umpuauce inspectlun v vperauou nrv■rw v airuc[ure araIuauuu u i rcuiucHI P►bsinaucc
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Q Arrival Time: a Departure Time: J,jQ� County: R�/l
Farm Name:_ U ANO F A(lM5 . T KC Owner Email:
Owner Name: p�p�s� _t , �,{� Q Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: � �43, o Rfko - Title: p%,_�,y t A- Phone:
Region:__ .
Onsite Representative: integrator: MV f�Q1ny'RC)t�)
Certified Operator: ��..� �, �q�(J Certification Number: .Lid 1� k
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm -
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
�'DestignC
CT. rent
egn urre nt
Sw
Ca
Capacity Pop.
x
Wean to Finish
La er
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
f;5c>o a O
"- ;
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean"
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
DP,aul :. - Ca .aci
P,o .
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
-Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
lHeef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other'Turkey
Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify 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 E�rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
ENA
0 NE
0 Yes
❑ No
[�fNA
❑ NE
0 Yes
❑ No
[�(NA
0 NE
❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
eNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: -1 - Date of Inspection: t
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes HrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No �NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): _
Observed Freeboard (in): 4y%
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i_e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes C3`No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[]Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public stealth or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes E�fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑v'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 [�JlNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Analie9ti0p
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes [1%No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
I I _ 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): QoVkN% (G � C,ok oo , W, N PT S _ G-a
13. Soil Type(s): l30 Cy
_
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes [�10
❑ 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
[gl�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18_ Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ED"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20_ Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
Eja'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 [fNo
❑ 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 RNo
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes [g"No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
[DNA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

i
Facili Number: Date of inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ETNo [DNA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [E'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 [0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes Q No [Z"NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ LagoonlStorage 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 E�fNo DNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [grNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[-]Yes [1"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [\YNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [fNo
❑ Yes [!fNo
[Yes ❑ No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
�e NE4-0 Aro
- 1AM0 i_o Pt-
pn�
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: Q Na-3Ug- 6 $6,f
Date: A I o2
1/ /ZOII

MS 7/Zi /// -tr-
Type of Visit: U Compliance Inspection V Operation Review V Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Oloutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Z/ // Arrival Time: ,`� Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: A�S / !AJC Owner Email:
le
Owner Name: I7ti1 & Jej d . Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone:
Region: l'/-o
OnsiteRepresentative: fj,�/ /.�,�a�rIntegrator: /V-8
Certified Operator: �d�i` /�^�(, Certification Number: 7I t,O
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
tDe�sign
5�
Swine Ca act
P ty
Wean to Finish
Current
Po P•�,
l' g
Wet Poult �' Ca ac ty.
Layer
CPo p.
-.....
Design Current
II
i.1 Capacity Pop.
DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
Non -Layer
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
DairyHeifer
Wean
Design
Current
D Cow
o Feeder
D Potilt �Ca a i
Po
Non -Dairy
o Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Eo
Non -La ers
Pullets
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
,.„,...
Turke s
0:_ _Turke
Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any pare 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 LE" "'o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
E j A
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
CJ NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No I�J< ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'? ❑ Yes ®'1�_o ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potcntial adverse impacts to the waters [:]Yes E2'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [2110 ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No E2-I1A� ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:`
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): G
Observed Freeboard (in): T
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes L 'lqo ❑ 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
Q'1Cfo
❑ 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
53<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
©,lo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
/
2'1Vo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
020<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals
(Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application
Outside of Approved Area
II
12. Crop Type(s): ew-t �.1 S Lty,
S t�
�y
�
13. Soil Type(s): a On
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
g2,<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
[g-l"O
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[2`1�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[ta'1Qo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
I9. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
/
NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
D "'o
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [Do
❑ 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 [gl�o
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
['NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: 7_/ /B I
_j
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes 02-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA LE�Wt
Other issues
28_ Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document [:]Yes EDIKo ❑ 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 2< ❑ 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 P<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface rile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
R3'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[EjolGo
[[] NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
LE3 "o
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Comments (refer to question #1): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
5 ¢r C" Oc�c1 + c,v-e55 he, �-Pv495s I ve_ W-e C-A
C V
-pier -� h,e r-,,it s
bA, rV-4C"_► AC-L1 "--ej _ tl� Srt
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector
Page 3 of 3
Phone: g/z7 - JI z �333�j
Date: Z
4/2011

n'!S 4/2/ / Zd/O
Type of Visit t�r—Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint Q Follow up Q Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: -/ —/0 Arrival Time: ©� s� Departure Time: =Vz
ounty: Region:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: - J 10 4yN' I.s1 LiPhone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: _ _5_0 1 NN u 1n3��C6
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator: ✓v j +V
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ❑ o = i ❑ Longitude: = o ❑ 4 = «
Design Current
Capacity Population
Wet Poultry
Design Current
Capacity Population
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
ME] inish
❑ Layer
❑ DairyCow
eeder
❑ Non -La er
❑ Dai Calf
Finish
El Farrow to Wean
Goa
Dry Poultry
❑ DairyHeifer
El Dry Cow
El
Farrow to Feeder
Discharges &Stream Impactti
. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: El Structure El 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?
❑ Yes B'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
LSNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[J' ]�A
❑ NE
L7NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
,E,Tlo�❑
L�'No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3
11/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: Z
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
❑ Yes L`i'No
❑ Yes No
Structure 5
El NA El NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in). 44
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes a<01
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? El Yes II�"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes MINo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
4. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes Vo ❑ 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 91< ❑ 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 ElApplication Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) %Yn/ W — 2,_' 4,c/.S
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[9- o
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
NNoo
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
El Yes
,�
Li'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
LSO
❑ 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):
rr
ReviewerAnspector Dame �/�j f ��� Phone: w''3:dt�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 1141—2010
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 7 — Zlf Date of Inspection
Renuired
Records & Documents
19.
Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
to ❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ DesignEl Maps El Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
L2< ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I " Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
B oo ❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
ElYes
2r o []NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
to [] NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
L o ❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
14< ❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
a< ❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern'?
El Yes
�,�
11 O El NA
[I NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
El Yes
,�,�
L7No ❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
�`N❑
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative'?
❑ Yes
NA
ElNE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El,. Yes
Lrr�No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

t;y;vlS "+t,.td 5 - 15-2-007 44
Type of Visit (3'trompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit (51outine Q Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: kiayl A✓M r;AjC, OwnerEmail: 7 RiARDG2i,6,1a4• Conn
Owner Name: �p�n^� ��Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
t'�//
Facility Contact:-)y�`^f ��`�� Title: gWNGi' Phone No: 910•7-79,T5>30
Onsite Representative: -� ��^^� [�d r� Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: E__1 o = = •• Longitude: ❑ ° ❑ = u
=m+r'
Destgn Current
DesignsCarrent.
Design Current
Swine
CapityK Population
Wet#Poultry C pacr#yPopulation
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
n-La er
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
&FVO
v -_ ._
Dty Poultry
El Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
El D Cow
El Farrow to Feeder
[INon-Dairy
El Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
El Beef Stocker
❑Non -La Non -Layers
❑ Gilts
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Pullets
❑ Boars
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Y ..--..
- -
❑ Turkey Poults
Other
❑ Other t
❑OtherI
Number of Structures:
#'f jj&j" s.:..,s -3... "-�M.'S " .....,HIM
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 E No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
B NNA
ElNE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[3 NA
❑ NE
ErNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 2No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued
1 _

Facility Number: 7g —24 Date of Inspection z/_ yfi'---47 -91
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
B<A
❑ NE
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
21�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
ETNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat,
notify
DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
30
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 2No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes Z rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application ��
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes L✓J No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11,
Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
L7 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
ind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12.
Crop type(s) Vp'r-Pj Cc>4+pj t,) V�Gc�`1' 5~d C,zu-Ai t`dvL✓S,cr_ d !
5-8 be4A%S
13.
Soil type(s) Cry A L Ca
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? El Yes
,,�
C�7, N<o
❑ NA El NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes
E No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
dNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
oo
El NA El NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? El Yes
,*�,
L o
❑ NA ❑ NE
Reviewer/[nspector Name J �`C� , i��Ye:ts — -- - -- Phone: I/4,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:-2�1—Z44
Page 2 of J Il/28104 Continued

Date of Inspection
Facility Number: 7 S -2
ReQuired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes B Nvo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
03 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 El
Weather
Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
ElYes
ETNo
NNA'
El NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
El Yes
❑ No
,❑,
L7 NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Nio
❑ NA
El NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
El Yes
,IJ
L"No
ElNA
ElNE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
ElYes
3N'o
❑ NA
[I NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
El Yes
BNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28_ Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
ElYes
�
B NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
ER 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
2 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
dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
' 'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

" L mow. 1-og-z,x)v'�
�o
Facility Number
GHflv-ision of Water Quality
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit (3rC"o`mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Destine 0 complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: O'ijS QS Arrival Time: Departure Time: 5:' � IiN County: AD bf-s041 Region: /i`r
Farm Name: k/QQ YJ F1a Vfi, . _AJ L1 _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: .i D G U Ar! j Lj ayd Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ="914 IAJn V9L Title: Phone No: Onsite Representative: integrator: MR_ii/>L.,-. `!>p
"%rAl
Certified Operator: WQ Operator Certification Number: 7
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: 0 0 = t = Longitude: = ° = I =
Design Current Design Current _
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -Laver
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
SDO
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Pouets
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Daint Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ D Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures:
r
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
e. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d_ Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes E No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
ETNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
El NE
❑ Yes
ffNo
El Yes
LJ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
E11No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
12128104 Continued

k
Facility Number:79-241
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4, is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1
identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): -Z !�L
Observed Freeboard (in)_ 3 7 t
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ic/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes 2-go- El NA ElNE
❑ Is Yes hvo�❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes B1 o—❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes G-M_ ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes v o ❑ NA ❑ NE
$_ Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [tTqo--❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes 0^l1o❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need El Yes ❑ NA [INE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application'? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes EINV—❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manurc/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
I t d
12. Crop type(s) I -IV , ZJ ��.� �-�, � cr�—S � lC /101,02Xrloll
13. Soil type(s) ( . pA Ly
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application'? ❑ Yes
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
LG< ❑ NA
911'oo ❑ NA
E o ❑ NA
v❑ NA
� a
l�ote❑ NA
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name K I',
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
rsw»
Phone:
Date:
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

�L
Facility Number: -7— Z Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have ail components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropiate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
❑ Yes S'l�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0116- ❑ NA ❑ NE
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes O'k76—❑ 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'?
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?
Comments and/or Drawings:
❑ Yes
[Tlgo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Eftw
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
B-Tdo—
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[; i6
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Q-Nn
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
9-no­
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
El NA
El NE
El Yes
,L��3,,"N��o
E3 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
3<o ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
LI'No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
L-fNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: dz-Zj Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:C�C�iL/LL
Farm Name: _ 1,j 5A k d & P- _ 1� "�� t Owner Email:
Owner Name: �U � ws,. k_rtPhone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: o L ryi+ ,n W o�vcL __ _ Title: Qwtg f=� Phone No:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish C1 00
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Region: _ !C/e(
Latitude: 0 0 = Longitude: 0 0❑ 4=
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry,
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Cattle
Design Current''::",
Capacity Population.`;;
I
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Da Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
El
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
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than Isom a discharge?
❑ Yes (KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
t@ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
LINE
❑NA
❑NE
❑Yes
JNNo
❑ Yes
19 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
;V No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: ]g-2 Date of inspection 02- 23 _a
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Stnucture 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
,r
Designed Freeboard (in):
r�
Observed Freeboard (in): �(r�
❑ Yes [X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
1ANo
❑ 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
S. 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
lNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
Id No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement'?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
[0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 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) r. CQynJ So., S
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
T�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination'❑
Yes
14No
❑ 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
[XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question f : Explain anv YES answers and/or any recommeedations or any other comments.
Use drawings'of facility to better explain sitaatiois. (use additional pages as necessary): ,
Reviewer/Inspector Name r`c(� ��J p� S Phone: g10 //F& -/57
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 2 - 7- 3 — Ze?a
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Z41 Date of Inspection 02-Z —0
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate ol'Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes tffNo [:]NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check I--] Yes 19 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the approprrate box. 0 WUP
❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement'? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [XNo ❑ 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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ 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
[XNo
❑ 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
M 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
(9 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
rV 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
EA No
❑ -NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

V
{ i Divtsion.of Water Quality
b'' r�ty.a4 S:� a< r,it h* O:DiV>Eslouof,Sotl'antl Water Conserva(:ion s5 « r �' <, _, tirs.�.f s'".h%i■
O''Uther Agency
Type of Visit p Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint) Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 78 24 Date of Visit- 41$l2004 Time: 3:30
O Not operational O Below Threshold
0 Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ..................
Farm Name: 1'.!'-a1rd- arms.1mg...................... Cou"ty: RO.0 pia----------.................................. ERU .............
Owner Name:Joh.ntak................................ --- -W.Ard........................................................... Phone No: 9.1.D-.7.3&50A...................................
Ma'Ifing Address: 397- LondoatdurlyOr......................................................................... I. amb.cr(Q ..1.C................................................... 28358.............
Facility Contact: ...................... ---------•---- ................... ...................... `Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: .I!)ltAu13:..W..afSl............................................................................. Integrator: BICA)Yal'S..Qf.Ga1r joftajac...................................
Certified Operator: Jotlra.& ............................... Ward ................................................. Operator Certification Number:J,8.7.1.6 .............................
Location of Farm:
)n the east side of SR 1933 approx..2 miles south of its intersection with SR 1937. A
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 i Longitude �• ��u
Design Current
Swine Canacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
6500
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design CurA.rent
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 6,500
Total SSLW 877,500
Number of Lagoons 1 Subsurface Drains Present Spray Field Area
HMAine Vnnilc / tnlid'rr9nc
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. li'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 Qal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (Il'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
Stn€cturc t Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Stntcture 5
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [:]No
Structure b
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): ...................................
12/12/03
C antinuPd

Facility Number: 713-24 Date of Inspection 4/8/2004
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, [] Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or [� Yes ❑ No
closure plan?
(if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
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
W. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
11. is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
[:]Excessive Ponding [:]PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation'?
18- Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
❑ No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
❑ No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? if yes, contact a regional
❑ Yes
❑ No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Cominents (refer to iluestion #):,1?kplain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any.other comments •, .
Use drawing
s of facility to better explain situations: (use,aach . oual pages
'as necessary): ® Field Copy ❑ Final Notes 7;
Farm visited as follow-up to an earlier inspection. Mark Brantley and I inspected the foundations of the confinement houses closely. Mr. +
Ward had repaired the larger problem leaks but we did discover some minor ones. Mr. Ward committed to repairing these as well. The
farm continues to improve in its appearance with the grass being mown. We also discussed with Mr. Ward the need for him to modify his
application method as to facilitate the irrigation events being monitored every 120 minutes as required by the pennit-
Reviewer/Inspector Name Larry Baxley
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
MarkBrantely
Date:

1 -4
i";sh'T�"' � ��"- ..� x...vs. ✓i. C�' .S-.� VYi�OlUff U�7UL il4\i �7YlCf LUII�Cr_r3ilfUil -�. �-sc
.ter-� .�,� �.�. �,_,�.� -'-rL � � t/u�Cr:.e .e,.Y..;.-:[' `�' ter.,...-'.� _,��t- era-i!� ,a � _: "_, .,..�"-- y�._ ,r✓.,� ;- x' _
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit Q Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility dumber
Date of Vkit: -7. Timc: 17:3 0
rQ �i
lot O erational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted Certified ©3 ConnditionaIiv Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: �o� G�r"s Tn4. County: Rs�bc3o/J FR_u
i4 'I39 - 5-b3p
Owner Name: _ 3u� v. r K iA ) n v_A_ Phone No: 6 �� �� C- i1 ..?Sk —gS 1
Mailing Address: _ 30'7 1,. ,yAo.,:6z _rr /_" ,.,L e, Lf0i'► ais'S
Faciliry Contact: 0-A Title: n w:. C ie Phone No:
Onsite Representative: ✓ r-" Integrator: kr lru t.� /L1
Certified Operator: LA-)C_v i,1 ,. , Operator Certification number:
Location of Farm:
11Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �4 " Longitude ' 1 0�
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Ca acih, Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Ca adty Population
❑ l can to Feeder I JE1 Laver ❑ DairyFeeder to Finish spc7 ❑Non ::j
-Laver ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Giits
❑ goy Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons I / I ILI Subsurface Drains Present Au Lagoon Area 1LJ Sprov Field Area I
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management Svstem
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? Yes ❑ No
Discharge orininated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Sprav Field Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the convevance man-made? ❑Yes No
b_ If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notif}. DWQ} ❑ Yes No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes. notifi, DWQ) ❑ Yes ® No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Raters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection g Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
StructluStructure e I Structure 2 Structe 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 5
Identifier:I
11
Freeboard (inches): � 0
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: '% & — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc_)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? El Yes El 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 ❑ 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 ❑ No
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 ❑ No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16_
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ 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
❑ No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ❑ No
23. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? 5 Yes ❑ No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No
[] No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Field Covv ❑ Final Notes
kv��CncC a.� eor.�'�..c`+tt�.l� hbt�s�Ot�'+�a-t�t+i1S Ieoa4,tv1..e :r�
4 M e a S. rn r ' 1,Ja - � 6. 1 r �L p a 1 Y' *`. c S C. ��5 c�C � �4a� Ur G.r.Jr1 i? i�jt Y►�:.a �oC
P�QQe-4h--%p r% � vrw.s_
CQ rie�� +o ,paR,+, WGt17 LG saw.�ale
a o I.c♦ i z n %A- C G r �4 4 C1:� �O f> �C }� "Q,\ �7 -
u_rCkc1
+rw 10 -1,— _
Reviewer/inspector Name I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
05103101
Date: 3 "'Z5^ b Ljf
Continued

]Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit d Routine O Complaint p Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other © Denied Access
Bate of Visit: Time: ! L7: b+
Facility Number 3 H
Q Not O erational Q Below Threshold
Permitted U Certified 13 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: _ ......
Farm Name: .......__...xj ...--...._..!�✓[!��! . �. N� -- County: .... P..i1. Aa.....................................F .d .
�'
Owner Name: 3 �!.!ixi ................... ........................... Phone No:... y`... 7.. ... .5?. �.£ .....................
Mailing Address: .... 3 0 7 Le__ _ sra.�.+� f...... Dr' w:r! fat%fQ,2._ _. r'l*.
-- - - ....... ........... .._... _... .i..._ .... .._.
Facility Contact: ........ ...„........................................... _ ......._ Title Phone No:
Onsite Representative:... _.__. _ ... Integrator: ......... _ .....
Certified Operator :... ........ ............ ............... ............. ..._ ..� .� ..............._.......... Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
[}Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ horse Latitude 0 ` " Longitude • 4 «
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes L) iMo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
• 5
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes Q.Noi
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .......... �....... ........ ...... _........ _..... ........ _... _....
Freeboard (inches): 3 S �'
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: rl — a I Date of Inspection z
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ❑ No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancerimpmvement? ❑ 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 rnaintenanm1improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
I 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
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ❑ No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ❑ No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes ❑ No
Air Quality representative immediately.
eComments (re�tr to_q�4n��. E�slam ��►��.S,�s�vers anidl�or�ay ur yany�ot�er com�da�.� �.� '� -
:use ar8w� v�'f�eytn ) ��s.�{tad add pates as aeors�ry�� [] Feld Copy ❑Final Notes
•.---c�:---- -/ - -r--t ice- .a '�"'"` TM ^" _ _ _ t—^�`:a'-`"'" t�'R .r:_
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �c Date: Cf - - o ty
12/12N3 Continued

1,. 1 !-F` 1 -: •' t
s t� Division of V4'ater Qoafity,
-
x
y.O _
s' cF of Sol l;and:Wa#er Conservation
nivisiori
'� f
t
Other Agencv
•, -
- .�.
+
E -.y h;,T?a'F4- ,
�F-x� S'S ^,�v �1.. . ^`l f�_ afm, t�i'Y6 G�k, S)H—.EYs Y 5-. S ? 'ia
-.'r�7 .i 4..7 '!t .'i j..-TY.S�"�'.'r:� ..._.. •.. a.. .,+*..
!�
.l 5� P..i.:.. h i'�
.. �' a .. .. ....�. ., .. .. .. �-.._.13 {Fi rY-;-,i. e•
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
I aeiGh' Number 78 24 Date of Visit: 7-Ifr2t1t14 Time: 12:45pm
Not O erational OBelowThreshold
(3 Permitted ® Certified [] Conditionally Certified O Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name:W..ard.Karmis,bi;........................ County: tiabcsort........--....------........................ F.RO.............
Owner Name: Jt kway------------------------------------ \'�'�trd-..... Phone No: 9.L4-7_38:7,5 ....
],Tailing Address: 39.7-Landoindcricy.A?x....................................................... ......Luttmbcrioji-NC.......................................... .... 2835.8.............
........... .....
Facility Contact: ............................................. ..A'itic: - Phone No:
Onsite Representative: ........................................................................................... Integrator: I3ro�v�u'S..u�.GA�AaitR.)m. ..................................
Certified Operator: ,]pjhm. i,--...--..... ............. W..Rxd......
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number: J.$J)L(.............................
3n the east side of SR 1933 approx..2 miles south of its intersection with SR 1937. A
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse f.atitude * � �G Longitude • 4 �u
Design Current
Swine canacity Ponuistion
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
6500
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity, Po "idation
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 6,500
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons I Subsurface Drains Prese2LJI I Spray Field Area ,
Ho
Discharge s & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of -the State? (If yes, notiAl D' 'Q) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, ..'hat is the estimated tlo�� in ;al!min'?
d. Dues discharge bypass a la70011 system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of'thc operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Strtrcturc 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
idcnti Iicr: ..........
Freeboard (inches)- --------------- 3.0 ....... I....... ............. ................ ................
12/12103 rantinued

r
Facility Number: 78--24 Date of Inspection 1-16-2004
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ❑ No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
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
❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
❑ No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
❑ No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern'? If yes, contact a regional
❑ Yes
❑ No
Air Quality representative immediately -
.Co mnie`nts {refer to questson #) Exphun any.YFS answers aocilor any recommendations or any. other comments i `}
Use drawings,of fac><hty to better explain situahons� (use additional pages as necessary): ®Field Copy ❑Final Notes 1
Visited farm site. Confinement houses are being upgraded and more land grading is being done around the buildings. Lift stattion pump '
for the smaller houses was being repaired. Jr
Reviewer/Inspector Name Harry Baxley
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

9
IV
-r..r..l,,r'4eL-�=T.-.-'s�s..;s::re-.��'„.!-.y�"x _'c.�T'.� T r __. _ � - _ _ � __ - �_,•.� _
• �-��..��...F- .. a-__. �.:= �s� s ., t.e_ _ � ..� ri. a-_ . _ _ _ �._-...ram .s_� - � � _. � ..,. . . .� - ..
Type of Visit • Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit *Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Vicit: Time: 9' d
Facility- Number
Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
(� Permitted M Certified E3 �Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name; �aroc*lEc�r�_f 1NG- _ County-: �/ "Ve.<64J Find
1'D 14 "-7ad•=.3o9
- \ � I s� r Owner Name: �� ^T_ �¢►r� Phone No: � ! Ce - as8 - 4 1
flailing Address: 362 Lov_6 r Lam er e _ a835�
Facility Contact: IYL)t n. 4 tn.l.cr_Title: Phone No:
pnsire Representative:
M.__! a'Integrator: r�� 4 — R 1.1.1 ►
Certified Operator: wQ'�� _ _ o� i't Operator Certification number: 11 197)6, _
Location of Farm:
(Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �` �� Longitude �• �• ��
Design Current
Swine Can9rih ponnlation
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow tc «-ear.
❑ Farrou- to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Soars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry- Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Laver I I❑ Dain
❑ ]von -Laver ❑ Non -Dais°
❑ Other
Total Design Capacitv
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray- Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management Svstem
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is anv discharge observed from any part of the operation?
El YesIal
,�{
No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Svray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
El Yes
No
b. If discharge is obsen-ed, did it reach EVater of the State? (If }'es. notify- DWQ)
El Yes
j No
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in oal/min?
d_ Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes. notiN, DWQ)
❑ Yes
©No
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
04 yes
❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
W No
Wage Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
❑ Yes
❑ No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
ldentifier;
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
Conrinued

Facility Dumber: 7S' — a
Date of Inspection I //- -193
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (icl 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, noti6, DWQ)
7. Do anv of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate. gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
L( Yes El No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes Q1 No
I I.
is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑Yes
®No
12.
Crop type tr DRn Q rsoQ s,�t I i cv > .I
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
®No
c) This facility- is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
®No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
R No
16.
is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
M No
Required Records _& Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes EM No
=- 1$. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ NVUP, checklists, design- maps, etc.) El Yes � No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation. freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) W Yes ❑ No
20_ is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes [)a No
21. Did the facility- fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ® No
22. Fail to notifj regional DR Q of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie- discharge. freeboard problems. over application) ❑ Yes C@ No
23. Did Reviewer:'lnspector fail to discuss reviewiinspecrion with on -site representative? ❑ Yes 14J No
24. Does facility require a follow --up visit by same agency? Yes ❑ No
25. Were any additional problems Doted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes 0073 No
Do violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit. �
Comments (refer to question : 'ti*atm any_YES answers and/crany-recoaupevdatious.or any other comnft a ;_
iiiY-..
.
ili f f i
Use drawings of tbett
er eer edam situations- (use additional pages as necessary) Final Notes
] Field Copy
._ _❑
_r _ ___..=: _.._'.-."s �..4:v n.�.v-'.....�.:--. �_.?s 5�s7cal��?'=r.--i��"..:r..as..,vrv,..x:�5'+.�4.i�...-.sue .c�.r..�rr.•r_, d.+.°.r'"'^i: i+r-.
oar Tkge�GLL eV� c'f1fGt
1f��/— IM pip fV TAC S•faa G„�11.LJ.
1 p
`VG��tiT-
''� /Ylr• %lGr O'er %d.t sGa�CdC hates c.s � Gn oQ p� d. I{ di �� 4 al. 11 P13 i �o� {�L 60^ I L'{�f J R� �!i
�1 /1 L
•W
4 r1� �11G j�4. ►�-aP1 rj �_Y �l/CLd, J'�'4r�.-. G't'cr [A�JLYSiOh pl �'�Citicf �wJG +�e.GF..a �v.q Syr u11
14r No Wax+,_ ll 4�la��tiSa�c�6Ny. Sv3
Recn, �j of coRr_ ".t-e_ NeccAfig uac Zee- i TP-a-�
_ "'-----•^.---r^-�--,a...—•^^-^rv^�'- �-^--rci. r r-'�*-.-'- �a:�—ate
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101
t'ontinued

_K"
,. Y: t z Q Divts�on of Sari and Water Conservahnn t x�
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason far Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 78 24 Date of Visit: 12-04-2003 Time: 1:OORm
Q 77ot operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [] Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ............
Farm Name: 1'.!'.aird.F,arms.1ac.......................... ..... Countv: RQb.csojo ............................................ FRO .............
........................................................... .
Owner Name: J.Qbjaxty .................................... W.ard ........................................................... Phone No: 9.1Q-7 #-543$ .........
Mailing Address: 3R2..LondA.adcrry:.t?.r. ............................. .. .. l mWbcrtaiot..NC........................... . 2.83.58 .............
Facility- Contact- ---------------- ----•• ---------...._..---------....-----------...-----.----. Title:.------------......---------- ... ---....................... .... Phone No:
Onsite Representative:........................................................................................................... Integrator: 1rQWA1'S.Q(.G,ar1JjW4.jiAC,.................................
Certified Operator:Jo)tf0..k................................... Ward................................................. Operator Certification Number: .t$.7.XC.............................
Location of Farm:
)n the east side of SR 1933 approx..2 miles south of its intersection with SR I937. A
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude
Design Current Design Current Design Current '
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
6500
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Laver ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer 10 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 6,500
Total SSLW 877,500
Number of Lagoons I ® Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ® Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps JE1 No Liquid Waste Management Svstem
Discharages & 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. vas the conveyance man-made'',
b, if discharge is observed, did it reach Water ofthe State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. I1'disc.harge is observed, %k,hat is the estimated flow in gal/min"
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (It -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 Stnicture 2 Structure 3 Stntcture 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): .............. ...................................
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
Structure 6
05/03/01
C'nntinued

Facility Number: 78-24 Date of Inspection 12-04-2003
' 5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
[I 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
❑ 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
❑ No
Waste Api3lication
10. Are there any buflers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
❑ No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination`?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16. is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18_ Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit_ You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to questiio' h #}: Explain any YES answers and/or any recgmmendations or any other. comments
Use drawings of.facility to better. -explain situations. (use additional pages 3&necessary): ®field Copy ❑Final Notes
-its --status.
Visite the farm to check on Houses had been shear walled and no leaks were evident. Grading has been started around most of
he houses to help relieve some of the standing water problems. Mr. Ward was not present at the time of DWQ staff visit.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Larry Barley
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

C1 Division of Soil and -Water Conservation Operation Review i
pivision of Soil and Water Conservation Compliance Inspecb�n 4 =
s
Division of Water Qal�ty Compliance Inspection
Eer Agency Operitib6ke7
£
vh 'a
Routine Q Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ ins ection Q Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 4; 3 Ci 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Permitted Certified [3 Conditionally Certified © Registered JE3 Not Operational Date Fast Operated:
Farm N. ......_. of --.._.Fa.t .1N1 �...... C.............. County:....... .bio ................... .......................
G
Owner Name:......... . __. _ .. Phone No.........73 .... .�5.p ........... ............................
Facility Contact:.........0....e...................................... Title: ...................
... .......................................... Phone No
Mailing Address 3 TWA_tn.�tS. r `-..�'t ►Yi �r U}� I1,l c 2�F3S....
.............. Cs.... �..................._........._ .sue
Onsite Representative: B `•`-) A-e r Integrator: race n S
......................................�.�.................I...................... p 1..............._..........................................................
r- /
Certified Operator:---.... -o:�.� ...•. ........ Operator Certification Number: .... q Xh
Location of Farm:
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................t r
Latitude �' �' C Longitude �• �� �"
Design Current;'-----`- Design "Current Desigri Current
Swine Capacity Population- Poult ' Cattle
ty ry Capacity Population Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
pmq
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts,
❑ Boars
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. Dares discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If ves, 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
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
❑ Yes 1KNo
❑ Yes
E�No
❑ Yes
KNo
N
s
ONa
Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
PtNo
❑ Yes RtNo
Structure 6
5_ Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99
Yes [-]No
Continued on back

Facility Number. %— Z i Dale of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
El Yes
�f 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?
V Yes
❑ No
8. Does any pan of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenaricelimprovement?
Yes
❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Ayes
❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
KNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
KNo
12. Crop type CO [_ r�_ /. W kecL
13. Do the receiving crops differ ith those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
K_No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
1�j No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination'?
❑ Yes
0 No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
�4 Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
rLFR[No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ANo
Reouired Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
kfNo
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
gNo
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
Ayes o
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
I$No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[R�No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit'?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes KNo
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'? Wo
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? Yes ❑ No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ;(No
Flo -yiolaiidiis or- di fcie'nc{es •were noted• dtWifig fbis.visit- "it will reeettye d6 further :
corres� 6fidence. about
Use diawtngs of faciirty to better explai nrsituattons {use additional pages as necessary) -=
60t - hCk-#45 MLL5_
s1S e e— t-(f- ©Uej per �r pr►ytt��
per —
A)
RCPe
-,�r�0.rGI 0.
-A :4- Q-p Ars �a+ rn- (0 r- ",5'f&r
e-v +z) 1)4f
Aj6+1Et-' ou?ec itti t-ece—s�+ a-5f,
S -5' ! ' Ln/ - eS tinf- "e- t a r70 � YJ�-L1k need iC i`i�do-f A S �AfCCJ Irk Qf�l pTN L�1 8�[$
a. „d r-C f) i Cr
i
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date:��
3/23/99

i
FacilityNumber: _., — Date of Inspection:
Additional Comments and/or Drawings: ..
#� q �A ode 1-L reJ"(� aL e� vucirker ne&OIS -A 6e
0.1(oLU` -fir r- 4;��60a g ale4erm;Accio—ns.
c.
-ev—vi c.e_ 15 toorkt n- &I,- � w�j� (e ac �y e )e4rmiftq�r'�
4,r- Mr. Warj GL��tis �laiCr.
q, A CLA re- eA- wa-S�e �17S�S a.)c 5 /I,ev uaI - a+41te
-�'_-e O-C
4/.SU/Y /

r
Division of Soil and Water Conservation Other Agency
�® Division of Water Quality
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DNVQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection 6
Facility Number oZ -
Time of Inspection 9.5 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Registered Certified 0 Applied for Permit � Per_mitted E3 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name. Countv ............
............��.......s�..................................................... ..............Rod,.................
Owner Name:........1�M........ Vf�i Phone No: 9�Ci'— %�8.�:3�................ ................................................... ............................ .......... .....
Facility Contact:........ o .!fir..............(Alt ........... Title: ......................................------ Phone No:.......................................------.-----
• ..� `
;,,,cMailin Address..........�nn.........h &W.. .... .!............. 3�
On-site Representative: ......... _r
e resentative:........._r
hl�................................................ Integrator: .......�mw.f�S..........�?�
r .�..
Certified Operator;._-_-_...-_-_-.¢.n,171t�,.....
- Operator Certification Number ;....-.. �.1.��
Location of Farm:
Latitude 0• 0' " Longitude 0' 0' "
:Swlne.'�-
"Current "
Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
A • CC
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
e ❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
P ❑ Boars
0
'o
Design. -Current a` y Design _ Current:
Poultry .. ';Capactty
_
Population Cattle; :: *'Capacity�yopulation
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Mayer 1
10 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
_=
Total Design Capacity-3
Total- SSLW f
Subsurface Drains Present JJU Lagoon Area JU Spray Field Area
LJNo Liquid Waste Management System �a
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 convevance 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 pan of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
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?
7/25/97 '
❑ Yes 9Q No
❑ Yes IP(No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
IVA
❑ Yes
J4 No
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ Yes
No
$[Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ Yes
XNo
Continued on back

s
Facility Number: g —
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons,Floiding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc:)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (tt): ....... ..... a.. .
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
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 Application
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 ..................r ..........u.tt-
.........................................................................................................
t
lb. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AW`1P)?
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/]nspector 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'?
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes ONO
Structure h
❑ Yes XNo
Yes ❑ No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes WNo
❑ Yes ,� No
.......
❑ Yes
9 No
❑ Yes
>6 No
❑ Yes
to No
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ Yes
J9 No
0 No.violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You W"ill receive no further
correspondence about this.visit:
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes JO No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments°(cefer'to question#): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or atny.other coinumerxts,
Us drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):gk
.r�
5 ►%weeWxn Sdrt v J one
-,
I" Lwz 5nv &M*-Cey� MAj on 4 L4,5,10 TAw
AAC s -&L, ,
.12J + 0,101 cA� aj "4 tL � A.) uw/
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
Date: 1� l?.3'�}�

❑ DSWCAnilma Feedlot Operation Review
x�.
-
�,� . �., iCl���x�r-1:�A.;.:....1-•T�'oo.dl:.t•llna,-�+....,k�c;+s,�r„nn�.,E;:.., ...�.:.� . ,� �.�.
nt O Follow-ua of
' Facility Number 2
Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection r7_
Time of Inspection 1 '00 24 hr. (hb:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: Al
egistered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for i hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection includes travel and processing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated:... _ .. _ _.
Farm Name: �- — 1..3 rvt S ic.. ----. County:.. ---IS.. 6!u5.gkz=....-.... __..... ..
Land Owner Name: - ok W .... Phone No:
Facility Conctact:............_ �f�+'!'1 �.. __... _... _ .---�.... —.. Title:. .......... Phone No:
Mailing Address: -�� _f S.l !.�. 5+ �1....--..-..... _. ............... .L c.t,C.�,ber-o,1 (� �.. �.Y-3.5ff.
Onsite Representative: Ye . Integrator• D t^ D U3 ry _5 ,q Q Aa
Certified Operator: ._...... ak....... .... 3G.... .... ._........ _............. .....__.. Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude Longitude �• 0` �«
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
� ,�,. �,g... �d, '�^` 'a°` �.,�,q+ru� �wra� �`.n � :'
,0 kDesign Currents_Dest nCurrent� {, DesignCurrent4
g , ys
Swipe x•y=Ca aci .r Po iilation::Poultry ; Ca achy Po 'ulatiori h ;Cattle; Ca aci :Po lotion
�._
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer "_ ❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish(c Non -Layer ,<„ ❑ Non -Da'
rl-d
Farrow to Wean
0 Farrow to Feeder �Toal>Des�gA Capacity 6 S`O o�
�^
Farrow to Finish
15 ❑Other. Totat SS ,
5.
_... G
77
77
Number of Lagoons /�Halt�ing Ponds Subsurface Drains Present
Lagoon Area Spray Field Area
Eiii,,
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes KNo
2, Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ YesNo
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 JKNo
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes XNo
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes No
maintenance/improvement?
4/30/97
Continued on back

w
Facility Number:Li
... ---
6.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
JqNo
7.
Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
No
8.
Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
No
Structures (Lagoons and/or Ijolding Ponds)
9.
Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
XNo
Freeboard t�sre (ft): Struc1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
3
Structure 6
10.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
ANo
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
Yes
❑ No
(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 Iack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
No
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
KNo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
COr
Crop type _... _......ir. T....�1._..... �...... _ .... _ _.... _
7/
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
KNo
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
P1 No
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
O No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
gNo
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
A No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
IqNo
For
Cfdfied Ea 'i's Only
22.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
VNo
23.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
J9 No
24.
Does record keeping need improvement?
XYes
❑ No
Comments (refer to question #)-' Explain any YES a'nswers'andlor any recommendations or any,other comments. ;
Use drawings of facility to, better expiain situations. (use additional pages as necessary} x
1Z !does sk'Vbs 10MAks if%e iq�aok. due � f'L•e des��,` a►,c(� 4
I4-�0�-� � Iclyo L -ar. uw5care � pie+kcd-fo rca' �� Qrablee.. PrAk6 f
Z Aec orA keepi n�, `is aA u. 1e a" cyA — s4es- "4 mv�s4c r; n5 '�-o - 2� l {' Z
rKs . [J .i `
T� i 5 tares iS r n �} re -}I g o S /I'1 T. WcLrd kct5 a 0 �S 0 d r* i r S kl-, l `� a a�ic1 t e55
naa' `Wane +SSue s� �-�.. Co► nu -1110 goci Work,
�, BY .- aReviewer/Inspector
VmN
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 2d Date: - i-7
cc: Division of Water Quality; ater Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

: r Dtvtston of Water Quality y� }
t, �'r:�w •^f( Fk � y Y -m. s. 3 � : 4y --� ��F 2T 'ai"''d,5 �� w�.."c �^k?.firt;
} r _Division of Soil and Water,Conservation
s ti Q Other AgencyK
�.i.
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ® Routine O Complaint O Fallow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
12/18/2002 1:t10
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time: 78 24
10 Not Operational 0 Relow Threshold
C] Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified . [] Registered Date Last Operated or .Above Threshold:
Farm Name:)?!'AAXArms..bg...................... County: Robtsm --------------------------------- FRO ----------
Owner Name: ohAOY--------__ Ws1d------------------- Phone No:
Mailing Address: Q.7..)i+R10.dR10.dl�1Ctk'.t?x.......................................................................... Lumboxt.0.n... N.C.................................................... Z8,358 ..............
Facility Contact: ,Lobnay ard---•---------------------------------Title: Owner .................................... Phone No: .............. .......................
Onsite Representative: t]toAeIntegrator: RxoYYosslL�3�s)Jiu2l.JAC.__--------------•
Certified Operator: dobtt.,R................................... Ward ................................................. Operator Certification Number: IB.7]L6.............................
Location of Farm:
3n the east side of SR 1933 approx..2 miles south of its intersection with SR 1937.
r
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • ` Longitude F-710 °
Design Current
Design Current
Design Curretat.'
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle:
Capacity Population':
❑ Wean to Feeder
JE1 Layer
I
I
❑ Dairy
® Feeder to Finish
6500
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
El Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
6,500
❑ Gilts
Total SSLW
877,500
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 1 ® Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area IN Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Diseharses & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon El Spray Field El Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the Statc? (Yves, not] fv DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/rain?
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?
NA'aste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Stnrcture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): ........... - _.. .- - - .._. .._.._.._.._.._.._.._.------.._.._.._.._------- ......
o.sin;io 1 Continued

Facility Number: 78-24
Date of Inspection 1211812002
t
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat Cotton
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those desigrnated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre detenanination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? [—]Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Document%
17, Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the lacility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ic/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit'?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency'?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
El Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You %ill receive no further correspondence about this visit
Cammepts (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. r
Use drawings offacility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes;-
_
Note: Mr. Ward was out of town and did not receive our message setting up this inspection. No irrigation records were on site for
A6
review. Mr. Ward will be contacted, once he has returned, and the irrigation records will be reviewed.
8- Lift stations need maintamence. There is alot of hair and solids build up in the lift stations. Discoloration along the side walls
indicate past overflows from these lilt stations. Irrigation pipe that crosses the drainage canal was not leaking at the time of this
inspection, but has been seen leaking previously. This pipe should be cased to prevent any leakage to surface waters.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Paull Sherman John Hasty ,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

QS/US/Ul Continued
Facility Number: 78-24 Date of Inspection 12/18/2002
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
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 ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins Sail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No
32. Do the Flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional Comments and/orDrawtngs ',7:7r
7

Facility Number 2 Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 0 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Permitted © Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered U Not OEerationall Date Last Operated:
:eie
Farm Name:..........LN...aC`d.................. ......... Ggrni.F. _IBC County- --.-............... ... ..................... ......... ..............
OwnerName: .... �1-S�.h.�..N .......... I...--...... ...................................... Phone No:.......--....................... --.-................... . ................. I.............
FacilityContact: ..............................................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: ............. ....... ...............................
MailingAddress: ..............................................................................
... .................................... ...
Onsite Representative: ... &0..... aj! CC ...... B ri .§.; � � ...
.......... ......................... .....
Certified Operator: .........................................
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
r..................................................................................................._......--. ,........-------......... .......��
Latitude '' Longitude
Design Current -
Swine CanaCity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current' _Design = Current '
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle .Ca aci Po elation
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity_
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons JE1 Subsurface Drains Present 10 Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds/ Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System �' s
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: []Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the StalC? (If yeti, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Dohs discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If ycs, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
a. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure d Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 20 tr
Freeboard (inches):
5- Are there any imme 'ate hreats to t e int grity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 4S2-2 —OD Continued on back

Longitude
.Design Current
l?oultry. Capacity.;Popiilatinri .�
Routine O Complaint O Follow-ue of DW ins ection Follow of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection 24- d
Time of Inspection 30 124 hr. (hh:mm)
1 Permitted [3 Certified © Conditionally Certified [j Registered JE3 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
[, I , � j p ..........................
Farm Name: .............................. ' ..� - .. w 0. di Far.-.m County: Ko.h.c.5...._..................._....._......
.............. e. !..................................._......
Owner Name: ., •l] tip, fit. d Phone Na:
............. . ...............................................................................................................................................
Facility Contact: n.e.� Phone No-
................................................................... Title:...............--.............................._........ -................................... ........ ..-....
Mailing Address: t(( �� �„/ ... u..fe.k.b Q� - — �1.. .• G - Y.•---••.............................. .......• .... ..._.......}
Onsite Representative: ..........._.P�.r.. Integrator: ................. . !t /.e6.................... ............... .....
Certified Operator •......... Q_ �./i! ..-.....Lj.'RL. ......... Operator Certification Number:..... ................ „ ..........
Location of Farm: J
Latitude
• - =Destgn � �Cu
Swine .. Cnngra4v '.Dnr�
-- -- -_--
❑ Wean to Feeder
-
Feeder to Finish
650
isr7
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
=
Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
-
❑ Boars
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 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: Freeboard (inches): .......31n ........................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3/23199
r-=- CuiT'ent
��'•Po tiataots
a
�
❑ Yes A140
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes a
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes
Structure 6
❑ Yes
Continued o)dNo
n ba___c___k

4 �
Facility •Number: — Z 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 any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
IL Is there evident of over appl74)A
'on?❑ F essive onding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydr is Overloa
12. Crop type �L � a
13. Do the receiving crops diff with those designatefin the Cerfified Animal Was 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?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
Oet WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
0: i'VQ •Yiofatitjris or. dgficieQ fu4-t�er
�coriesb6fidence: about this visit. :..::::: ::.::::...:.::..::...::.. :
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes P(No
❑ Yes ALNo
❑ Yes O'No
❑ Yes ENo
❑ Yes &�(No
❑ Yes WNo
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes W10
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes gNo
XYes ❑ No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ;(No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes SNo
❑ Yes PNo
v� Gila / t e'rl Probes 1�4f 4a!; COPY o-F Se%ls es -a-r- 10-a1.
P� ' 0 �'e a Cu r rea,�t' �� GLr� a
! / " I/ P ll J `��t7�1o>��recor-cis.
/ilej keep oa CO/y � al( [ ref CA- red re co -Js Ok �a fm .
Nee 1' r{. Q 1 C,q
P;V0f 9
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: , Date: 5100

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below A(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 o
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 o
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes o
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
AdditionaM. omments an or rawtngss r =.
c
� I[. s �`�tl r�eor
5100

Type of Visit p Compliance Inspection p Operation Review p Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit p Routine p Complaint p Follow up p Emergency Notification p Other p Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: 10-5-2000 Time: 10:30 Printed on: 1011212000
p Not Operational p BelowThreshold
p Permitted 0 Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
FarmName: Ward.Earws,.Inc.................................................................................... ..... County: Robeson ............................................ ERO............
Owner Name:.)<obnay................................... War.& ................................. ............ ............. Phone No: 9.111,73&6M .................
Facility Contact: .Johnny.M.'ard.................................................Title: 0miaer ................................................ Phone No. Mohile.33"39fi ................
Mailing Address: 421I. k'J ite.OakAriye...................................................................... Lutnbe_t:taR..NC................................................ .... 283SR ..............
Onsite Representative: Jabnny..�'.1'.ard. ..............
Certified Operator:Jiahn....................................... Ward.........
Location of Farm:
n the east si e or sR 1933 approx. .2 miles south of its intersection with
Integrator: Browa'.s.s1.Carolina,.1nc..................................
Operator Certification Number:l8716............................
R Swine p Poultry ❑ Cattle p Horse Latitude 0 ' Longitude 0 & �"
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to 1, tnis
13 Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finish
Gilts
p Boars
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes ONO
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If ves, notify DWQ) 13 Yes ®No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? n/a
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ® No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? 0 Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? © Yes N No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches): .. 20.:22...................................................................................................................... .....
la Yes ONO
Structure 5 Structure 6

Facility Number: 78_24 Date of Inspection Printed on: 10/12/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ® Yes p No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? p 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? N Yes p No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? p Yes lg No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ® Yes p No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? p Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? p Excessive Ponding p PAN p Hydraulic Overload p Yes ® No
12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Wheat
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ® Yes 0 No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? p Yes p No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? p Yes p No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? p Yes 0 No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ W1JP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
Nn:viotations.or' [ie dencies:were.nnted.dvring:this:visit.':You.;vill:receive nti further..:
:�:•coy-xespovdei►ceaboufthis:��isit:•:•:•:•:-:-::•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•.•:•:•:•:•:•:•.•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:
p Yes ® No
p Yes N No
p Yes p No
p Yes ® No
N Yes p No
p Yes N No
p Yes ® No
[]Yes ❑ No
p Yes N No
p Yes N No
p Yes ® No

Facility Number: 78_24 Date of Inspection F077MM Printed on: 10/12/2000
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
p Yes
p 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?
p 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.)
p Yes
® No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
® Yes
p No
32,
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
0 Yes
❑ No
�-.,eof�agok bem19� Needtotake we YI...
lonfoe �..Cu' gY{ viues ~n�"fi!N{ e�e5pd�
to p�u
rby 123 2000 }i Note: �T Ito conPct extensr+serviceenncemg continual ecahonrlours-o3
It�eigh conoemingrhoursu> cotuputea far DWQ database `
s.• -� - '�s�F"tE"� c's�4 a.
Note:Thrre;or Four Drautage prpes were noted �n'the lagoon walitlast fair ll99
:3s � - � S '�`: ,y eh� ',
to p�ullmg�samples�of liqutd�in�d�t�h�around:lag`oon slope fo�z poss�'ble seepage pro
Notes 1Mr 3Wazd is-workirig5wrth Lary Graham, Professronai>Etigineer and Brow:
F`S�— ��— T. 4 : i#.Y
' Cx}}��.•fa
6r� x•zre�.,,F��*�� aC+�i �'-�/���'i �d W �.� s' ���.n. a '
P .P s' Ci.:.Y,�k.,''i • ,•c� ..i 2 f L �' ems. r f ' v -.
'F= '(�frt�7 Yp �
sx; _� �, _ a aY'� �-r
i c duJ0h
N1 "+ ? ram' �;} a# . ` 2. �snVO
�
RwVnri ArY;z p,%.
gr
-ate-. $ cC a•kn
• ac .
Mi
inWgy;;t��-` p
iles:of all spray fields recetvmg waste ,
License Cori#act Beth Buffing#on to
teferral vvtil �bs�senf to DWQ m regards
. t� �..� r � a.. ';Ca,n , i�.i" 1 - �•_ L1 j-�-•�.u-' d t �C.�� a �, ,eS-.-:33_?�+ a -
i - pis �t
+�t � :"7..3.-2i', '-.-.gr� +.�'�-` ` „• 'iY,.y�.y`. �. `.'k �E � �. '„yf. C , A2` �• � �'�-t •t+ f a
. i' a•�ih .rr-y.r�`�. $-',�'%. d :,ya
Gip

E3 Division of Soil and'•Water Conservation - Operation Review
R=
Division of Soil and.Water ConserRation-;CowpliaaceYlnspec4toia
x t.
®Division of Water Quahty Compliance Inspection
z
ti
0 Other Agency - Op
erahon3Revew';
10 Routine 0 Complaint
0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other _
Facility Number
73' =
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection
: > i
24 hr. (hh:mm)
® Permitted 0 Certified
13 Conditionally Certified C] Registered
13 Not Operati-o—na-11 Date Last Operated
J
a .• %r' 7
Farm Name.................�....-....-........_....:..-..............,................-...................----'--.-......,.---"----...
=t s'! < / _. c'
Count Y-......-_.
..a y s
.:':.:...:'........................ ....... .......................
Owner Name:' -, '� .Y. ,.� -s"
Phone No:
J ?
Facihtv Contact I !`
,................. '✓: a', z 7:.... ' ............Title
Phone No:
.. ,
Mailing Address: .', :
-,^ -r
�.; •� r,..:..:..........�......... :%:.
!
. ,-;
':... -.......-...:
l
:........'.�.:�� f..... ..........................
Onsite Representative: •„_......
............................................................................................
Intel=rator:
r...........,....�..-.........................'.x......,...................
i ° f;= ; - •� i� a.•••..
..
ij ' I
Certified Operator: . i " r i : Operator Certification Number: ..........................................
.......................................................................
Location of Farms:
r;
...................................................................................... --...................................-'---"----............---"----.............................................................
Latitude • �` �• Longitude • �° �"
Design Current
Swine - Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts,
❑ Boars
- . Design Current Design Current
Pohl#ry Ca acity Po ulation Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy _
.n
,. ❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSL W
INuitnher of Lagoons
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holduag Ponds /Solid Traps re ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes j No
i
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance than -made? El Yes NNo
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes allo
c. if discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d- Dins discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes © No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes E� No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes rj No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6.
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches): ..........:.-:........ ' ........---................................ ................... ................. ................................... ...---................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes © No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: - — 7 hate of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure
❑ Yes 'No
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?
ftYes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
gYes ❑ No
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 main tenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes .&No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes WNo
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAW -MP)? ❑ Yes P5'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?
.f
❑ Yes ®NNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes 'Ej No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes No
18. Docs_the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily availablg�`�.�IL
(ie/(WUP,,checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19, Does record keeping need improvement? (le/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil samplets)
Yes ❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes © No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes No
22- Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes No
r >
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes 9No
24, Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes A No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes b'No
No-yiolaiioris:oi- deficiencies -were poled• dirritig Ois'visit: - Y;oi} :wiii •reeeiye lid further
Ctirres oridehce. abc' F ' : this :visit :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:
Gominents (refer,to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any -recommendations or any other comments 'V - F
-. _ _ : V -. "" i
Use drawings of facility,to better explain situations (use addtiti pages,as necessary)A.
/��.1 .-- �'3i�- �.-ir J_.�i.7 r ��,t� Gr✓'._Y ��r i•-�' .:, iy- '/t ('� TT' �i.. �2-1
7_`j
-'^
V
Reviewer/Inspector Name
-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: r l _fir" yam% Date:
- -

Facility 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
j 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
kNo
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
[-]Yes
gNo
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
13�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
N(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 per-manent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
f
RNo
AdditionaOUomments andVvr# rawmgs: s s

v ZJYlCi g..r
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
,7 �y f Date of Visit: f �!L! J Time: g b d
Facility Number
} Not O erationaf 0 Below Threshold
Permitted [I Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold
Farm Name: C10-o4!`cZr 1.ilC- Count%: '� a Cs
7-7 - .s e 3�
owner -Name: bhr,., L),d Pbone\o:. 4Cc�� - p'9S�rl(
Mailing Address: e, aN �8' y�S
Facility Contact: _�c5�n+�., ��rc� Title: Phone Not:
Onsite Representative. Integrator: e "' w�
Certified Operator: �J�'r �Cv rt t Operator Certification Number: 7 ��
Location of Farm:
Swine ❑ Poultry [:] Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude �' �• K
Design Current
Swine Canarity Pannlatinn
❑ Wean to Feeder
ER Feeder to Finish
i>v
❑ Farrow to Fear.
❑ Farrow- to Feeder
❑ Farro-w to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Po Motion Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Laver I 1 ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Laver I I ❑ Non -Dais
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons 0 ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps r ❑ do Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream lmgacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge oritrinated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the convcvanez man-made?
b. If discharge is obsen-ed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in caUmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
?. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there anv adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste gollection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure ? Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes Nf No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes] No
N f4
❑Yes No
�( Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 6
identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 78 — ,,p
Date of Inspection
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate. gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Agplicatiou
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenanceiimprovement?
❑ Yes P� No
❑ Yes ®No
[4 Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [.1 No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type 0C3Re7 a %7 ,re � ,., 011 q v �=. ; /,/ _
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal W"aste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes CO 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
Renuired 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?
U
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design. maps. etc.)
❑ Yes
No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? Oel irrigation. freeboard, waste analysis & soiI sample reports)
4M Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
No
21.
Did the facility- fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
23_
Fail to notify reeional D`~N Q of emergency siriations as required by General Permit?
(ie discharge• freeboard problems. over application)
El Yes
®No
23.
Did Reviewer.`Inspector rail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
V 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
V1 No
{ No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit
., _N . _ .: �.-- . ;` - _... _ .--,^.-ter--.._+� �".�•-.-:�-tea:.;-'rx�•f.�•:-•:,r•.,.�_�- -�.-cass'l�'�"'�'-��=-': '7 :a���... deter .. �st?�:'.7.[LK..�x - —
Commenti (refer to gnes#on)" Erplani airy YES answers sad/orguy.recommendstzous or auyrotiter.cflmmeats. .
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use add!pages as necessary):Field Copv ❑ Final Notes
:�,.•-. .',.`r;,t'r++�a-;r _..�:�.;:,„�F _ �.�_y� :�:-'$�`>�'sl�1"�"�i�fdsi a�,_ . .�,��`i:��_fxrs i.s.s_s�`.-. sip. -
1 �L°rG i] _, M•1'��C Lev: K1G-Z OY �.-%tta� u�ca hGr G _: ;:+cG�!
7 r».- WG,o�' hateSCcJC� rr8t�1G5++ /Gr1� o? 411 iy� «l,c Pwr4 P+�� 1
t'4t C 1'YiAtrl k 4+ S't'4�\Gi'1,. 8fCj-(•5•, 4Ci�Gle. P:.•.'�f�i Citic-� li(F-Zc, 1-�ry G �L'C`.n C �eG-. cc�C o«�
tf
1 l
+c i
'e— C• 5 5 4 c �� �_ -� 0 1­3 a
1� ��rV� i..J,fRate •tea.{�i1 l�t�{•c.. �e•r (34 ripQ ii Crl._�c'.O w�.S-
rr=: L�Ycc.
f
f"f e[..J .+ Cnl b T G 1 C l G .^L? Q r A a T C• t �:.o c C' -/'•c U J G Z jee 1 T Qt2
-•a..�,-7c- y..- ter---• r�'��� ti�-�' .ra�•r.:��-?�^.•-r -:�.u. -s ,��z�,•FS.,-'����., � s>. T w.-e=' ^eg.r'v'�;.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: tzC Date: // " 1 T - Tj
O5103101 j� �onunr�ed

Division of Water Quality
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit *Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint ® Follow up Q Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
,. __ _. _ _.__�, r__._ _� ­ 1 pate of Visit, 12-04 2003 Time: i:00pm
Facility Number 78 24 #
0 Not Operational 0 below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: - ........................
Farm Name: Waird Eurms..bic..................... County: R9b.ea9jQ ............................................ FRO.......-----.
Owner Name: dob )ny...................... !'4'AGif ..............
Mailing Address: d0.7-Loudomdera.0-r..........................
Facility Contact- -------------------------------_...---------.......................--------Title:
Onsite Representative:...............................................................................
Certified Operator:,lsldtlu.l;......... ........................... W. ..aa:d......................
Location of Farm:
Phone No: 910:-1.3&SQ.3$..................................
.......... Lmaabextlon-NC.................................................... Z.835a .............
----------------- Phone No:................................------........-----
[ntegrator.�r7Ytt'S..Qf.Gxtytia�a,.tme..................................
Operator Certification Number: 1171.6
)n the east side of SR 1933 approx..2 miles south of its intersection with SR 1937. A
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • �� ��= Longitude 0
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Laver I ❑ Dairy
® Feeder to Finish 6500 ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity 6,500
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW 877,500
Number of Lagoons 1 ® Subsurface Drains Present Lagoon Area ®Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Dischartres & 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, v%as the conveyance man-made'?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQJ
c. If discharge is observed. `vhat is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagycKin system? (It 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 3 Strttcture 5
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 6
Idend Pier:
Freeboard (inches): ..................
ki/03i0 r Cnnlinuod

Facility Number: 7g—Z4
Date of Inspection 12-042003
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Ayplication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18, Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
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): ® Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
isite the farm to check on its status. Houses had been shear walled and no leaks were evident. Grading has been started around most of
he houses to help relieve some of the standing water problems. Mr. Ward was not present at the time of DWQ staff visit.
er/Inspector Name Larry Baxley
E
er/Inspector Signature: Date:

f♦,Divisiou of Water,Quality
O Divisioin of Soil and Water Conservation
0- Other Agency
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
!Reason for Visit *Routine O Complaint O Fotlow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 78 24 f '- Date of visit: 'rime:
1211812002 l:t)0
0 Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
13 Permitted 0 Certified [3 Couditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name:W.4rd.11FAriam.199................... ............ County: Robg.%Qn --------------------------------- FRS---------
OwnerName:,iahtwY---------- lYarsi---------------- Phone No:9�Q_131;-Q3S_-----------------
Mailiag Address: 3i1.7.. RutdRgtdt2F.A3r.......................................................................... Lubttl2Uh n...N.C_._................................................. 28-35a ..............
Facility Contact: Jivbnny.Waxd.............. .Title: O nee..---....._..._.._...._............. Phone No: ......................................
Onsite Representative: uOAe_-----------------------------------------_-_--- integrator: �Jr4YYA�SAf ��Tst1iQA.�lIt._---------------•
Certified Operatur: dQbm,JR ................................... Wjka.......... _.... Operator Certification Number: JA7,16..
.........................................
Location of Farm:
Dn the east side of SR 1933 approx..2 miles south of its intersection with SR 1937. i
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' �� � Longitude �• �4 �K
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Po ulatian
poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
I
I
❑ Dairy
® Feeder to Finish
6500
JEI Non -Layer
I
JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
6,500
Gilts
Total SSLW
877,540
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons I J ® Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area IN Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Dischar=es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Magoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is obsen-ed, was the conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b- If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow i n -a]/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (if yes, notify- DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection &'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes IN No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 StntCture 4 Structure 3 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): .........._..5............ ...........................
n.4/03/01 Continued

Facility ]Number: 78-24
Date of inspection 12/18/2002
5- Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat Cotton
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
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): ❑Field Copy ❑Final Notes
Note: Mr. Ward was out of town and did not receive our message setting up this inspection. No irrigation records were on site for
review. Mr. Ward will be contacted, once he has returned, and the irrigation records will be reviewed.
8- Lift stations need maintainence. There is alot of hair and solids build up in the lift stations. Discoloration along the side walls
indicate past overflows from these lift stations. Irrigation pipe that crosses the drainage canal was not leaking at the time of this
inspection, but has been seen leaking previously. This pipe should be cased to prevent any leakage to surface waters.
Reviewer/inspector Name Paul Sherman John Hasty
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

US/UJ/U/
Facility Number: 78-24 Date of Inspection 12/18/2002
Continued
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge allor below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of property 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
® 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
❑ No
Additional: Comments and/or. Drawings:' . {

UDivision of Water Resources
Facility Number ®- O Division of Soil and Water Conservation_ .
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit: O Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review UStructure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: O Routine Q Complaint O Follow-up O Referral 0 Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: �b Arrival Time: f p0 Departure Time:County: Region: U-w
Farm Name: f..3e.,4_ Fat-*15 2 �c Owner +�E -mail:
Owner Name: ���ArC - Phone:
Mailing Address: J �" ") jzc7�Y� - �C SS I C i?n /1, g 6 &,
2
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: V l , "-,e Title:
Onsite Representative: t
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
G
Location of Farm: Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: tj � —_5 ^
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity , Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish S c70
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
Laver
Non -La er
Pullets
Turkey Poults
Other
Design Current
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? LIYI es ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field fOther:
a. Was the convevance man-made? -Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
b_ Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
L� 'es
❑ 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 ves, notify DWR}
11
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
EXes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge`'
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility dumber: IDate of Ins ection: 0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
2❑ 0?es
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
hJ"1`1°
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
[D�es
❑ 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
R'es
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat,
notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
Eyfes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[�io
❑ 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
T1I es
2 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?
❑ 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
D 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 ❑ N
❑ 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?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
o []NA ONE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: jDate of Inspection_ ) . cOC 7
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [:]Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes ❑ 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?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA ❑NE
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
0 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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
# I - A-4e" t�'4 -( ; - "Sf �A,�4, G y ac.6e, &V Itcoa��) wP4 tpg gee F
Co. �R (- ff� e 4 y
J � f
4kAa i�'. #je-
L { u .
d 4.P ye r Gt
�` �nJ �^� � fsS -�W t�'`� G.ctc��e.��v� D� G�ia.c�C /1• r�
I FS h4u, s
fQ e
Reviewer/Inspector Name: " i
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: U_ g 3 3 31-3 y
Date: L D Oa 16
21412015

M Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
780024 Facility Status:
Inpsection Type:
Structure Evaluation
Reason for visit:
Routine
Date of Visit:
10/2012016 Entry Time: 01:00 pm
Farm Name:
Ward Farms, Inc.
Owner:
John R Ward
Mailing Address:
307 Londonderry Dr
Active
Exit Time
Permit: AWS780024 ❑ Denied Access
Inactive Or Closed Hate:
County: Robeson Region: Fayetteville
3:00 pm
Incident #
Owner Email:
Phone:
Lumberton NC 28358
Physical Address: 387 Robert Bessie Rd Lumberton NC 28358
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34° 44' 48"
On the east side of SR 1933 approx..2 miles south of its intersection with SR 1937.
Question Areas:
0 Dischrge $ Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
[e-mail]
910-738-5038
Longitude: 78' 57' 24"
Certified Operator; John R Ward Operator Certification Number: 18716
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representalive(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name John Ward Phone:
On -site representative John Ward Phone :
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspectors):
Bill Dunlap
Mark Brantley
910-433-3300 Ext.727
Phone:
Date:
Inspection Summary:
#1 After an inital investigation by Mr. Jim Barber of NCDEQ, Mr. Mark Brantly and myself (Bill Duniap)enterd the Johnnny Ward
Farm on Thursday October 20, 2016. We found a significant amount of waste coming out of the dogboxes at the end of a couple of
houses and indications that there had been a large volume of runoff before and after Hurricane Matthew. it appeared to us that the
accumulation of waste was due to a failure to properly maintain a fluid flow to the lift pumps that remove waste from the pits to the
lagoon.
#1 B It appeared that waste reached the waters of the State. D. The waste bypassed the waste management system
#4 Lagoon level was 19 inches and the permitted level is 27 inches.
#5, 6 & 7 Several of the transfer pipes and other apparatus of the waste system are in need of repair or replacement. Some
pressure pipes are being held together by duct tape.
page. 1

Permit: AWS780024 Owner - Facility : John R Ward Facility Number: 780024
Inspection Date: 1012D116 Inpsection Type- Structure Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
t
19 00
Lagoon
78-024
27-00
19.00
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na Na
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
0
❑ ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
0 ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
0
❑ ❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Cl
[]
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
❑
❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
■
❑ ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
0
❑ ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6 Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7- Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
0
❑ ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
page 2