780038_INSPECTIONS_20171231

2 V
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

S
l Zykty 14K 0 t-J
(Type of Visit: UCompliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: (9RRoutine Q Complaint Q Follow-up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: l E�O rS�K-- Region: of y
Farm Name: L-0let _J���Jle__03 Owner Email:
Owner Name: Loh, revs-e Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Cb r 1'S Title: --r-5 'ram Phone:
Onsite Representative: it
Certified Operator:
1
vv If
Back-up Operator: I� C1 k V 5
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Integrator: Q � S
Certification Number: �C qR 2—
Certification Number: iy l
Longitude:
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity
Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
11
iNon-Layer
I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
TZ yo
.2 /to
ai Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D . P,onl
C aci
P,o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[a_N16-_ ❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[�J-iA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ No
E .T'` A
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ No
[3'NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[ - Flo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - 3 Date of Ins ection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[3-NT—❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No [❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
EJN-6__❑ NA
[] NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
[]-No ❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
❑.R65 ❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[g-10 ❑ 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
E .AK ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
0' o ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes E?3,? o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): C 13— r l S 6-
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[3'&o
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
[ Yes
Eg- "'
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ 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
[3'fro
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [` -go ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 0'] o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box,
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Ld"" ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ETNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Faci aty Number. - .3__j Date of ins ection: /
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes [DN'6 ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge
levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes L{ J-Ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes [] N> ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes ®.26— ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes 0_X6__❑ 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 LXu ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
E9-1G
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
0,116`
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[0,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
[3'90
❑ 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).
-��- °
Cam(- Rie-3o�-6�5�
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Il Dvv�[
PhoneVo- '1 - 33 3 1
Date: A J u (V I O
2141201

LSktiv�--g
+ l 1 --scAff r-7
Type of Visit: 0 Com lance Inspection 0 Operation Review U Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: CrRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: , D 7 Arrival Time: Departure Time: / ba County: , �t
Farm Name: /err [y oc�-M3 Owner Email:
Owner Name: L ©/w (zo u;. Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region:
Facility Contact: 6n&5 %a.ACV tC Title: Phone:
1
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Oct,04
locer•e- Certification Number: A at
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm: Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design Current
_ Design
Current
Srme =- Ca aci Po
P h P•
Wet Poultry
Cap city Pop.
Cattle Capacity
Pop.
-
Wean to Finish
La er
Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish tfV
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
r DesignCurrent
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Di;y�l?oultry
`=Ca ac�ty =Po'.
Non -Dairy
a
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Qther
Turke Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge'?
Page 1 of 3
[]Yes ❑`moo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[—]Yes [:]No
[:]Yes allo
❑ Yes E]"No
[J'I�A ❑ NE
0-N—A ❑ NE
MINA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: 3Z
Waste`Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
❑llt� NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No �NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �p
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
0-R-o ❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
0-lqo-- ❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental
threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[ -N—o 0 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
❑ 3dtr ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[:J` oo ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below_ ❑ Yes LJ "o [] NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu., Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): 17c.v!t ,i
13. Soil Type(s): )AI
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes El"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 [n No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application'?
❑ Yes
�o
❑ 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
[T No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
E3`No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease At,
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need provement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Yes
sJo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather
Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[1 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment'?
❑ Yes
[3'NIo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412015 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection: 90 LZ
24. Did"the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [Q-49 - ❑ NA
25.1s the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check [] Yes l__ o ❑ NA
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:
❑ NE
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes O�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes &No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
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 [7JNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ENo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [Z/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[]Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[!] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
6 I/A•.- Z_
C-3
Y
Ur 'Ir& -kpp 6Jr-sr
Reviewer/Inspector Name-
Reviewer/Inspector Signatui
Page 3 of 3
Phone: i f 0` �3 33
Date: lu
21412015

fb
Type of Visit: p•Compliance Inspection V Operation Review U Structure Evaluation V Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: outine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other p Denied Access
Date of Visit: r? — (, Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: G,� �d �,.-,��,G4,, T O tr s rty Owner Email:
Owner Name: L-O l A J�et�r'/ D c.� S z•_ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �g,�;,� v u SY Title: /%'fib-,�� Phone:
- / /
Onsite Representative: Integrator: :�7", C
Certified Operator: Certification Number: /yo 1-5 H-
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Swine
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Design Current
Wet Poultry @apacity Pop.
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
=3
Wean to Finish
ILayer I
Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er I
Calf
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
"""
Design Current
D . P,oult . Ca aci P,o
La ers
Dai Heifer
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Boars
Pullets
- " -
Qther
Other
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? 1i
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c_ What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
- d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
I
Page I of 3
v
❑ Yes FZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [-]No
❑ Yes [-]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [E No
[:]Yes 0 No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
21412014 Continued

1FacilityNumber: - —/6
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes J4 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
[0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
D 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
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[0 No
❑ NA
[ ] NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. aYes [:]No [DNA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
AN ❑ PAN > l0% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12_ Crop Type(s):'�tv�cit
13. Soil Type(s): Ilia
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 [allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes [allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Reauired Records & Documents
❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[3 No
0 NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
[allo
❑ 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
r
LffNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard , C Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield 0120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
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
[ aWo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412014 Continued

Vacility Number: - Date of Ins ection- = /
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
* 25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes JZLNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes [S No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes L3-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface 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 F�_/l No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes JZ No ❑ NA FINE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes (A No
[:]Yes [RNo
❑ Yes 5 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question_.#): Explain any YES'ansv+em.and/or any additionalrecommendations or:any other comments_ -
Use drawings of facility°to better explain situations'(use•additional pages as necessary) - .
7/1
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: _ Date:
Page 3 of 3 21412014

Reason for Visit: GrRoutine
r,vaivanon
Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: J County:y'r`P`
Ll-
Farm Name: �oi K (C� T[ 3 Owner Email:
Owner Name: Leo i Q ��"[ `� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 4 ct'j Title:
Onsite Representative: t f Integrator:
Phone:
WS
Region:
Certified Operator:
�a.� '0
j c-Qv C-e
Certification Number:
f d O
Back-up Operator:
tf�,
Ly�y(./l ! ut�
Certification Number:
loolsc3
Location of Farm:
Latitude: Longitude:
Design C+urrent Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish Layer
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
$
Da Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Design Current
Dr. P.oultrp Ca aci P,o
Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Turke s
]Turkey Poults
10ther
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes [_#6—❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? [-]Yes [:]No [a -NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR) [:]Yes [:]No ❑.lam` ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) [:]Yes [:]No l.3'` A ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? [:]Yes [] Rio [] NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters [:]Yes []'IIo [] NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 2/4a014 Continued

[Facipt Number: - Date of Ins ection:
cl
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
D Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
S3 a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
F;H1'
❑ NE
Lno Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
[]�<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
IS11U
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
[::]Yes
[]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Q-1 o—
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
/
2<0
❑ 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 E],#o­ ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): 9-e,f Vt((,J&
13, Soil Type(s):
h
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
_Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ Yes
E:fNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[]rKo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes[]"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [�o' ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [j"1q--o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? [:]Yes tNo
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes �fNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Farilit. Number: - Date of [ns action:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
[3�-No'❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[! No ❑ NA
❑ 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?
[] Yes
P�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
IJ 1Vo
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface file 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 CAW'W?
❑ Yes
0 N
❑ 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
�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question.#). Explainany.:i'ES answers ancVor.,-any additional recommendations or<any-other comments. ; �-
1.
O'c' bv�?? A?C2 - 1-(
LALA-7 �7 L'N
Reviewer/Inspector Name
t
Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
Page 3 of 3 U 21412014

Type of Visit: QaTom nce Inspection U Operation Review U Structure Evaluation p Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
lit
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: l Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region:
Facility Contact: r t r) Title: Phone:
Ousite Representative: t ' , Integrator: r�
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
D gn� JCurrent D,e�sigu Current
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Ponttry @apacity Pop.
Cattle
Design Curren#
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish 7y
Farrow to Wean
" ` ' = '-
Design: ;Current
. D . Paul Ca aci Po
I
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
113eef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
I
113eef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
I
113eef Brood Cow
Other
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Dischar es and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
❑ Yes D-No--❑ NA ❑ NE
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No [D-KA— ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No Cj. ""' ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No �NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes "wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
[—]Yes
[:]No
ffA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):^
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
EEI<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
[5] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
2
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [3"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): Aar %e
16
13. Soil Type(s): ki Q
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes EgK° ❑ NA ❑ NE
I5. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? [:]Yes C;.,Vo-o ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable [:]Yes �' o ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes [D.- ' ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes L1< ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [B o ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes Er <o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes E;[-110 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis [] Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking [] Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes [fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:]Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes J].io ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check [:]Yes [D-s ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes Is l`o ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? [:]Yes [5'50— ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface 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/Inspeetor fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes 12<0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [3"Ro ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes EJ�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [D]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [ 3,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes YNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
ommen re er twlquegtlon;1;):. Explam anyES.-..anSWerS.gLndfOr-,#Dy,.AddjtionaI recommendations menu
use drawings oftacihty: to. better explain situations`(use-addEtionW'6A9es astiecessarvl.. �" � � � s
yu o u �� 12,
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
- I-, "e)tp
Phone: 14jJ _3
Date: abo
r�
21412014

I ype of visit: (oluompliance Inspection V Operation Review U Structure Evaluation U Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: (.9'1foutine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: W Arrival Time:�Departure Time: County: R Region:
Farm Name: IFayj 'e 'y Owner Email:
Owner Name: B + J) y �a y"V e 9'e9ti.S er, Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: f't y, Ar//CYe/ Title: ' . Phone:
Onsite Representative: _51re� Integrator: Li.Jq%�-
.01
Certified Operator: ulll%ouAizCertification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Design Cgrrent
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop._
Wet Poultry Capacity No y " `Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
-T.J.-
DesiXnEurrent
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D.fy P,oul . Ca aP,o' `-
;
Non try
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
OtherA
Turkey Poults
-
Other
Other
Dischar es and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [a No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[::]Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: IZZ 3 Date of Ins ection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
®,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 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
5a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
®,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
CR 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
Z 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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): ztr_ �7,`� jgt/Y"Ytc�.
13. Soil Type(s): )VO
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
EQ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15_ Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
C3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
®.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and 1" Rainfall inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?"
❑ Yes
[g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
jK No
[DNA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412011 Continued

Facili Number: 7- Date of Inspection: — /
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 to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes [a No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [4 No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
® No
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
24. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
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
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
CR No
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
1719 No
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
a No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawines of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessarv).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 91z91e ?3 _7a of �
Date: jam-- % —,Z9L01,3
21412011

r.
Type of Visit: ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: (J Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: ® ArrivalTime:1 ! D : DD I Departure Time: 3 0 County: Region: f`:WD
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: Si y WGi>GDGlS Phone:
Mailing Address: T
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ,6 rfly /�p�g Title: 4PW11 r-/ Phone:
OnsiteRepresentative: �a��Cr-!'" Integrator: tcr' �"D r�
Certified Operator: i a Certification Number: 4 1S z
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design CurrentD_esign Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet PottltryCapacity Pop. Cattle Capacity Pop.
Weaito Finish La er Dai Cow
WeaFeeder
Non -La er
Dai Calf
FeedFinish p
- `::�''
Dai Heifer
Wean
D , P,oultr
...Farroo
D'eszgn Current D Cow
Ca aci P,o Non -Da'
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Boars
Pullets
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
11 Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
(�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:)Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

,., Facility Number: Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ 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
[Z 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
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12_ Crop Type(s):
13_ Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes [ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes F] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable []Yes Co No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
[:]Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
[] Yes
M 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 0 No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes IM 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: - ' $r I Date of Inspection:
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes V +No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [S 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 to 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 171 No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30_ Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32, Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes (�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [S No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [E No
❑ Yes [A No
❑ Yes E4 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
vG 6­Phone: 91YZ7`—
Date: e✓ ��` "�-, i�
21412011

0
16
® Division of Water Quality
Facility Number 7 g $ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q 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: rD -%%' Q 7 Arrival Time: ; D Departure Time: County: )e4e_s0,✓ Region: F�
Farm Name: 5 5 �a`+'•t Owner Email:
/
Owner Name: Afa IrV f -5 14Q G ei✓ Phone: / GO 9) -339 ~ 6 7
--
Mailing Address:
c
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: N0*15 _SiCQ � e_AI S Title: wNw Phone No:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: n
Back-up Operator:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = r1 N Longitude: ❑ o ❑ i ❑
11
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -La ei
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Z
0
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
r
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 .0
Cattle Capacity Poj
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stockei
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, 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?
!I
❑ Yes [�PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
O�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
ElNE
❑ Yes
�tVo
ElYes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[�ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28104 Continued

'
Facility Number: 7 — d7 S
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
PPNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
1� No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
ri
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
[ No
El El NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
ii
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
FNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
[]NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
IF No
❑ NA ElNE
maintenance/improvement?
I. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift [:]Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
TNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[;I No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination'?❑ Yes
IF No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
(q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment'?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use dra%zngs of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
A
Reviewer/inspector Name iZ c.t/ S Phone: 9,/0. el33. 3331J
ReviewerfInspector Signature: ✓ Date: �i -//— Z %
12128104 (onttnued

Facility Number: 75 — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes RjNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes WNo ❑ 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
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑Yes
JA No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
( No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
JN No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2T
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
PyNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
W 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?
10
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
WNo
❑ 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
J2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33_
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:.
Page 3 of 3 12128104

kvision
Faci>,ty Number Y ®Division of Soil
and Water Conservation
® UEher Agen�ey
Type of Visit: ommpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0-�coutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: po Departure Time: �� 3� County: f ,=�rrr■ Region:
Farm Name: p (,( Owner Email:
Owner Name: /% j y �(%n D ct.4 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �_y �Gt,.�C2—,� Title:
Onsite Representative: r�
P
Certified Operator: i;
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current Design Current . Design Current
Swine _ Capacity Pop ._ _Wet Poultry Capacity Pap Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish`'
Layer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er I
= '
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Feeder to Finish
!'O
Farrow to Wean
Design Current:;
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to FeederPiouIt
. Ca aei l;o
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Non -Layers
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Gilts
Boars_
Pullets
Turkeys
QthI _
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
D_ischarp-es and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [ o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[] Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [] No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - 3 Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes jo No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): ���
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
[a 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
RI 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
g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
t2. Crop TYpe(s): .d-
13. Soil Type(s): CAD IJs JLY'D
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? 1f yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes J2 No
[:]Yes s No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
[:]Yes ® No
D Yes ® No
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other;
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [:]Yes [4 No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

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

S Iola -7 ho 9
Type of Visit ,,'G.o``mpliance inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ldrtoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 1 /' 470 Departure Time: rs ounty: Region:
Farm Name: `s rfito
+ `s / * 3 Owner Email:
Owner Name: // rn!Y c77�ox"i Phone: (/ff) `33 9— ��
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:Ce
/ , �/��
Facility Contact: MD ►'� t.5 c5�� 1E'-tiJ Title: QGcJA-,0f P one No: �IU 17 'b -MO
Onsite Representative: Integrator: 2L5&1!0P_
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: = 0 0 ` = `6 = o ❑ 1 = "
Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current Design Current Design Current
IN'll-onpacity
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy Cow.
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer I
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts ❑Non -La ers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars ❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
❑ Turkeys
Other ❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other ❑ Other
Number of Structures:
M _
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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
B'9A
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
PI<A
❑ NE
2 A
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
0�'�<o
El NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[R o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility,,\lumber: 18 — 3,7 Date of Inspection I/
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No NA
El NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
,❑,,
❑ J2 No A
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
Vo ❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
G'1Co ❑ 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
❑ NA El NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
Yes
ElL-
_�X�o
y 1 o
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
S No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
,�,
14�'No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
&J o
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu,
Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside
of Area
1of
12. Crop type(s) &r`/1.,' (_ � 't ) 5"'/Z <5 >I 'i
�U���, eQ .
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
2<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
B<o
[J 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
K�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers andlor any recommendations or any other comments.
Ilse drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additiona! pages as necessary):
A.
Reviewer/Inspector Name , q Phone: U'
Reviewer/Inspector S' 16Date: 0
Page 2 of 3 121AI04 Continued

Facility Number: — 38 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check ❑ Yes EK,4o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists El Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 2To ❑ 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 EjKo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes Q1rio ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
2<
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
U<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
Q-Ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
Pifo-
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
9?qo-
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
�o
❑ 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
21�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
f 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
Uj4lr
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
El Yes
,—,,�
�1 �o
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
�lo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit Wo-mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 4 249 -091 Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: ^Obe- S0 ^1 Region: �%90
Farm Name: S 1 S t-c"r Owner Email:
Owner Name: nfe, r) s SjepL`r,z Phone: '07Vn • 0" %
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Afarr' S St_cpjq e^j 5 Title: �4`-'��'� Phone No:
Onsite Representative: �� ! �f eP� eNs Integrator: /Qres 2"u4
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = " Longitude: = o = - = "
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
1
217#0
❑ Layer I I
10 Non -Layer I 1
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
DP ry oultry
El Dry Cow
El Farrowto Feeder
❑ La ers
E] Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
Turkeys ❑
ElNon-Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
ElBeef Feeder
Beef Brood Co
❑ Farrow to Finish
Gilts
PE]
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
ErNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NAA
[:1NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
ElYes
ElNo
,I'JI
L-KA
❑ 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)
[IYes
[INo
E3<A
❑ NE
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
o
0-
❑ NA
[:1 NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
0 ❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: 7 8-3 $ _ Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
El Yes
CTNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 2
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
El Yes
,�-,�
[R o ❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
B_50 ❑ 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 N El NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 3"❑ 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
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes 2 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
11. is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes B<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) Bei u" d� ('A y PGs .v Iw' G'r�t tir 1/0IJCVSSr_C& _..._
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes ONNo/o ❑ NA ElNE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ E Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ETNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑Yes [I No ❑NA El 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):
f
Reviewer/Inspector Name Rick Re -ye —IS Phone•• `io. 033.333 54
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: e..e.e�— Date: # — ZO — ZOO C]
12a8/04 Continued

Facility Number: TO — 3 g Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19.
Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
ErNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1"
Rain InspectionsEl Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
Er o
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[e010
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
D N
❑
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
El Yes
No
�jrAEl
NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
ffNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
El NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
.,
[K
❑ 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
��,,��
LfNo
❑ 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
20
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ieI discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
ffNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
B o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings: I
12128104

i
® Division of Water Quality
Facility Number %S 3 O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
,.�� �� 0 Other Agency
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ®Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 2 , a(7 Departure Time: County: R0,6 P S' UAJ Region:
Farm Name: S S Owner Email:
Owner Name: -STYJ It eNS Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: zff Lee S _-_-�fr_0,07e / ___ Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = 0 0 6 = Longitude: = ° = I = u
•
Design Current
Design
.� Des' Current
Curre�t�ign
Swine
Capacity Population
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Population,.a Cattle Capac"rty Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
G:
,:. ❑Dai Cow
❑ Non -La er
❑ DairyCalf
❑Dai Heifer
Dry.Poultry
$-
* ❑ D Cow
a,
w ❑
`� � � Non -Dairy
❑ Layers
H❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Non -Layers
.;
J ❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Pullets
'�- ❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Other
❑ TurkeyPoults
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish Z � $$
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Gilts
❑ Boars
Discharges &Stream IInp8Ct5
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 (galleons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
1
pqNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
P No
[]NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[0 No
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
R9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2/18/04 Continued

0
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[2No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
[9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
"Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): +►%"
Observed Freeboard (in): z`$
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
P9 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
T Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
RgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�fl 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
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
Dd No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
1. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 5 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 pWindow El Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) L�e�-nt uCLOt (ems k-4 A t,
/�
13. Soiltype(s) Gp1jSboV0 AO nIk IDCAJT-LL
esP3
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑3No ❑ 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?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes [3No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Pd No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name �C�i`' �1`,ev��.LS Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: /p
rage -, of s I21-15Iu4 uonimuea

V
Facility Number: { Date of Inspection /O /6 ,9
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20_ Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists El Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below_ ❑ Yes PNo ❑ 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
OPNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[NNo
❑ 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
I? No
ElNA
ElNE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
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
rr
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
JDNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28/04

3�_
Type of Visit 0-C-0—m pliance 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: �Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: �_691 Region:
Farm Name: ,� d-S Owner Email:
OwnerName: /t^ r rh1 Phone: , I
Mailing Address: �� D �L_ fa ),x ,S(- Ff>rn.f !21 _ Iy(f,
Physical Address: __C .—eaf ):10.
Facility Contact: /%�U-/7^is ,� it..n Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: _,�!'t/.►��
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = 1 1:1 Longitude: = 0 0 6 = i4
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
.1..
Design. Curren#
yWetxPogltry . Capacity Population
❑ La er
111111
Cattle
❑ Dairy Cow
Design
Capacity
Current
Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La et
❑ DaiEX Catf
Feeder to Finish a /1
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
D _'Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
-
Non -Dairy
El Farrow to Finish
❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
:�.... ;
❑ Turkeys
Other ° F
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑ Other
Number of structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
l . 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
5 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes.. notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
RNo
.❑ 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
CK No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

LOty Number:.__,3 Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ;KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes JKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
_
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): i
v
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
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? J{ 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
N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers. setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
JKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
KNo ❑ 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) �r-0-M I�e Frtaz= /. J;5t,
13_ Soil type(s) t�7�L.f�s ro Z /Uor-PiyL 71c;a
v
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
PINo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
RYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination'
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
NJ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
D9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
1%Y•c/f� WctS f7fL++..�r-d �G i t i,s Wr� �lh �S �M � i,� ,Ssrn� ��' ��.
Reviewer/Inspector Name � � %� "" w Phone: j-� /S � �-X25
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:
12128/04 Continued

A r
Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes K,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check 7[Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design JZMaps ®Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. (,Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard I&Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking E9 Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I " Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
$& No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
;K 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
[Z 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
(KNo
❑ 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
XNo
❑ 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
K No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Addifional Comments:aad/or Drawings-° � . �`,; °;. "w . � _
/ /;';-�/1�? ftiv� /Lea �Ll 1
74 "�t6%'Z I— wo'no /sal` vt
Q ll�r�'Trr� 7�lir�-�`Sr �..� y,�l(• /yf �, ,�'��,�„� � �Jrrd `?`v �a ✓�
g,- U%7q r r J;�e^l_c
If-..7 ;,� mom , �B K -"Wa3Ha-'e1
l2128104

Type of Visit ® Comptiance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit • Routine O Complaint 0 Follow up Q Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
FFacility Number 7-
Date of Visit Z O Time: = o O
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
P1 Permitted J, Certified Q Conditionally Certified 13 Registered
Farm Name:
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
County a so-t+N.
Owner Name: _ #Orr i S 5 � "5 . Phone No: `110 - (00 8 - 3 31(p
Maiting Address:
Z SD 34s
Facility Contact: Title. Phone No:
Ge..� - S �
Onsite Representative: ,._._�_� � Integrator:.,,_,_
Certified Operator: --- oc-r-;_ -- • — Ste_.n S Operator Certification Number.
Location of Farm:
swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • && Longitude •
DischMes S Strem Im cts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes KNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow is gallmin'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes RNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes IgNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes Jallo
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: — r iI
Freeboard (inches): "{
12112103 Con inued

Facility Nnmber:
,� Date of Inspection to u o
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
ANo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
D Yes
® No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancerunprovement?
❑ Yes
IgNo
B. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
(9 No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes
M No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenanoe/improvement?
❑ Yes
WNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop hype & cw�g ac-iot Ze�i s w CL ,'; vi c�►rPa-se�o�
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAW1gP)?
❑ Yes
ER No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
JRNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
®'No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
KNo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
12 No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
JRNo
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
[] Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
I8. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
fallo
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
&No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional
❑ Yes
%No
Air Quality representative Immediately.

Facili .Number: Date of inspection to Za 0
ReQuired Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ;KNo
22. Does the facility fail to have all camp9nents of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
checklist�dcsiM,,Kapefic.) ❑ Yes NLNo
23. Does record keeping need improvement?W yes, check the appropriate box below. [I Yes (kNo
[I Waste Applicatiok—lb Freeboa>� ❑ Waste Analys#e"❑ Soil SamplinY/
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
0,No
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
JE No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
H No
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/mspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
KNO
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
KNo
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
JZNo
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDFS Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
Yes
❑ No
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
HNo
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
UNo
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
O No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
®,No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
(,$No
❑ Stocking For*,.,,6Crop Yield Farm] Rainfaie ❑ Inspection After 1- R*,-
❑ 120 Minute InspectioV/ `b Annual Certification Fore
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
.Z 2 _ Z w 61 oo is w�'p nettbsl #-•� �o y P [ o�..- }:..� �vse.�J- F �a�e�w ��.,�� 5
oQ ��„-,� - �'-O.rQ h N(r - TG�:^O.,.►�a 7 S �� M s�. Q-b `. '1'U • ,�
CXQP `V1`ft+
3�t. Pfe•�.0 � r.c.�v� c.�(�b��;� S�Qe{s t�� c-�-co�S .
23 , -rl% -"e- w CS a fwaf0 ta.., w ; 44, a, wa shot a�a t.� s ` S kcwA 1,e x. fr 'rr 44
Ge
-' �o :w'..A i+- V% e p rrJ�aC , So Mr. S4e �-+MS Subrx. R"�a�
til'�_ wcis SV-+` 0'+ 101111041 71'4@_
11
4c ,,,,.. 2 - (o #ti 1. 2 PA �J .
12112103

Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ®Routine (:)Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Dale of Visit: Time:
Facilitn Number l
Not O erational Beln�Threshold
® Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally- Certified Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: County: 0 In rn o�
Owner Name: rr"S' enL. S ,,,• Phone No: O /G OF --33 ri( _
Mailing Address: .�.0• Q�+SL bL 253��
Facility Contact: t\y Orr t S QLC�S Title: o Phone No:
Onsite Representative: 1AA tors^: -S «r 111.e,-' t Integrator: to ^ r-
Certified Operator: VV\64`,r —S-6p�IeAll_ Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Lonnitude �' �• ��
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population poultry Capacity Population Cattle Ca at:ity Po ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder JEJ Laver ❑ Dairy
® Feeder to Finish 10 Non -Laver I I JEI Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present HOLagoonArea 1EISprayField.kren
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps] No Liquid Waste Management System
Diseharees & Stream Impacts
I . is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge ori;inated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Sprav Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observe& was the conveyance 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 gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If ves, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Wa a Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 3
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): •�.
05/03101
❑ Yes KI No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes © No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes N No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection Il f/3 T 10i
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 Q No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes 91 No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes [jj No
l 1. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes P No
12. Crop type .f.7 e f'rn k a Cd— & m , Gi �( rN O -&
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ®'No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15_ Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes N No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Pen -nit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
'4 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
L]No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ irrigation. freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
El Yes
(,gNo
20.
is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
[ELNo
21,
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
W No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes [B No
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 R] No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes 01 No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
wations. {use
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
Date:
05103101
Continued

Facility,tiumber: -fQ — W
Date of inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there ane evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on ncigltboring vegetation, asphalt.
roads, building structure. and/or public properly)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. % ere 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 stora,e bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanentitemporary cover?
Comments
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes Q�No
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes [;@ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
05103101

t 'r
[late of Visit: `� Time:
Facility Number
Not Oroerstional 0 Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified 0Conditiotlal1y Certified Registered Date Last Operate7or,, bo%%��Ce Threshold:Farm Name: � �!� vrt�, County:
/J-
Owner Name: �Dr�s S Phone No: 1� 67� 9�
Mailing Address: t� 6z4� Jrfi Dr.-u,�t . /UC- z9-3;:�
Facility Contact: Title: `may Ph�o�ne No:
Onsite Representative: �Udl e. r _ Integrator- `t" P`eS-
Certified Operator: S Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0' " Longitude 0 a 0
_Design t
Curren
_
_ - Design = _ Current =- _ Destgn Current
Swtne.. Ca acxty Po islatron:
'F Pout Ca ac:iv';Pa tilation . Cattle- - .-. _ Ca acrtv` Po ji ulatton ,
❑ Laver
❑Non -Laver Non -Dairy
❑ Other .`
- -
_Total Design Capacity.
Y
r-
Total SSLW =-_
Numbei-,of Lagoons -
.^ ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oou Area ❑ S my Field Area .
Holdrng Ponds / Sohd;Traps -
E
= ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System -
❑ Wean to Feeder
Discharges
Feeder to Finish
2
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
8 Stream impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: El Lagoon El Spray Field El Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is obsened, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes. notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
Spillway
Structure
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?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): 2
OS/03/Ol
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes Nogr
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ANO
Structure 6
Continued

It
Facility Number: `% g — 3 S 1 Date of InspectionL!!
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
El Yes
lYJ 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
Jl
immediate public health or environmental threat, notif*- DWQ)
7. Do anv of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
ElYes
9No
'Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
11_ Is there evidence of over application? ElExcessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
No
I2. Crop type r Ki . ty6ler" eej
13. Do the receiving crops differ with 4iose design ed in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
o
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
ElYes
rNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
W�No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
VNo
I5. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
UrNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ArNo
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
PNo
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 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
0 No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
No
23. Did Reviewer/lnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
4 No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
F;2LAt0
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
_LTComments (refer to question #) Ezpiain any' YES sos�ers andlor any secommendat�onsor an_y other com_m_ents.
Use drawings of iacihty to better e>iplatn situations: (use addetioa$1 pages as itecessarti) ` = —'Field Conv .[] Final Notes
_ - -- -
Nt ed -6/f4_4/t /Igyn. dawn �� � �u� � f as sazl7t- Q`r
raa �Q?fl�S lei! '•
/ /�
H
Reviewerlinspector Name -
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 t1lContinued

Facility lumber: `71 — 3 1 Date of inspection
Odor issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there anv dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts. missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32_ Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes IC. 0
❑ Yes ,� No
❑ Yes 07710—
❑ Yes ❑ No
AdditwnalCominentsand/or-:Drawin
O5103101

f
• t
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time:L.L=
#Permitted
Q Nat O erational Q Below Threshold © Certiified [3 Conditionally Certified [3Registered Date Last Operated o A ve Threshold•Farm Name: ,.,1..� �r Counbo,
_..............�......_.........---..._..1................................... h'� ...... �..
Owner Name: �' /i Y Phone No: 3 3
Q .__,! ....�.._........ ----- r r.............................. .......... ._�._.... , _.......
Facility Contact: ...........Q.... ..4r.J_..... e...�.✓.......-----•----•--•--.. Title: .................................f%....%.......................... Phone
t No: .................. ...... _..... ......__... .
Mailing Address: ...........t.C/1 ........c.r..SP r/n^.0 ._ ' V. �._.......... 2
Onsite Representative:....... ... GQI�i-.r....................................... Integrator:............ 4�........ _ __
Certified Operator:,,,,,,, DLAA _ �Bi1,� Operator Certification Number:.
Mg_........ W.....
Location of Farm: ��
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • 6 64 Longitude •
Design Current Crzrrent Current
Design Des1gu
Swine .` Ca :a Po elation Poultry .. Ca act ;.Po uldtion Cattle Ca :_Po - lion
Wean to Feeder ❑Layer ❑ Dairy
_- Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean - --
Farrow to Feeder ❑Other -
Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
Gilts
El Boars • TotaJ SSLW
Nutmber of Dons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area 7
Holduag Ponds l 5olid Traps °' [ 1 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes t
o
Discharge originated at: [ILagoon [ISpray Field [IOther
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes Po
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes
c. ll' discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes o
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any pan of the operation? ❑ Yes No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes o
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure
Identifier:..................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): '47
5100 Continued on back

lFacility Number: y— jg Date of Inspection I J
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes j`�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 threai, 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 o
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes $No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes XNo
12. Crop type 1fir%4Ae,_dez a r42e— /57". 0r4ik ave-e
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those desif hated in thECertified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
§kNo .
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
Wo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
r1 No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
f'No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
ANo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
$!No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
AA No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
9Yes
No
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
FfYes
❑ 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?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
No
23,
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
J�No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
kNo
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
P�No
�'VQ YKptiogs er dfcencrigt>d itrYyei furt�rineuw
cories deace_ abi6i this visit.
Ir. `
NceJ 4o gel' c.. e�� W 1� {a9o-vm, 44es�9w. /
411q, i1J� qe.� 5;s; 7�s� �.si' s� �e-iijetvt ~Xrk Psri's e'� �a1�SO4.�We�
joueei 40sP ctj I:� SPr t�e�i7r-
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/bospector Signature:
Date: 5/00

P
LFacility Number: f$ —34ri Date of Inspection [Py—rn��l Printed on: 10/26/2000
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 0
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 ACNo
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan biade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes o
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? El Yes 'MNo
32. Do the Flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes 72No
5100

Facility Number 7 Date of Inspection /
Time of Inspection fa-d 24 hr. (hh:mm)
® Permitted [3 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified Q Registered JE3 Not O eraEional Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ............. County:......., ,50..............................................
Owner Name:......... ���s ...... ��tst .. ... .............................. Phone No:�..I..../...................
Facility Contact: ....... ........,J..rE !!>�r✓l.. Title.. ...................... . Phone No:
MailingAddress: ....... a. ...... ..........%l'tic'.�V....... .............. ..................... ........................ z...........
Onsite Representative: (....i............. .sJ, . Integrator: .......
Certified Operator: ........ ZQ1!✓i!! ... Azt .... ... ...... � ....... Operator Certification Number: ....................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 0 4 ��• Longitude • C�` "
Design Current Design
Swine. Canacity Pouulation=PoWtry. Canacit,
❑ Wean to Feeder
10 Feeder to Finish
Z
,0
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer
❑ Non-1
'❑ Other
Current
opulation Cattle
rl I Non -Dairy
Total Design Capacity
TataI:SSLW
�Numher ofcLagoons- ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding_Ponds / Solid Traps ` ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System _ -
Discharfes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ANo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon El Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made" ❑ Yes A No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes TT0
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes XNo
2- Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes V No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yesx No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes XNo
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches): .................................................... ......................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 0
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes �'No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes A No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes fi(No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
IL Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes NNo
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes )$No
14_ a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes )$'No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes PNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes J�rNo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes KNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ANo
Required Records & Documents
IT.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
XNO
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
)qNo
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
o
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?
❑ Yes
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
PO
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
KNo
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
O(No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
;)fNo
_
Q �lQ a lOI1S fl [� �C�E1lC�CS H'grb )aOfj [,i� I�(I�FlI1g #131S,V�SIt, Oil Wli� I CCg1Ve i�O U1 lei'
6 resporideR& about this visit: ::...........:::: - . . - . - .. - . - . - . • . .
Reviewer/Inspector Name r -
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 16 /y zOle-rj

Facility Number: ?- Date of Inspection)
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes>(No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Arc there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ;!TNo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e, residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes RNo
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 PEFNo
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 M 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 RNo
tionaAddil Comments an or rawings-- a = -

Division of Soil and Water Canservataan ,Operation Review rt a���
x Division of Soil and Water Conservation Compliance Inspection• �
yy :Division of Water Q1 ali ample��
C ance Inspection sr a n 3 t ¢
Other Agency Operation Review
s 5•- _ �__. _ _-_ __•_• - r
Routine 0 Complaint Q Follow -tie of DWQ inspection Q Follow -tip of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number hate of Inspection ZD—
Time of Inspection :OZJ 124 hr. (hh:mm)
A
Permitted © Certified © Conditionally Certified [3 Registered 113 Not Operational Date Last Operated .
Farm Name: ------- Y.:7�. s......:... , ,n s.............. I ...... • ........ ................................ County :........ I�,.��e?d�.......... ............... .......................
Owner Name:
...... Aorrf'.5 ................ ... Phone No: ....... �P..�� 3.3. 4z.....
Facility Contact: QCs1rt� f ...... Title :...................... Phone i\'o:....................-•----........................
............y..� }� C...... ......................---------------------------............. 9
Flailing Address:.....�i1...!-./........./..1�... .. .. .. .. ..... ..... a r..�.u.1n t f �..� .................. ............... �_ .r.
2�3
Onsite Representative: QLc1K r Integrator: S Pf
......*........................................._............._.............. I— ...... I..................
Certified Operator: .... lgeyr � .... Operator Certification Number: ..........................................
�—k
Location of Farm:
Latitude �' �� �•• Longitude �• ��°
- Design Current Design Current. Design Current
Swine ,Ga acity Po Population, Pou1t�Y_-- - Ca achy Po elation Cattle Capacity Po ulation
❑ Weanto Feeder
Feeder to Finish
(_
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts,
❑ Boars
❑ Layer l ❑ Dairy
_-' ❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
❑ Other
T&al,Msign- Capacity (�
Total SSLW
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes �No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes �No
b- If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes Kx
No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon s stem'? (If yes, notify DW .) ❑ Yes No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ((No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes VrNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes FA
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 1 //
Freeboard (inches): 21.............. ............................................................................._......
5- Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes *0
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: - ? Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑Yes
� No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
J 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
KNo
Waste Al2plication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
11, Is there evidence of over applicati n? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
El Yes
No
12. Crop type rofu (> a. 01,4z4fel
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in We Certified A a] Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
P�No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
VNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
C64No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
Wo
I& Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
gNo
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
YKNo
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
ONO
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
gNo
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
KNo
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
dNo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(e/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ONo
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes flj�No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes KfNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes 5No
10 yiolai>loris:or deficiencies -were hued dirrtng tbis:visit: You :wi I-feeeiye Rio CUIO r
corj-es� 61idei , 'a�' ' f this visit:. :: :: ' ::::::::: : :
Comments (refer toqueshon #) Explain any YFS answers and/or any recom_inendahons oc.any other comments
Use:drawings of faciLty tti_betterexplatnssitnahons {use adld;itional pages as�necessam - �.. � � w - ��"`
G� �DAiCrir-�3 7-ur�n ! I /
f�C AJe,9 1`f� Jm cuLA + acreage �erf4ll f,n��G�I ��OecIc:Ljis-V
t ob-
r�
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/InspectorSignature: Date: ZDI—�f�
Ot

Facility Number: 3� Date of Inspection Z�_9
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 MNo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes KNo
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 VNo
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 Wo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes VNo
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover`? ❑ Yes �o
Wdditionaominnant& and/or . rawings:
3/23/99

r:a:�:•ns•; #'+-hhl+AY• }, :,r�,:° - � i,, xi 3.: � t s•r*�a.x� ra= <�.-.5"M
�4' VtF'�.±,w' F ' '.•'fii i.t1 yre" - �.:inf � �. �?�y,;r:�,.0 ��ur+ 4 , .
t
C] Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency
0 Division of Water Quality
10 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection EZ-675-
Facility Number -3 Time of Inspection / 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Registered P(Certified 13 Applied for Permit © Permitted j0 Not O erational Date Last O rated• pe ..........................
FarmName:.............. S . S .i _ ........................................................... County:.................. ............... .
Owner Name:............. S1 ......... Phone No: �.'.6 .......... S..l....................
orr t 5 T? ..�t -5 9/. -
Facility Contact: ..I "((�(!'.�. ...--- -.5' l?if, �........ ...... Phone No:
i :ft �I Title: �................ �./.�
Mailing Address: ................./.. ......... l..Q.: .........5.:.........................................�.cik1 n.,. to NC" ......................... .......r 3T'"
Onsite Representative:.............._l......117�f..1�......---._... C! �f?. ...................... Integrator:................... eS.. u :? . tGr!!t t.
Certified Operator:.......�Wnt...... i............- ��� �....._::;5k............ Operator Certification NumbeJr:------.................:.................
Location of Farm:
Latitude Longitude
U Wean to Feeder
' Feeder to Finish
�E
[] Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
x , Designu.z.,Current
Y.
Poultry R:'Capacity�Populatiom Cat
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Other
= � � � Total Design Capacrty� 41 J
Capacity'
❑ Dairy
❑ Non-Dairy
Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area I❑ Spray Field Area
IU No Liquid Waste
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes P(No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes JANo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ONo
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes dNo
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin? . All
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ONo
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes V(No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes C�No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes f No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes No
T Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes No
7/25/97

+yyy�-t�'. w�.,. rwv,+r... r... �rv:w••.r..T---.. - .. _ ,..,,, .� w..,.,7yvva^xww.,... ...•... w�P,...- ..-_ .. .. ...
Facility Number: r% — 3
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons,Holding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes No
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft): a ......... •.................:....................._...... ..................... ....
:.......................L.............:.............
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes (KNo
11. is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the sitnation 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 XNo
Waste Application
14. is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes KNo
(if in excess of WMP, or runoff enterin waters of the State, notify DW
15. Crop type �........ .................I!1......... ....._............ ............_....._........_._....._._....
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste ManaVement Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes ONO
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
PKNo
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
P(No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ANo
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
)9No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
ffNo
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
U;Yes
❑ No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
U(No
24.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0_ No.vitilations.or. deficiencies.were. noted during this.visit,- You4ill recei've:no ftirther,
corresppndence iitiout this:visit:-. -
as . -rJ'V P/?fu � sn.a-►, c,44R/,,� j -If— _4'- a _
Vrd4e -So a X �+ acl� . Mae) cane 50 X pe,
ow s w, --jk C 4 wW P.
- or�
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name tlr.� '
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �� Jonry—, Date: 45-'

k ❑DSWC Animal Feedlot Uperatio Review
t
�.
n'�': 5= -_ -
4 DW.,Animk1T66d1 t Operation Site,s-
QInpec
"'t
*g„w'` <zs -> —�
xi '� 4r
Routine O Complaint Q Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Date of Inspection 2
Facility Number
Time of Inspection 1 Z : dD 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: ❑ Registered [I Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
Certified 0 Permitted I or Ins ection includes travel andprocessing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated: ._-_ _...._... _ ..— _.......
_ ..._ .... ... ..... .. ....
FarmName: .S .i3r1 .. _ .... _........._ ...........__.... _.............. ._ ... County: -. �b � _ .. ......__. .....
3 7
Land Owner Name:. ..... Phone No:(
Facility Conctact•—ken5 _ Title..Q w ne � Phone No• JS .e
Mailing Address: _ y D 2.�Ar..�a_ ....._ .... _ G. Wit. ►''L Ll Al C. ZIrw 0
Orrsite Representative:... 5'4�_'!' e. .......
Integrator: 4r��...._ ....�Q.
Certified Operator: ! !ia rt` „� ,•-,•� , s, ,$ he+'ts Operator Certification Number• Iqr 3io
Location of Farm:
Latitude 0 A " Longitude • 4
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
3"Design�Cnrrent' ,. llesign Current i:DesgnCurrent
$wines t pUltry; sAN CR aciti �:Pa � Ui lOr�1 �`attlea fl ai nlRilan>
.Ca aca 'A" o nl'ation .: C
F
—Wean to Feeder y La er ❑ Da' ,� ,
19 Feeder to Finish 9 0 ❑ Non Layer ❑Nan Da
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder TotaMikign Civjidy * 2-94D „
,� �r Y
Farrow to Finish
-, _ TotaVSSLW ,.
40 Other
WK
Numbe>�`,dX-g '/. Holding Ponds Subsurface Drains Present +
W� ,;:�
r _ . rn agoon Area ❑Spray Field Area
..� r L...
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes K No
Discharge originated at: [I Lagoon [I Spray field ❑ Other ,' \\
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal./min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes )kNo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes No
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement? Continued on back

�. FacUity Number:...._ _
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
StoctureE (Lagoonsa d r Holding nds
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (8): Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
2'
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
Structure 4
I I - Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes o
Structure 5 Structure 6
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoffff entering
waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type _ P r Lam, .-4 Ll�•-----_---------•------ -- -- —— ...................... ....._
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
For Certified facilities(Zy
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes P(No
❑ Yes g'No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes �To
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes ;qNo
❑ Yes jgNo
Comments refer to eshon Explain an YES answers and/or an recommendations or any`other coinmeuts:
{ � P Y Y
Use drawings of facility to; better explain' situations. {use additional pages as necessary)' ,
I OIL
jk: S f_.L,:I;� ; 5 , " cowl -a -CC_ J
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, AT
Health and Natural Resources 4 • •
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor � E H PA R
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Andrew McCall, regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
September 2, 1994
Mr. Morris Stevens
402 Floyd Street
Fairmont, NC 28340
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
Confined Animal Feedlot Operation
(CAFO)
S & S Farms/Morris Stevens
Robeson County
Dear Mr. Stevens:
On August 25, 1994, an inspection of your confined animal operation was
performed by the Fayetteville Regional Office (FRO). Please find enclosed a
copy of our Compliance Inspection Report for your information. It is the
opinion of this office that this facility is in compliance with 15A NCAC 2H,
Part .0217, and that Animal Waste Management is being properly performed.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact
me at [phone].
Sincerely,
'Aaej� 04e.,.-7
Grady D66son
Environmental Engineer
GD/tf
Enclosure
cc: Facility Compliance Group
Debra Johnson
Wachovia Building,Suite 714, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10`X post -consumer paper

NORTH CAROXMIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH & NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF EZV13ROlOMWAL PULMAGE[+i M
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
Farm
Inspection Date I Farm No.
�S & S Farms/Morris Stevens 8 25 94 409 I
Mailing Address
402 Floyd Street
JFairmont, NC 28340
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
6EGTION I
Confined Animal Operation Type:
Horses, cattle, swine, poultry, or sheep
SECTION II
1. Does the number and type of animal meet
the CAFO (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal Operation REGISTRATION?
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12-month period?
4.' Does this facility have a CERTIFIED ANIMAL
WASTE MANAGEKENT
5. Does this facility maintain waste management
records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
Y N Comments
x

Administration andProgramManagement I� Comments
6. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc? x —
SECTION III
Field
i management
X Comments
1.
Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
Map Blue Line Stream?
x
2.
Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream?
x 1x
3.
Does this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
,x�
4.
Does the land application site have a
cover crop in accordance with the
CERTIFICATION PLAN?
x
5.
Is animal waste discharged into waters of
the state by man-made ditch, flushing system,
or other similar man-made devices?
x
6.
Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices
(BMP) of the approved CERTIFICATION?
x �r
7.
Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approximately 8-9 ft )
x —
8.
Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
x —
ECTION IV
Comments
Section II (5)
- This facility is relatively
new and the lagoon has not to
date reached
a
level which requires pumping.
The appropriate steps are being
prepared for
keeping records.
Section III
(2)
- No lagoon effluent has been
applied due to the age of this
facility. When
application does begin, this requirement will be followed.
Section 111
(6)
- The facility is well managed
and maintained.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources AMA •
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p � H N 1�
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Andrew McCall, Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
September 2, 1994
Mr. Gene A. Parker
Route 1, Sox 6
Onvm, NC 2069
SUBJECT: Odor from Animal Feedlot Operations
Dear Mr. Parker:
Thank you for your phone call on August 8, 1994, regarding the regulation of odor
from animal feedlot operations. I share your concern about animal waste odors.
I recognize that animal feedlots operated in compliance with state and federal
water pollution control laws may produce odors which are unpleasant to the surrounding
community. However, there are several management methods which can be used to
help reduce offensive odor, such as increasing the size of a lagoon, using aerobic
treatment, and properly managing the waste in a timely manner. However, it is
unrealistic to expect odors to be entirely eliminated.
Currently, the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has no legal author-
ity to mandate the abatement of odors emitted by animal operations. State air quality
regulations addressing the control of odorous emissions are not directed at animal
feedlot operations. Instead, those regulations principally concern emission control
equipment to control odors from industrial plants. In addition, there are no federal air
quality regulations which address odor emissions from animal feedlots.
Although the state currently has no jurisdiction over odors from animal operations,
there are certain regulatory controls which may be pursued at the local level. First,
the local County Commissioners have authority to establish setbacks or other regula-
tions for animal feedlots through their ordinance -snaking powers. Setting feedlots,
lagoons and spray field areas away from adjacent property may help to reduce offensive
odors to neighbors. Another option is that the local county health director may
Wachovia Balding, Suite 714, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043 Telephone 910,486-1541 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Acton Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Mr. Gene A. Parker
Page 2
September 2, 1994
determine whether odors from particular animal feedlot operations rise to the level of a
"public health nuisance" within the meaning of NC General Statute 9 130A-19 (copy
attached). If the local county health director deems the odors to be a public health
nuisance, then an abatement order may be issued.
A third option might be to contact your attorney to discuss whether you have any
legal rights under the doctrine of nuisance liability under North Carolina law,
particularly NC General Statute N 1-539, 106-700, 106-701 (copies attached).
However, there are some limitations placed on suits to abate agricultural nuisances
under these statutes. The DEM has no authority to make such a determination, and I
am not in any way suggesting that this or any particular operation might constitute a
nuisance.
1 thank you again for your phone call and hope that this information is useful to
Sincerely,
��
Gradobson
Environmental Engineer
GD/tf
Enclosures

Site Requires Immediate Attention: 4.7
Facility No. _ -76 - 3 g
.70 _ Z3 9
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: _ __S /, 1995
Time: 2
Farm Name/Owner: /S -(-s I
Mailing Address: _ qo g F�o�a/ _ 5r _ '!=
County: --
Integrator:_ ,�a���_ _ Phone:
On Site Representative: rr _sc 4- Phone:
Physical Address/Location: A,�^[ Ag
Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: 3a- Z n Number of Animals on Site:
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: Longitude: ,
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of I Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
{approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches}e, or No Actual Freeboard:__�Ft. Inches
Was any seepage observed from the la n(s)? Yes or @ Was any erosion observed? Yes or No
Is adequate land available for spray? � or No Is the cover crop adequate? Yes or No
Crop(s) being utilized: .. P A —a -a- b,� r_a 5—M 6,,4
Does the facility meet SCS
minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from
100 Feet from Wells?
or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue -Line Stream? Yes or No
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line: Yes or 1
Is animal waste discharged into water of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes or(�o If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management recor s (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? 'fie or No
Additional Comments: -7X�6 Z, v, � 4"a ,7o`a -
Z" k A 0, d' �' -
Inspector NamO
Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.

Site Requires Immediate Attention: -,&!6_
Facility No. _78 _38-
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: , 1995
Time: 1 Z "30 )0-'"
Farm Name/Owner: _LY1 vr•,s S a -PA . Ny�/ sdS _ rU _ C S-# 4, J _�
Mailing Address: 9/oz , FiQ�L� _ �- �, ,,,�.,� t.� =.vc z� �v�
County: —
Integrator:Phone:
On Site Representative:_ r�eJ ���-� Phone:
Physical Address/Location:_
Type of Operation: Swine �� Poultry
Design Capacity: _ 3az--:2 _ Number of
DEM Certification Number: ACE
Latitude: Longitude: °
Cattle
Animals on Site:
DEM Certification Number: ACNE
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of I Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately I Foot + 7 inches) 160 or No Actual Freeboard: 3 Ft. Inches
Was any seepage observed from the la n{s)? Yes or V& Was any erosion observed? Yes or No
Is adequate land available for spray? ` e or No Is the cover crop adequate? Yes or No
Crop(s) being utilized:
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellin a or No
100 Feet from Wells? or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or 1�0
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line: Yes
Is animal waste discharged into water of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes or 19 If Yes, Please Explain.
or go
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management recovolumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreagy with cover crop)? jeVbr No
Additional Comments: _. _: . hea zr,.
" i1) 42
Inspector Name
yok
Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.

NORTH CAROLIM DEPARTMENT OF , HEALTH & MATW AL pggoM=s
DIVISION OF ENMONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Fayetteville Regional office
Animal operation Compliance Inspection Fora
M::326r3i4.i ION ATFi `- :
L/Aay.[:
'
5 5 Farm N] orri s She der: s
1! !w-JSAli+-iLfLT ..J{iJ41i1iw�•7... ��. H a !ar- ^.
atwtf x.N,,,�,�, '{i\+1L1T _zPH NRy�i7Vj'aEM �y,. >r•
402 Rod S -. ra. rrmnf} NG ip
o 10 q-357
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the -Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
SECTION I
Animal Operation : F r 40 Fln�h
Horses, cattle, swine poultry, or sheep
SECTION IT
F'WIM k0.rl•11i�
1. Does the number and type of animal meet or exceed
the (.0217) criteria? (Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000),.and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal Operation REGISTRATION?
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12-month period? -
4. Does this facility have a CERTTFiED VIRM
WASTE PN&gZk r Pr.AW
5. Does this facility maintain Waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
6. Does this facility meet the SCS minima=
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc?

j
SECTION III
field Zits Management
1, Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
Map Blue Line Stream?
2. is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 .ft. of a WSGS bap
Blue Lire Stream?
3. Doss this facility have adequate acreage
an which to apply the waste?
4. Does the land application'site have a
cover crop in accardanee'aith the
CCERTM TICO FLAK?
5. Is animal waste discharged into waters of
the state by man-made ditch, flushing system,
or other similar man-made devices?
b. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices
(SMP) of the approved QMTSFICATION?
7_ Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approximately )
S. Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
RMON ry
g mengs
i
I
I
4
i
s
1
1
I
�
1

MORRIS STEPHENS
From Elizabethtown take 41 to Lumberton.
At the intersection of 41 and 211 turn
3 �v- ' r .f~ u' 1;\ left onto 211. Travel approximately 1
mile until you reach the intersection
an '' of 72 and 211. Go straight 9 miles to
State Road # 2225 and travel approximately
1.0 mile. At Intersection of 74 and SR
# 2225 travel .5 mile. Farm is on the
�. `n` �J right_.
au`
1►aewicc
/OILt
MA . 1
LM
m. , I
m.
im E Im iWL
` r
• - r' •r �f nor 1, G
Zama
�g
A
ina - ., un• % ... _ dr. �.. !�� N
ML
AW _
1AM�a 4 - 3 tLrjm w m ' -A
Um
$
.all L9' �1 +l • e. - S 4 r. �d r) �'r 1'tir.�r .l
ILIt •. �� J ffi � r _ 5
UAL Aft Lft -U*
7,17 l/r llv. f J Tr Z
- •tYl �. AY LL
4 i l Ld i - .II✓r }.t
` wi ] • y JY. i.l i� �a rM 1 ]
� i3 JY 1 J r

0
K R
a
q
1
h D"
N C
I•• ID
In S•I
roN
'3
vi
n
t -•
p+
0
n
—14
'f
i1I
'+1
a
11. h' do, :I- f). I-+
ro '< 0 (D
+"
I
+
_
to I... al In
11 1.) 1-- In 1 ,. r1
1 ••
ID w .n N .1 � r
Il. n i-• In
,fit
ID
II
j
irp
C, „ U
(; Go rl In I -A
rl
'•;
In
In
tr
(I I ` Ip >� In
•' y ..
I3.. N
to
IU
..
t o 11 ' t
n
u
1 I I r� n'
f 1 Ip
m
0r ru
iu ;l Into I
lu
In r 1 (A I, In
Ip I<
1 •' 1 +, n IA
111 t,l t1 �{ N ,I
LI'(l Ip
1 •1 c�
o
t'1�pni nj
I -• hS r+ O ()
rD ,
It1: to
It to
c? 1F It
,C L1 rh 11. C)
�y 1 :l' ID
�1•f1 to ID
(1 to A 1' lu 11.
11• W n. I -•
11 0
II It n
0 to n 'rl
+t fu
fp n• u j' RI
(1 11
11 7 1(
f 1 N (D ID n
I.
i
tr ID
In IA
u

i

l J

Ar
F104,

-. ti:. c.r�.�v..= �+---_�'n _=-�y'��`•:�-`-`lbw-..3� .___
MOP

_e
�:�'t`
-�
N .: z� ; ems.-�„ _ _
��: 1�.�,. ape :�`'----�
y `.
�t��,: ,' �'�NM �ui����. it �P --.axf

I"'�°
-.`� � .
`�
" -.,
-_
�_` ,�-_
�,_
..z,._

f
Ir iAvmommw
" 'rl + �• � � �� yi� a �. -°' ..'� � � rZ �`�!'.q;`& .

Y/�'����� �'._� � '.
�'