780029_INSPECTIONS_20171231

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number,
780029 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS780029
Denied Access
Inppection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit:
Routine
County: Robeson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of visit
02/15/2017 Entry Time: 10:00 am
Exit Time: 11:00 am Incident s
Farm Name:
Farm 5702
Owner Emall:
Owner
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34' 30' 10" Longitude: 79' 12' 51"
From Fairmont take 130 West and proceed about 4-5 miles and turn Rt. at crossroads onto SR 2455 and go 2.5 mites and turn Lt.
onto SR 2467 (dirt road) and the farm entrance is 0.5 mile on the right.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream impacts Waste Col, Slor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator:
Secondary OIC(s):
Ronald Lee Matthews
Operator Certification Number: 990008
On-Ske Representativels):
Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name
Mike Cudd
Phone
On -site representative
Mike Cudd
Phone
Primary Inspector:
Robert Marble
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

a
Permit: AVVS780029 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780029
Inspection Date: 02/15/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
❑ Swine - Farrow to Wean 2,400
Total Design Capacity: 2,400
Total SSLW: 1,039,200
Waste Structures
Designated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
1
19.00
56.00
Lagoon
7702
19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS780029 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780029
Inspection Date: 02/15/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impactr,
Yes
No Na Me
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)
❑
❑ M
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
M ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection. Storage & Treatment
Yee
No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
N ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
K ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
013
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ N ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
[]
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

J
Permit: AWS780029 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780029
Inspection Date: 02/15/17 Inssection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Pocalla loamy sand, a In 3%
slopes
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
E Cl
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
■ ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
E ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS780029 Owner- Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 780029
Inspection Date: 02/15/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
M ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
M ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
M ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concem? If yes,
❑
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
M ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑E
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

• ",
Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 780029 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS780029
Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Robeson Region:
Date of Visit: 03/1112015 Entry Time: 01:00 pm Exit Time: 1:30 pm Incident #
Farm Name: Farm 5702 Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC Phone:
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
❑ Denied Access
Fayetteville
910-296-1800
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34° 30' 10" Longitude: 79' 12' 51"
From Fairmont take 130 West and proceed about 4-5 miles and turn Rt. at crossroads onto SR 2455 and go 2.5 miles and turn Lt.
onto SR 2467 (dirt road) and the farm entrance is 0.5 mile on the right.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Ronald Lee Matthews Operator Certification Number: 990008
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone :
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone:
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWS780029 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780029
Inspection Date: 03/11/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
❑ Swine - Farrow to Wean 2,400
Total Design Capacity: 2.400
Total SSLW: 1,039,200
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
1
19.00
41.00
Lagoon
7702
19.00
page: 2

1
Permit: AWS780029 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780029
Inspection Date: 03/11/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
[]
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ ■
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
110
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
M ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste ApplicatiQn
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 01113
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 Ibs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS780029 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility number: 780029
Inspection Date: 03/11/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Pocalla loamy sand, 0 to 3%
slopes
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
N ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
N ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
N ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
E ❑
❑
20, Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
[]
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS780029 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780029
Inspection Date: 03/11/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
E ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
M ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
ME][]
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
E ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
■ ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■ ❑
❑
page: 5

i
E Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
780029 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS780029
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Robeson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
03/19/2014 EntryTime: 11:00 am
Exit Time: 11:30 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Farm 5702
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34' 30' 10" Longitude: 79' 12' 51"
From Fairmont take 130 West and proceed about 4-5 miles and turn Rt. at crossroads onto SR 2455 and go 2.5 miles and turn Lt.
onto SR 2467 (dirt road) and the farm entrance is 0.5 mile on the right.
Question Areas:
Dischrge 8 Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator:
Secondary OIC(s):
Michael L Cudd
Operator Certification Number: 25233
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Records reviewed 2/28114.
Site visit 3/19114.
Robert Marble
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWS780029 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780029
Inspection Date: 03/19/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00
Lagoon 7702 19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS780029 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780029
Inspection Date: 03/19/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at:
Structure
Application Field
Other
a. Was conveyance man-made?
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
C. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
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
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance. or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
Hydraulic Overload?
Frozen Ground?
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
PAN?
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
Total Phosphorus?
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Evidence of wind drift?
Application outside of application area?
Yes No Na Ne
❑■❑❑
❑❑■❑
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
Yes No Na Ne
❑■❑❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
Yes No Na Ne
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
page: 3

I
Permit: AWS780029 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780029
Inspection Date: 03/19/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Gverseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Pocalla
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
■ ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
E ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
E]
E ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS780029 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number; 780029
Inspection Date: 03/19/14 Inssection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
■ ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑0
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge surrey
❑
Failure to develop a PDA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑M
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
e ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na We
2& Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andlor document
❑M
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
[]
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32, Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
M ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33, Did the Reviewerlinspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
M ❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 780029 Facility Status: Active permit: AWS780029 [] Denied Access
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Robeson Region: Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 02126/2013 Entry Time: 02:00 pm Exit Time: 2:30 pm Incident #
Farm Name: Farm 5702
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Physical Address:
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Warsaw NC 28398
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34' 30' 10" Longitude: 79° 12' 51"
From Fairmont take 130 West and proceed about 4-5 miles and turn Rt. at crossroads onto SR 2466 and go 2.5 miles and turn Lt.
onto SR 2467 (dirt road) and the farm entrance is 0,5 mile on the right.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other issues
Certified Operator: Eric L Ferrell Operator Certification Number: 17634
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Records reviewed 218113
Site visit 2126113
page: 1

Permit: AWS780029 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780029
Inspection Date: 02/26/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 2,400
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00
Lagoon 7702 19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS780029 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780029
Inspection Date: 02/26/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Ygs
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ M
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
M ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection. Storage & Treatment
Yes
NO Na Ng
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
O ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le.l large
❑
❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
■ ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑0
❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste APPlicatiQn
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
1 i. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
[] M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > i0%/101bs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS780029 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780029
Inspection Date: 02/26/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Pocalls
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
N ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
E ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
r ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
S ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
E ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
[]
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS780029 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780029
Inspection Date: 02/26/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
You
No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
N ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
N ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
moo
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
E ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
■ ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
s ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
00
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
0
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
N ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

Type of Visit: &Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: • Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 10
j Arrival Time: 02'�op Departure Time: p 2 t 3o County: ADWOI i Region:
:
Farm Name2" 1 � ! �i Owner Email:
Owner Name: r Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: _ Lfja Title: Phone:
14 AA
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: #
i�4 p0
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Integrator: r%ytp ")$A
Certification Number: 2iY
Certification Number: , /I �W
Longitude:
-
`"�-'g
Currpent
j �
Des n�Cu ent
g u
`WDesign Current
S wrne
Ca aci 1' *
Dp.,. tY
Wet Poultry !
Capacity Pop
Cattle Capacity Pop.
i
Wean to Finish
airy Cow
Wean to Feeder
airy Calf
Feeder to Finish
e` T
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
O
lDrvCow
Farrow to Feeder
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
OtherI
10ther
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes [ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No E?3 NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) [:]Yes [:]No MNA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) [:]Yes [:]No NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 10
No [] NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters [] Yes T9 No [] NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

[Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: 6 /3
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 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
i�
Observed Freeboard (in): 5
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
VM No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑(E�v_idence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): S_4 (_T44_61. A
yp () l' bCR ['a ! `
13. Soil T e 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
Ti
❑ 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 ❑ Crap 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 0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Condnued

• Facility Number: 7- Date of Inspection. /
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes D No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes O No [:]NA ONE
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 D 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.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a Follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question # ): Explain any YES answers and/or any,additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages.as necessary).
— _jr creme : ems.,-e.J 7-/ g 13
rp/a&/i.3
Reviewer/inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 9ro3 " 33
Date:
21412011

i ype of visit: w uompuance inspection v uperanon mevtew V structure t;vatustion V i ecnntcai Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint O Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival `Time: Q I"+ Departure Time: County: Region: p
Farm Name: ����'— 1 1 Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative: K
Certified Operator: �0,4-0
Title:
Phone:
Integrator:4�1,{� fyUWn.W
Certification Number:���
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current °. a A Design C rrent xt+� Design Gurreat
Swine Capacity Pop: WetPbultry Capacity Pop;�� Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish Layer I I Dairy Cow
Wean to FeederI INon-Layer I Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean �} " Design Cnrrrent D Cow
Farrow to Feeder _D fiPoult . Ca aci Pow Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish Layers Beef Stocker
Gilts - Non -Layers Beef Feeder
Boars Pullets " Beef Brood Cow
Turke s "_
Other Turkey Poults
Other 10ther -
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?
0 Yes �g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
[::]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
[—]Yes No
aNA ❑ NE
M NA ❑ NE
® NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

[Facility Number: 770 - Date of inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): _
Observed Freeboard (in):
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?
No [DNA ❑ NE
No [r NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes T No
❑ Yes �n No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑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 ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes T� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 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 M Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):Ga4i-iu -6,a,.L
jI ! '
13. Soil Type(s):RC !G
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes 5 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement'? ❑ Yes ®No []NA ❑ NE
ON
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable [—]Yes LN 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
0171 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 T No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: Date of Ins ection: f
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No
25. Is the facility out of compliance 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
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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?
[:]Yes
4 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 We 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
1p 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 f: 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).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: q10 - 3s- Mo
Date: 3h fi7'
21412011

Type of Visit • Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit • Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
t
Date of Visit: l i Arrival Time: Departure Time: OS County: B Region: ZQ
Farm Name: 510a ` 1 or) e,2) Owner Email:
Owner Name: Au�1�tom- Phone:
f I
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: f `f I&- Title: Phone No:
N ,� /
Onsite Representative: 11 ��II _ %I � Integrator: /+'i
Certified Operator: YC�'0ICL w�Tq 6C Operator Certification Number: 25-4 2_'J
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = 0 0 d = Longitude: = ° E__1 ` = u
Dl ign Current
Design Current
Design C►urrent
Swine P•: Cpacity Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ DairyCow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La er
❑ DairyCalf
❑ Feeder to Finish
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
1Jry Poultry
b
❑ D Cow
El Farrow to Feeder
❑ Layers
El Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Beef Stocker
❑Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars ❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
- ❑Turkeys
Other ❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other ❑ Other
Number of Structures: n
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?
❑ Yes PINo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
N NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[ONA
❑ NE
In NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
r No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection Z� I
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes oNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? [—]Yes [-]No M NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
u
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
nNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
b— No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10, Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN [:IPAN > 10% or ]O lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evid nce of Wind Drift [:]Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) CW90 le C -fit I
13. Soil type(s) V"a �..
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
pvNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[:] Yes
� No
❑ NA El NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
V No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YE$ answers and/or any recommendations or arty o#her comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situat�ioons/. (use additional pages as necessary}:
T
Reviewer/Inspector Name s Phone: n' '33L�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

a �s
Facility Number: 70 — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes OiNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropiiate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes V No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
` No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification'?
❑ Yes
Pallo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[lio
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
05 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
[XNo
❑ NA
ElNE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
II
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
P
❑ 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
Page 3 nj 3 12128104

IF
Type of Visit & m�pliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit &1 outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: -Zl0 Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: /�+�sc� Region:
Farm Name: -57-702 - / 60 1A 1 a ? Owner Email:
Owner Name: /f-.s,-&Z.64/ I LL G Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: k-e- �d Title: LNM 7�'� Phoone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: - Bk-o J
Certified Operator: Oa►-oIJ Wt.��-� o�«�� Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =' =' = Longitude: I= ° =' 0 u
NDesign Current
Swine Capacity Population
Design Current
Wet Ponlfry' Capacity Population
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
ID Layer
I
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -La er
El Dairy Calf
El Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
IDry Poultry
❑ DairyHeifer
Z*0 D
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Layers
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Non -Layers
El Beef Feeder
El Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Pouhs
❑ Other
Number of Structures
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
® NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
® NA
❑ NE
® NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[-]No
❑ Yes
Q? No
❑ NA
[--IN E
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: `% $ — 6 ZR 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
Identifier: S71� Z
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3 gj
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes K No
❑ Yes VfNo
Structure 5
El NA El NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [NNo ❑ 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 �ffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes JZ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes �RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Applicatio1n Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) ��.ru da �F�"1 S ll G ray w, �p. S • J
13.
Soil type(s) p p C_a.1 ( o-
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
P3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
0 No ❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ 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):
1W
Reviewer/Inspector Name FPhone: 9/a•y33 ..330 0
Re-dewertInspector Signature: Date: 6 % ' Z0/0
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? El Yes yn No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check ❑ Yes TfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists El Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 9No ❑ 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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes U10 ❑ NA ❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
JR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
PjNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
PFNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
Pj No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[j�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
EY 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
[RNo
❑ 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
EfNo
❑ 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
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
Jallo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit &Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: j�� Departure Time: (�/�p/-1 County: r'0ea_<o'0j
Farm Name: c,� �� ��Owner Email:
Owner Name: QA '&O61 U-C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region: FAO
Facility Contact: f • vL`K +,,c hi — Title: Phone No:
/j
Onsite Representative: Integrator: ! Y U ;D�UIPI ,
Certified Operator: j�=4 Lac Operator Certification Number: _. A6_6_�C(
Back-up Operator: _ "`"—()0�s Back-up Certification Number: / g2F ( S
Location of Farm: Latitude: ❑ o ❑ , = di Longitude: [= o = � =
64
Design Current
Designall
Currents
- Design C►urrent
Swine
Capacity P-.opulation
Wet Poultry
Capacity Population - Cattle Capacity Population
El to Finish
❑ La er
❑Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Non-Laer
❑ Dairy Calf
El Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
�LqCO"
Dry Poultry
�`�`'�..'w
"�" _
�� ❑ Dry Cow
El Farrow to Feeder'"
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Dairy
El Farrow to Finish
❑ Beef Stocker
ElNon-La ersGiltsPulletsElBeef
Feeder
PCI Boars
❑ Beef -Brood. Co
;; ❑ Turkeys
Other � : -F JE1 Turkey Poults
❑ Other
' ❑)the r
Dumber of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
EPNA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
[ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
to No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No
PONA
❑ NE
Stru tune 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 14 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes F-' No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes (g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 4No ❑ NA El NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes *No ElNA ❑ NE
ElExcessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ElFrozen 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 Windo ❑ Evidence of�� Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)G //
5M • CWa4 V
13.
Soil type(s) �o
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
CrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
T No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
�Vo
❑ NA
❑ NE
t.Cotnmen#s (refer to question #}: Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any othe_r�comments
--. max. w :Z�.g 1 .
Use drawings -of facility.to better explain situations: (use additional pages as necessary):
AL
Reviewer/Inspector Name
-- —~--— " Phone: ✓
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
Page 2 of 3 121281041 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection fJ
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 N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists g p El Other
❑ Design ❑ Maps
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Q*No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
9NA
❑ 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
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
F.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
P NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
_PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
cKNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
ElNA
❑ 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
_PNo
❑ 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
�5No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[�&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

J
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit r Routine 0 Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: `T/I
Farm Name:
Owner Name: _
Mailing Address:
Arrival Time:: Departure Time: County:
Owner Email:
f Phone:
Physical Address:
Facilitv Contact: Title:
U
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Region:
Phone No•
A-114
Integrator: 4�2 `'%—
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = e 0 F7 Longitude: = o = i = «
Design Current
sign Current
Swine
Gapacih° Population
\Vet Poultry Capacity
Popultiou
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
"_.
M.�
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
1 20 00 1 a 4 1111Dn' Poiiltr.�
�A..
❑ Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑Lavers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑Gilts
❑ N ers
ElBeef Feeder
❑ Boars
Nets
❑Pull
❑ Bee!' Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys_,
u
OtbeC
❑ Turkey I'oults
❑ Other
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
..
_...
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation:?
❑ YeseVIE
p No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes. notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
f"NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes. notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
)9 NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
JB No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
�n No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection /
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No �9 NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: Jr 09-
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): -2r�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? [--]Yes
&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ic/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered ves, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
kft
M No ❑ NA ❑ NF
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
[PNo ❑ 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
$2 No ❑ NA [:1 NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
JR] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable C p Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) It S/ti,
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Ycs
43 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
V%No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
AL
Reviewer/Inspector fame F Phone: l
Reviewerllnspector Signature: Date: 7
Page 2 oj'3 112128104 C,onnnued

Facility Number: 70— Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 'MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 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? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewerhnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
$2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes T No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes tgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
;gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
19 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

0 Division of Water Quality
J
Facility Number rj v?9 0 Division of Sol and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
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: 3 IDI Arrival Time: ( -` p0 Departure Time: County: "Son Region: FP40
Farm Name: �{M IOD.-1_ Owner Email:
Owner Name: _ ____ AWi2k„ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: $rylelto n S Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
7--
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: 0 0 0 [�« Longitude: 00
=1
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
a CO
Za~
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
Non-L
Pullets
TurkeN
Pouets
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population_-
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
?. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes t$No A ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes [--]No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No R9 NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes E wo ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes V,No ❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

J `
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 07
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
PNA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier: ���3-L
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): l
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
* No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[8No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes M 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 ElNA [I NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes F No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) w%ul 5n,4(( ©Krs& 1A—
13. Soil type(s) �'p—
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
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
® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
tANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
'v;.i .
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments ti
Use drawings of facHity to better explain situations. (use additional pages;as .necessary):
Reviewer/inspector Name , , Phone: 10) 3-3 00
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: L a
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Y L
y
Facility Number: Date of inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes FP 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 El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
t9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
1�9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[pNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
tft No
❑ NA
[j NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
V] 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
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
1PNo
❑ 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
[YINo
El NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

N
� ® Division of Water Quality
IFaCilty Number 70 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency t%
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ® Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Referral O Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: (p'13-d ro Arrival Time: �Z'/S Departure Time: County: IQLeSbAl Region:
Farm Name: iV57021 Cold L&vilma Owner Email:
Owner Name: AtyJ2 14 Bra La n! Phone:
III i
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �/ Title:
Onsite Representative: 101 xC_AqA4,1 S
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 0 e = t = « Longitude: E—_1 o =' = u
Design, Current ;Design Current
Design
Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity
Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
Dry Patiltry
❑ D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Wean Z pp
❑
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Boars
Discharges &Stream Impacts
1.
is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharges &Stream Impacts
1.
is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
El Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: El Structure El Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
El Yes
(XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
El Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes, notify DWQ}
[] yes
R) No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
El Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
El Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12/28/04
Continued

Facility Number: 7 g— -29
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
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 24
Observed Freeboard (in): Z
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes Ed No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 7 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
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the pen -nit?
❑ Yes
1 � No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
El Yes
o
[I NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes I? 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 Windoww' El Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)pe Pe(s) r ru u d//Gi�L12¢ll 6h4,�n1 6iJu�S J— —
13. Soil type(s)
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes [M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement'? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name wil tPhone: Uj�1J �f3 33O Q
ReviewerfInspector Signature: Date: G -13 � 260 Co, c2Zddd
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 7 -Z Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes UffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps p ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes EfNo ❑ 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
[XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
19 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
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31 _
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
^,
Page 3 of 3 12128104

® Division of Water Quality ,
Ffy Number _ Y W� 29
Q Soil and Mater Conservation
Other Agency
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: f 2`ZO 'O 5 Arrival Time: 12 % t M Departure Time: County: ?==!!� 6e'50d Region: FM)
Farm Name: A S702-1 L014 Can-bi! S #- `11 OZ) Owner Email:
Owner Name: /aur.4 Oi'7�tc/�/ Phone:
f Of
Mailing Address:
Phvsical Address:
Facility Contact: 71'.rh.1�i . _ _Title:
Onsite Representative: _:;r_n
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator: Vd-!f4 gi-ALf
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = I ❑ i! Longitude: = o = i ❑ i6
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
❑ Other
. Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
_ ❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkev 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
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dai Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non-Dairy-
0
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures: F-1Al
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 [XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
EffNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
rgNo
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: `] g— 29 Date of Inspection ITZ0 O
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 MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes IN No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
r
Designed Freeboard (in): :ZO
Observed Freeboard (in): �
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
LN No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
D�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[9No
❑ 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
1�_,A No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or to lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window Evidence of Wind Driflr ❑ Application Outside of Area
f I❑
12. Crop type(s) WWI ti d C,, . t f� to > �V11� i l 64-cu n1 ccy t.YSee
\
13. Soil type(s)
Pn C.o. q D._
! -
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[)Q No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination%❑ Yes
6d No
❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to,questiiun #):W Explain any YES answers and/or any, recommendations or any other comments: J
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations: (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewerfinspector Name �'G T Phone:M00% l-r5%
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: IL— 2 0- 2 u 0 S
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: —7 —Z9 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19_ Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes �6No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes (%No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes tgNo ❑ 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
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
1;9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
(gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
P(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ 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
IN 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
[3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
'0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments afld/or`Drawings
I2128104

IType of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ®Routine C)Complaint O Follow up Q Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Time:
Facilin lumber a.
10 Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified ❑ Conditionall-v Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: — Q- G_M,-{VC 1, o dLn C County:
r
Owner Name: _ �'. &rr-3 0 C 6 L M '!Y=— 77-Phone No: 9 10
Mailing Address: __ Q : Q L, 6.rC6,.
Facilit}- Contact: WC,* Title:
Onsite Representative: 1A.ezit
Certified Operator: 6-- I D k a 1&) !3 4!;& �Gq �—
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator: _ ',!_rf-D ( t k
Operator Certification number: 2�
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' z � Longitude 0 �• �=
Design Current
Swine Canacih Pannla6on
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
2 ,)o
❑ Farroxv to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Laver I ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Laver I Non-Dain° 11
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present _. ❑ Lagoon Area 0 S rav Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps j_J` No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge oria-inated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray- Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the convevance 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 sial/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system" (If yes.. notify DWQ)
1 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 R Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 3 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): Z !�
05103101
❑ Yes Q No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑Yes
J�jNo
❑ Yes
® No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: TalDate of Inspection I
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes [P No
seepage, etc.)
& Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ERNo
(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 maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes I�.No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes QNo
Waste Analication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? - ❑ Yes Eallo
11. is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes [9No
12. Crop type f� P r nr. k r Az, *-- C w.. 0
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
PNo
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 & Document
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
rO No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
ONo
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
$1 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 fil No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes JQ 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 rK No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
h � �- � c. �,l-�^ �„r�-Qa ►�--� � i n vYl cr<-Q,� �- � �� 1 ` � 3 � o !C S t' n c2 �-G�,�.,,
1 4 aY• GC a .-- d
Reviewer/Inspector Name f
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: I/ k r— Date: 16 0
1. V /{{•fIMGM

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection ®O
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanenthemporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 2 No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes Q No
❑ Yes BNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
O5103101

-f-
�` s-. .s.a.y` x��c s� ;,�, ''�.--��,'�k-.s?� /�����-ic c' ,a,p-r x _. ... r. _ .s � -r � --•c
Type of Visit 10 Compliance Inspection C) Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ®Routine O Complaint O Follow up Q Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Vicin Time: ®
i Facility• \-umber I
tint O erational Q Below Threshold
Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold
Farm Name: r•ns Caunn•: rx
-��
Owner Name: _ C Grr�n It C �` l� 1 Phone No: J 1 O ` L - fe
Mailing Address: 0, 0 . „R A)c 5?'1 L L-j &PJ:6, W
Facility Contact: a Title: _ , 11h Phone No:
Onsite Representative: lntegrator: _ CG.a-rQ Il S
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number: a!; 1.
Location of Farm:
CA Sa 3.4 L } Y.�G r l n ie�'� . 42 a 4L 55 - +teed f`i vtf'
qr
EO Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 ° . Longitude ' OK
Design Current
Design Current Design Current
Swine Ca ncity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder:4:��
❑ Laver I
1
❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
1
10 Non -Laver
I
I
JEJ Non -Dairy
Farrow to «' can
p�
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons © ❑ Subsurface Drains Present= ❑ La oon Area JE1 S rar Field .area
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Dischar-es S Stream Imparts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes No
Dischare,e originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray° Field ❑ Other
a. If discharn. is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b_ If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes. notiA- DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notifj, DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [� No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: —Aq I Date of Inspection O�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (icl 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? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
T Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes E'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 EA No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes W No
12. Crop type LZ Oar w. r,. i9s 4, C e_l(
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
W 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
P 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
ERNo
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc_)
❑ Yes
'F�dl 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
[19 No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
P
23,
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
bNo
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[� No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #f]: Explain any YES answers and/or any rernmmendations or any other commenis.
Use drawings of fact�ity to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
i`C.Cr f� %y+LG t_"k'c!! �O C��c1� ►� �.n ,�..�..� c.�a�t—� fK., P►c.h cc
H,
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: O 6
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or ]aL,.00n fail to discharge at/or bciou
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation. asphalt.
roads, building structure. and/or public property.)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were anv major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts. missing or
or broken fan blade(s). inoperable shutters. etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permancntitemporary toyer?
❑ Yes [j� No
❑ Yes FNo
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑Ye5 PNo
❑ Yes R No
O5103101

\V
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint 0 Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facilitv Number Date of'Visit: 6L Time: = Od
10 Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
E Permitted 1°Certifed [] Conditionally Certified ©Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: %T,Lh- 77e .z County: fC6 sO.�
Owner Name: _ �f �C. Phone No: q% % i r —7 f �
Mailing Address: 07r�!/ J�b�� h//ts i � i A/C P-
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: JJ� integrator: Se.� f _f� ir� . 1s✓C.
Certified Operator: �hy,[o W�� � Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Pouttry ❑ cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0' 0 Longitude 0 a 0 0
Design 'Cur -rent
Swine _Canarity Pannlation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
IM Farrow to Wean
z ybli
a D
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current
Poultry -Caw acits ' Pa uiation Cattle
❑ Laver I airy
❑ Non -Laver I❑Non-Da
[] Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Design =Current
--"Number of Lagoons .. ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La ooa Area ❑ Spray Field Area
_..
Iiolding,Ponds./.Solid Traps IEJ No Liquid Waste Management Svstem
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Svrav Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notif}, DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in galrmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if ves, notify DNVQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any pan 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):,
05103101
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes �lo
❑ Yes 1XNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes $TNo
❑ Yes EgNo
❑ Yes KNo
Structure 6
Continued

Facility ?umber: '7 — 29 1 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?
«Vaste 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
❑ Yes �KNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes (ZNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes 91 No
❑ Yes N:No
❑ Yes $No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes KNO
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
OfNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
09 No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
KNo
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
UErNo
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
MfNo
Required Records &: Documents
IT
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/ VVUP,checl Ots, des p.,,m s, .)
❑ Yes
'A4No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
0—No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
RNo
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
JRNo
77.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
;KNo
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
gNo
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
�KNo
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
1KNo
0 1\o violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You v► Il receive no further correspondence about this visit.
'Cominedts (refer: to question_ #):-;EYphrm aay YES answers-aad/or.any.reeomuiendat us.or anv other comments. -
Uie drawtn s of: facility to betterr e=pLuu situattons (ose addrtionaE pages as neeesssry) [] Field Cory ❑ Final Notes
Reviewer/Inspector Name
ReAewer/Inspector Signature: Date: /
O5103101 Continued

Facility Number- %8 — ,�� Date of Inslivetion QZ
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below- 9Yes ❑ 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 ti'o
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ElYes Ho
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
24. 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 V-No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes �No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanentltemporary cover? ❑ Yes No
Additional Comments andlor;Drawings ;:'-
0510310I

i
ivlSion ofty
ti Ivisi6n 0 on,
0 Dii f Soil and Water Cc
6 -A-
theU gell
7=
WWI
Type of Visit 0 Compliance inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
(Reason for Visit ',Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other 0 Denied Access
D / Time. [� Printed on: 7/21/2000
Facility Number _]DateofVisit: --I
I =ONotO crational OBelow' Threshold
A(Permitted. 13Certified [3 Conditionally Certified E3Registered Date Last Operated or bove Threshold: .......................
County: ... X605-51d�,-
Farm Name: ....... 2.;z ........... ........................................ ...............................................
................. ....................................................................................
Owner Name: ............ Phone No:
Facility Contact: ............. Title: ..... � �:;; � �. / ..................... Phone No:................................................
MailingAddress: ............................................................................................... ..................... ..................................................................................... .......................
Onsite Representative: .. .... .................... Integrator:..........................................................................................
Certified Operator: ..... A .�7 ........... Operator Certification Number:
. ........ M.
..... ................... ......... ..........................................
Location "of Farm:
I I IV
0 Swine ❑ Poultry 0 Cattle 0 Horse Latitude Longitude
'Diedgn'Curient Design Current' Design C Urinwit,
,
"Ca city Populaition Poultry Cattle Populiti6is
Capacity Population Capsicit-*%
Wean to Feeder UEy:e:r 1 10 Dairy I W
Feeder to Finish I[] Non -Layer 10 Non -Dairy I
Farrow to
Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capadty
Gilts
Boars Total
Gilts
Number of ooas ❑ Lag -on Area ❑I0 Spray Field Area
Subsurface Drains Present ❑11[] Lag
t S611d'Traps; ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: C] Lagoon C] Spray Field C] 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. It'discharge Is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/inin"
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
E] Yes /� No
El Yes JeNo
0 Yes A No
k
E] Yes �o
EI Yes � No
El Yes AZ 0
El Yes PMo
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
5100
............................
Continued on back

Facility Number: 7g= Date of Inspection Printed on: 7/21/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
N0
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑Yes
o
(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 pan of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
o
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
IAO
A
Waste Application
7
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
eNo
11. Is there evidence of over application?I ❑ Ex ssive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Ov rload
❑ Yes
'No
12. Crop type 8 e��l cz k �r �e
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those des gn ted in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
o
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
EIo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
PONo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
94l
❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑�� Yes
A!(No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
o
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
o
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ YesINO
o
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yeso
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
gNo
23.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
qNo
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
PjNo
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
d2fNo
viola igris;or deiFicje pos •wgre inQted during this;visit; YoWwill seegive o ui-thgr
corresparideirce.'abaut; this :visit. :: .. .
Comments (refer to 4nesbon"#): Explain "any YES answers and/or any recommendations or;any otlher comments-- " 4 x .:
Else drawmg�`of facility to,better explain situations {use additional.pages as
yam.
I' qr,- (�4GCS Cj f w GLLCl- 1 l fl- % f� a
r'` ' � I f'1 e PJ�C q7 r`4A_e rC>�s YLCe e1 5 dY� e C47c c1 e�j, �i'�T LtJ� /(,I e Ed'�ut161•-�
Reviewer/inspector Name v =�... -
Reviewer/inspector Signature: e,,. Date: S 2,6— 01 $7op

a
Facility Number: 70 — Date of Imspection Printed on: 7/21/2000
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
o
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e_ residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
o
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
No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
El Yes
o
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
q;Ms
❑ No

r } "BP
vrsoof So>I andWater,Conse
Division of Water. Oiiiality = Cnmi
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number 7 ,2 Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 3 25 124 hr. (hh:mm)
Operinitted [] Certified 13 Conditionally Certified © Registered 0 Not Operational IDate Last Operated:
Farm Name: ......... .....l......1....Q Z....•............. County:... /�.� �a l
........ ..................... S....................
Owner Name: ...... 0.a.cr`&117 .... ......... SC. Phone No..��P....-�(2.2`�...........................
Facility Contact: tQS Title: ,GtG-�_I/ .......... Phone No:...................................................
...........h....................• ---- - ...........------------. .............. f . } .. /� r..
Mailing Address:..... �S I......{. �I � � t �'..C�........ � .. 5�..1...a rs..q. .�5..� .. � It C ......
...
Onsite Representative:....„e,rr ... Integrator:
..................................................................................................
Certified Operator:........ . lx....1...................�1...�............................. Operator Certification Number:........................................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ���6 '1 Longitude 0 6 66
Design_:.; Current Design ..: Current
aci .�.NPo"ilitioiii W(ry5 Capacity ::Population. C
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
arrow to Wean
p�
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
,Design Current
<
Popelation`;,
'wiry
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes P 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? (Il' 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 FNo
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? El Yes I
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes No
Structure I Structure ? Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(inched: ....... ..........................................................I..........
5- Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes 4NO
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: 7 — 2.2 Date of Inspection Z -sue
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
Yes
No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses as
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
9Yes
❑ 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
Wo
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
ANo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
XYes
❑ No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated ' e Ce ified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
JoNo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
ONO
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
ONO
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
XYes
AM
16. Is there'a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ONO
Required Records & Documents
17.. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
E f 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?
discharge, freeboard
❑ Yes
ONO
(ie/ problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
q No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
ONO
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
$No
•viotar•tiQris;oid�f eiencies -were noted diving this:visit' - You %rd)-teceiye iio rutthtr - . • .
correspoiWe' about this visit` _
W 7• &JAYe Of ialavn, r2P�s ra be nvawed• .sa -,e lUoa�y S�!rxuJ ore- bejit(i
L&c; �
r 6 raw . '
Mr. Sk a11�,`s`4 t2,�� `�`r�'�
k/1, �Jcr�u/PP P w�
/s' Pa es a� Ue s ?r ��arc7" r`Fr��a m+ el�s reeJ 4�'cr'—,bi5fail�d,
ReviewerAnspector Name NMI.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date: Z 9 . 0V

+ 7
I Facility Nnmber:7,?� — 29 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 ❑ 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 wo
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 [ N0
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 00
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanentttemporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No

�] Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency
`<
, ,� Division of Water Quality z
.„.v ..... _ .. �..,,...»vex,.x�r.a,a�. ewao..a+..u--Hr_�•zs°*.'"?F -.;. _,i mb: ...
O [tontine O Complaint O Follow-up 4yf DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number a
Registered Certified 0 Applied for Permit � Permitted
Farm Name: 790A
'..........................
Owner Name: .............!�.��Cl"t?.V�.`.5.............. ..... iG'
L S
Date of inspection
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Not Operational I Date LaLstt Operated:
County:....................QF'..................................
Phone No: ........... ��....3....�..3� T.....................
�s ff ........... Phone No: Facility Contact: �Lc..... Title:
P, 0 -6ra�......... �.6.
Mailing Address: ................ .............---.....l?.........�r�.....1%3p
.........................................s................................ .
Onsite Representative:................. fa /.................................... Integrator:........ .. !. 4zgcr. ..
Certified Operator. ................ {.ant:1i.,5............ ...... C&ILL5 ......................... I... Operator Certification Number,.........................----...-----.-.
Location of Farm:
Latitude • & « Longitude 0` ' 0"
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
(. 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 No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes J�No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes JW�No
❑ Yes J9No
❑ Yes Of No
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes ;(No
❑ Yes ANo
Continued on back

FaciIity Number: W-
27
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes No
Structures,( I,agoons.Nolding fonds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes kNo
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identi fier:
Freeboard (ft): ........... 1. f...............................•......•.........................................................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'?
AlYes
❑ No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
XYes
❑ 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 lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
Cl Yes
No 01
(If in excess of WMP, or runofUente 'ng waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ..................................... ........... .........._...... ...................................................................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
XYes
Q No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
06 No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
XNo
21. Did Reviewedlnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
JXNo
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
X Yes
❑ No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities OnIj
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
XN`To
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
ANo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit'?
❑ Yes
PfNo
0 No.violations or deficiencies were noted during this: visit. You will receive no further
correspondence about this.visit. .
Commentse(eefer,tp;questions#)• Explain any`YI S answers and/or`any recommendations or any ether connmerits � '' ^ r'
Use drawings of facility to -better explain situations.�(use additional pages as necessary): f8
✓-+ 510&
V�%1 s,/t/ a�
�er 4 , V pJ�
caw nn P ao a { GAWP n�afo
tiv
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
Date: �--,

m Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWR Inspection O Follow-up of DSNVC review O Other
Date of Inspection -� 9 7
Facility Nttneber
Time of Inspection Use 14 hr. time
Farm Status: c�,{,¢� .. ..._ ._ Total Thne (in hours) Spent onReview
or Inspection (includes travel and processing)
FIRM Name: 7 7 O Z,.,... ... County: saw
Owner Name:•Q•�o�% Phone No.
Mailing Address: ELz z 8' ;T
Onsite Representative: �f Integrator:
Certified Operator, �^'T`�.. �x.. Operator Certification Number.
L2cadon of Farm:
Latitude Longitude Q• C�' ��
0 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
,,q.. �:
Swine ,�., Number: � o. Nu ibar � Cstde Nutrtber
Wean to Feeder ILJ Laver
❑ Feeder to Finish ❑Nan- Beef
Farrow to Wean ' f�
Farrow to Feeder
tArl Fwrow* is Finish ❑ Other Type of Livestock
1
ter• ' ��'. & •�z��- k^.'a;•' -r "a,h - "'s^'c='�
~� Number of Lagoal Holding Pondsx; Subsurface Drains Present
k Lagoon Area . `"�` Spray Field Area
I. Are there any buffers that need maintenancerunp ovemeat? ❑ Yes 4 No
I Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
a. ' If discharge is observed, was the conveyance usan-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWt) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWi) ❑ Yes ❑ No
I Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
4. Was there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than fivm a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
S. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes ❑ No
maintenaamliznprovement?
Confrnued on back

6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge (if inspection after 1/l/97)?
B. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures fLaeoons and/or Holdinl Pondsl
9. Is structural freeboard less than adequate?
Freeboard (fi): Lagoon 1 Lagoon 2 Lagoon 3
10. is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenancehmprovement?
(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 adquate markers to identify start and stop pumping levels?
Waste Avglicatlon
14. Is them physical evidence of over application?
Of in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWty
15. Crop type .... -,fin` .9 0 ss
16. Do the active crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
IS. Does the cover crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available irrigation equipment?
For Certified Facilities Only
20. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
21. Does the facility fail to comply with the Animal Waste Management Plan in any way?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
23. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
24. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss r+eviewCmspection with owner or operator in charge?
❑ Yes el No
❑ Yes al No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes -M No
Lague 4
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes ® No
0 Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes 13 No-
JO Yes ❑ No
0 Yes , No
® Yes ED No
❑ Yes 12 No
❑ Yes 0 No
JB Yes ❑ No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 10 No
❑ Yes 0 No
Gomrrieiits (refer to question Feplam arty S'ES ariswersaadlor any�recomrnendahons of any other coaiasents -,
- -& .r v
Use draovmgs of facility W better explain srtuatron�` {use addit<or]$t,PeSes as necessa�� �,�.,�;,� ���' � '�'"' �. � � wt
/ Z, IV.�' �4 ��a i.�. �.s/a.� a.� c�Fis-.� • o-� /,ayDo.J � �,�� Q
8
Reviewer/lnspectorName 5ti« ga�xar�"A"sxw"
--, _ .
of
Reviwer/inspector Signature: Date:

('5, u ri '`
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Don Butler
7702
PO Drawer 856
Warsaw NC 28398
Dear Don Butler:
AN1.9XA
14
I DEHNR
RECEIVED
July 30, 1997
AI{_*u11991
F., ` _i, i"cvIL.LE
BEG. OFFICE
Subject: Certificate of Coverage No. AWS780029
7702
Swine Waste Collection, Treatment, Storage
and Application System
Robeson County
In accordance with your application received on July 14, 1997, we are forwarding this Certificate
of Coverage (COC) to Farm No. 78-29, authorizing the operation of an animal waste collection, treatment,
storage and land application system in accordance with the State's General Permit (attached). This
approval shall consist of the operation of this system including, but not limited to, the management of
animal waste from the 7702 Farm, located in Robeson County, with an animal capacity of no greater than
2400 Farrow to Wean and the application to a minimum of 40 acres of land as specified in the Certified
Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP).
The COC shall be effective from the date of issuance until December 31, 2001. Pursuant to this
COC, you are authorized and required to operate the system in conformity with the conditions and
limitations as specified in the General Permit, the facility's CAWMP, and this COC, with no discharge of
wastes to surface waters. An adequate system for collecting and maintaining the required monitoring data
and operational information must be established for this farm. Any increase in waste production greater
than the certified design capacity or increase in number of stocked animals above the number authorized by
this COC will require a modification to the CAWMP and this COC and shall be completed prior to actual
increase in either wastewater flow or number of animals.
Please be advised that any violation of the terms and conditions specified in this COC, the General
Permit or the CAWMP may result in the revocation of this COC.
Upon notification by the Division of this COC's expiration, you shall apply for its renewal. This
request shall be made within 30 days of notification by the Division.
This COC is not automatically transferable. A name/ownership change application must be
submitted to the DWQ prior to a name change or change in ownership.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this COC are unacceptable, you have the
right to apply for an individual non -discharge permit by contacting the engineer listed below for
information on this process. Unless such a request is made within 30 days, this COC shall be final and
binding.
The subject farm is located in the Fayetteville Regional Office. The Regional Office Water Quality
Staff may be reached at [phone]. If you need additional information concerning this COC or the
General Permit, please contact J R Joshi at [phone] ext. 363.
Sincerely, �r
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: (Certificate of Coverage only for all cc's)
Robeson County Health Department
Fayetteville- Regional -Office, Water .Quality -Section
Robeson County Soil and Water Conservation District
Permit File

101 00 100 00:00 021 P02
33 ,¢A---
- DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 4, 1994
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
�ob�s�✓ County
Gear
On , an inspection of your animal operation was performed by the
Fayetteville Regional Office (FRO). Please find enclosed a copy of our
Compliance Inspection Report for your information. It is the opinion of this
office that this facility is in compliance with 15A NCAC 2H, Part .0217, and
that Animal Waste Management is being properly performed.
Should you have any questions regarding this :natter, feel free to contact
ate at [phone].
Sincerely,
Enclosure
cc: Facility Compliance Group

1

101 00 100 00:00 021 P03
NORTH CAROLnM DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH & RATSRAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF MVIRONXEZUAL KANA(MIENT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
x�n n�wrSV w• ��x�' �"�� '< �ae��,n�•<i��w��F.'�Q6:xRfBFik�K�Seti;kXs�F•µ
� �6ftixhSYF6�0�rx:�C.i6xa� x`<n6iUx wkx. � „ie�Y:3<.;ne�kOdxH x�r.>�.be>+�� ..�.�.. �v r'. F
..
�p.C'1'jDiq: #T$;M.: spa:.:: �XAFIX
.n:..c.:..c.w.w.o«ww%�illN'✓<n wa"K,`e>e"�."'if:7.
.",.G'l..... z�,..,.-
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Comments Section to enable the deemed Fermittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
SECTION I
Anima —Opera—Vkm Woe:
Horses, cattle, ee poultry, or sheep
1. Does the number and type of animal meet or exceed
the (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal operation MISTRATI4N?
3- Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12-month period?
4. Does this facility have a CERTIFIED ANIMAL
RAM PUMGEDIMT PLAN?
S. Does this facility maintain waste management
records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
6. Does this facility meet the 5CS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc?
©© is
21100
Cel+ - a

a
101 00 100 00:00
C%)►4m1•N
agilcm III
Field Bite Hanavment
1. is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
Map Blue Line Stream?
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Hap
Blue Line Stream?
3. Does this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
4. Does the land application site have a
cover crop in accordance with the
C3 TIFiGTICM PLAN?
5. Is animal waste discharged into Waters of
the state by man-made ditch, flushing system,
or other similar man-made devices?
6. Does the animal Waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices
(BMP) of the approved MTIFICATION?
7. Does animal waste lagoon have -sufficient °4-
freeboard? Horr much? (Approximately 3. S )
8. Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
AMR'ION IV
EAo

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
November 12, 1996
Carroll's Foods Inc.
7702 '
PO Drawer 856
Warsaw NC 28398
SUBJECT: Operator In Charge Designation
Facility: Carroll's Foods 7702
Facility ID#: 78-29
Robeson County
Dear Farm Owner:
RECEIVED
NOV 12 1996
FAY&MEVILLE
pFr. OFFICE
Senate Bill 1217, An Act to Implement Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Study
Commission on Agricultural Waste, enacted by the 1996 North Carolina General Assembly,
requires a certified operator for each animal waste management system that serves 250 or more
swine by January 1, 1997. The owner of each animal waste management system must submit a
designation form to the Technical Assistance and Certification Group which designates an
Operator in Charge and is countersigned by the certified operator. The enclosed form must be
submitted by January 1, 1997 for all facilities in operation as of that date. Failure to designate a
certified operator for your animal waste management system is a violation of 15A NCAC 2H
.0224 and may result in the assessment of a civil penalty.
If you have questions concerning operator training or examinations for certification, please
contact your local North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service agent or our office.
Examinations have been offered on an on -going basis in many counties throughout the state for
the past several months and will continue to be offered through December 31, 1996.
Thank you for your cooperation. if you have any questions concerning this requirement please
call Beth Buffington or Barry Huneycutt of our staff at 91gn33-0026.
Sincerely,
Preston Howard, Jr., RE rector
Division of Water Quality
Enclosure
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office
Water Quality Files
P.O. Box 27687, �y�C FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 An Equal FAX
Action Employer
Voice 919-715-4100 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper