780077_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NUH I H UAHULINA
Department of Environmental Qua!

M Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
780077 Facility Status:
Inspection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Reason for visit:
Routine
Date of visit
02/15/2017 Entry Time: 05:00 pm
Farm Name:
Carroll's Farm # 5080
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Active Perms AWS780077 ❑ Denied Access
Inactive Or Closed Date:
County: Robeson Region:
Exit Time: 6:00 pm
Fayetteville
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: Sri 107 1813 Fairley Rd Maxton NC 28364
Facility Status; Murphy -Brown LLC
Compliant Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34° 41' 37" Longitude: 79' 22' 44"
On the east side of SR 1107 approx. 1 mile north of its intersection with HWY 83, south of Maxton, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Cal, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Incident #
Owner Email:
Phone:
Certified Operator: Ronald Lee Matthews Operator Certification Number: 990008
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone :
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone:
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS780077 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 780077
Inspection Date: 02/15/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
❑ Swine - Feeder to Finish 4,800
Total Design Capacity: 4,800
Total SSLW: 648,000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
1
19.00
62,00
Lagoon
7681-3
19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS780077 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 780077
Inspection Date: 02/15/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges S Stream impacts
Yes No Na Ne
i. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance mart -made?
❑
❑ E
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ n
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)'
❑
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
E ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (LeJ large
❑
E ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
N ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste ApplicatiRn
Yes No Na Ng
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
[]
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS780077 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 780077
Inspection Date: 02/15/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2%
slopes
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
N ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
E ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ N ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
0 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

'1
Permit: AWS780077 Owner- Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780077
Inspection Date: 02/15/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Me
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
N ❑
❑
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
❑
r
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑0
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑N
❑
❑
Other Issues
7Ne
28. Did the facility fail to property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
Cl
E ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29, At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concem? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑0
❑
❑
(i.e.. discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the ReviewerAnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
page: 5

f Division of Water Resources
HDivision of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number:
780077 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS780077
Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Robeson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
03/11/2015 Entry Time: 12:00 pm
Exit Time: 12:30 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Carroll's Farm # 5080
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: SO107 1813 Fairley Rd Maxton NC 28364
Facility Status: 0Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm- Latitude: 34` 41' 37" Longitude: 79' 22' 44"
On the east side of SR 1107 approx. 1 mile north of its intersection with HWY 83, south of Maxton, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream impacts
Records and Documents
Waste Col, Stor, 8 Treat Waste Application
other Issues.
Certified Operator: Ronald Lee Matthews Operator Certification Number: 990008
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone:
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone :
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s}:
Inspection Summary:
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWS780077 Owner- Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780077
inspection Date: 03/11/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 4,800
Total Design Capacity: 4,800
Total SSLW: 648.000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
1
19.00 1
48.00
Lagoon
7681-3
19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS780077 Owner- Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
780077
Inspection Date: 03/11/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ v
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ M
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
■ ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yeses
Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
e ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e.l large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
�10.
Yes No Na Ne
Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN n 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS780077 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780077
Inspection Date: 03/11/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2%
slopes
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
M ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
N ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ e ❑ ❑
20. floes the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ E ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ E ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS780077 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
780077
Inspection Date: 03/11/15 Inssection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
M ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑M
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
M ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
M ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
M ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon I Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33, Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34, Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■ ❑
❑
page: 5

9 1%
Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number.
780077 Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS780077
❑ Denied Access
lnppection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine County:
Robeson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
03/19/2014 Entry Time: 03:00 pm Exit Time: 3:30 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Carroll's Farm # 5080
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
Sr1107 1813 Faidey Rd
Maxton NC 28364
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator.
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
34° 41' 37" Longitude:
79° 22' 44"
On the east side of SR 1107 approx. 1 mile north of its intersection with HWY 83, south of Maxton, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Michael L Cudd Operator Certification Number: 25233
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Records reviewed 313114.
Site visit 3/19114.
page: 1

Permit: AWS780077 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780077
Inspection Date: 03/19/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
❑ Swine - Feeder to Finish
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19,00
Lagoon 7681-3 19,00
page: 2

Permit: AWS780077 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780077
Inspection Date: 03/19/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ M
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ M
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
[]
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No No No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
MEDD
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (i.e./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%a110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS780077 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
780077
Inspection pate: 03/19/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Norfolk
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ M ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ 0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■ ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ M ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
E ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS780077 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
780077
Inspection Date: 03/19/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No.Na_Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
N ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Other lssues
Yes No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
■ ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
780077 Facility Status: Active
permit: AWS780077
❑ Denied Access
tnpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit:
Routine County:
Robeson Region:
Fayetteville
Data of visit:
02/26/2013 Entry Time: 03:00 pm Exit Time: 3:30 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Carroll's Farm # 5080
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-18DD
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
SO 107 1813 Fairtey Rd
Maxton NC 28364
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
34' 41' 37" Longitude:
79° 22' 44"
On the east side of SR 1107 approx. 1 mile north of its intersection with HWY 83, south of Maxton, NC
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Other Issues
Certified Operator: Eric L Ferrell Operator Certification Number: 17634
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representativo(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone:
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Records reviewed 218113
Site visit 2126113
page: 1

permit: AWS780077 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780077
Inspection Date: 02/26/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 4,800
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW-
Waste Structures Observed
Disignated
Typo Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freaboard
agoon 1 19.00
agoon 7681-3 19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS780077 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 780077
Inspection Date: 02/26/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0110
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ M
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection. Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (l.eJ large
❑M
❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑M
❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

s
Permit: AWS780077 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 760077
Inspection Date: 02/26/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yea
No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
SOIL Type 1
Norfolk
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
0 ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
E ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

. ..
Permit: AWS780077 Owner- Facility : Murphy -Brown LLG Facility Number. 780077
Inspection Date: 02/26/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
N ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
E ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
E ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29, At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
E ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
E ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon I Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
[]
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

Type of Visit: ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: ® Routine O Complaint Q Follow-up Q Referral O Emergency O Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 1 Departure Time: 63 3p r County: 1900
Farm Name:�Cr-7 (D _ J Owner Email:
Owner Name: ` FLU( �yl�.{ �VOW� �C— Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: V \� Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone:
Region: �0
Integrator: "I' �_ 4
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
�Design
CurrentDesign
CurreSine
MDesignurrent
Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
@attle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D . Poultr
Ga aci
$o P.
Non-Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
TurkeyPoults
Other
Other
Discharees 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 [�!No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ;� NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No Eg NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes E�)No
❑ Yes 8 No
©' NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA [] NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: 'K - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[8 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[2 NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 19 �—
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
P 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
Qd 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
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
5j] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [—]Yes P No ❑ 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): Cx�S� lX'(Mt:� `�+�as� C�Cslue� r C-,fc�, jn �Lf�e4
13. Soil Type(s): ]� 0(ti_I-
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
[:]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[—]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 [;jj)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 El No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
❑NA ❑NE
0 Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection: aG /
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [FTNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes E!jNo ❑ 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 t' No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No �TNA ❑ 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:
❑ Yes L�TNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ff3 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Rg No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question .#): Explain any YES: answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other commeafs: - _
Use drawings of facility to better explain situaiions (use additional pages as necessarv).
Reviewer/Inspector Name-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 'tiock,33 33Oo
Date:��r0�%3
2/4/2011

Type of Visit: 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 3 Departure Time: County: JGS� Region: r1=42D
Farm Name �0 i<716 S I rJ J Owner Email:
Owner Name: u Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �i~J'-t` GCQU Title:
u
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
CurrentMPouitc-1111.
Capacity Pop. Wepaceh' Prop. Cattle Capacity Pap.
Wean to Finish La er Da Cow
Wean to Feeder
on -Layer
Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish
- = �
Dai Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Desgn�Current
D . �P�oul C:i acil'o , _.
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Gilts
Boars
Non -Layers
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other _ __
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes
[:]No
�MNA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify D WQ) [:]Yes
[:]No
NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes [:]No NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure 1 Structure 2
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �'
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) 0
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes P 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 Drill ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s): A&42
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
r
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
T
❑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 ElWaste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste T sfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections D Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [] Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili ,Number: - 119 jDate 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 fait 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
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
T
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
0 Yes
T
Eq No
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
E No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or:any other comiments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
i/ Sz '9/7112�
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
2✓ oll

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 2 ( Arrival Time: e Departure Time: County: RP&F6 " Region:
Farm Name:-0'80-3 o 6Sy 3 Owner Email:
Owner Name: I' l t(�r0 �rJ�W�n. �� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Mt CLUE _ Title: Phone No:
V�
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 0 0 = ' = K Longitude: � o = 6 =
Sd
Design Current...:
urrent"Design Current
Design COF
Swine
Capacity Population
W,et Poultry
Cap it} oprulatl
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dairy Cow.
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
it
❑ Dry Caw
❑ Farrow to Feeder
ElNon-Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
El Layers
❑Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
_.
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Number of Structures:0i
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
0No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
F NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
® NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
VTNA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
F] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
�9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number:
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
?] 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):
nn�
Observed Freeboard (in): d
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
�Q No El NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
tt
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
'A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental
threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
jM No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
P 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
JA No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10: Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
09 No ❑ NA [I NE
maintenancelimprovement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or ] 0 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
19 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
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Rete45 reel
, 54 (
317/1t.
317-q
Reviewer/Inspector Name �� Phone: qto-33co
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 3 -2
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection 3 2 r
Re wired 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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropiate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Desig
n ❑ Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I " Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
Y] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
&VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
( No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit'?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
')No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
Z9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
DdNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

M
iws
077
- /Z - Z0/0
Type of Visit E)Co'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: 13-26 -/Ci Arrival Time• Departure Time: County- R5A�SOfl Region:��'�
Farm Name:��� -°� Cary°f1 s Fa,...�'7�$� �
_ -)Owner Email:
Owner Name: *"&ntrA/ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: W' 4C 0cf d c Title: L 110f ` � Phone No: Onsite Representative: Integrator:) Sj-a-..0-N/
Certified Operator: ka Yo �d C ` W V,*, Aj�-O`V_ Operator Certification Number: S(Z 41
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = e = I ="
Longitude: 0 ° 0 f = u
Design Current
Design .. Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Population
V1'et Poultry Capacity Population
C+stile Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
❑Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish � 00
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to FeederLa
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
IFE—JOther
-
ers
❑Non -La ers❑ Pullets
s
❑ D Cow
Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl JTurke
her
❑ Turke Poults ❑ Other
Number of Structures:
DischarQcs & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters ofthe State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes P�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
P NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
® NA
❑ NE
ONA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
[ A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
22 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: -7 -D77 Date of Inspection 3-z�
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 RfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 80_ 3
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): IV
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA- ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
[5 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[TNo
❑ 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
18No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
[AfNo
❑ 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)jat►+�tide.._.
13, Soil type(s) 'a 1 x
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
8 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15_ Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
F1 No
[:1 NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
2INo
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
R] No
❑ NA ❑ NE
ents (refer to question #): Explain any YES'answers and/or any recommendations or�any ot>aer comments ;'
Use dra�qngs':of.facility to better explain stfuateons (use add�tro©al pages as necessary}
Reviewer/Inspector Name /45-1 ._. p �5 Phone: 910. �33. 3300
ReviewerlInspector Signature: Date: OS—ZA�C7
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: %1 —D77 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes n No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other , ,/
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes IJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24_ Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32, Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33, Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
PYNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[ff No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
(9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
JgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes [8 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:3 Yes f ] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
RPNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
IffNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
AdditionalSComments and70-h wings
H
Page 3 of 3 12128104

az�ws ew-�C*uL /493/0
�1®
Eaeiiity..Number- � `��
0 ivision of Water Quality
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agencyv.4-,
a
w z,:
Type of Visit a compliance 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: .�'/2 -D y Arrival Time:
�
Departure Time: Z; /,� County: /7ob�s�-�
Region: .��
Farm Name: 107 93 —Z
1, NSon/
Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: RaJ%Jd!, $W­�CrNf-P' Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Integrator, YDTc%✓
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o = 4 = Longitude: = ° = t a
Design Current Design Current
Capacity,:' Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
FLa er
Non -La etI I...
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Cattle Capacity.
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
EFDry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
t
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c_ What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes El"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No B N' A
❑ NE
ElYes ElNo 2* A
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NE
❑ Yes [I NA
[I NE
,Ero
Yes 3/NNNo ❑NA
❑L`
❑NE
12128104 Continued

Faciity Number: 7:9— 7 7 Date of Inspection /Z-O
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes BIC ❑ 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): P?
Observed Freeboard (in): 3 S
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
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
f"J No ❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require El Yes
�,
EKo' ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
015o ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
1. 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 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)
13. Soil type(s) No A
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[�31 Voo
El NA
NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
El Yes
,,
L_°SNo
El NA
ElNE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
2 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
0'<�
❑ NA
❑ NE
1 S_ is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
9.mb❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/inspector Name r{ kv Re V-t KS Phone: d5W S%33. 33,00
LJ
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 3 —12, — ZQD 9
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 77 — 7-71 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents ,�,
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes L''('No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check ❑ Yes 91q-o— ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
N [ ❑
El NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
��o
[2 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
B 1Vo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
a-<o_
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
E J10
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
<
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
,��,,��
1<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
ElL7
�,/
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
, ,,
L�'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?
ElYes
L7No
ElNA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
ElYes
nNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

Mt=umbier
7 � ' % 7 Q Division of Soil and W �r Conservation
--- Q Other Agency
Type of Visit
ompliance 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: i'Z -O Arrival Time: 1xpr7S�Departure Time:
Farm Name: 7(! 7 /U —/
Owner Name:u rD k��'�-1l✓
Mailing Address:
County: Abe-s-a"t Region: AZO
Owner Email:
Phone:
Physical Address: ?j
Facility Contact: RQA(dL.,�Title: yam'' 5` ' Phone
� No:
OnsiteRepresentative: �a��y �41dtjt 4CPWc.✓_ Integrator: 4!2!! �_)Frw �xl
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ❑ o = , [� Longitude: 0 0 ❑ 6
Design Current Design Current = rrent
201-WaDacitv,pulation
❑
Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dairy Cow
❑
Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La er
` ❑ Dair Calf
❑
❑
Fe der to Finish
��'
D,r��Paultry
a
❑ Dai Heifer
- ❑ D Cow
El Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
Feeder
❑ El Beef Brood Co
P-
miier of Structures
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
❑
Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other-
❑ Other
❑ Non -Layers
' ❑Pullets
r ❑ Turkevs
❑ Turkev Points
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any pan of the operation'?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ)
c_ What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes. notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes [.'1-IoNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[$ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
rml
Lp No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[ONo
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

(Facility Number: 79— 77
I Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
IJ 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?:
�i
Designed Freeboard (in): 9
Observed Freeboard (in): 30
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
El 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
® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
F] No ❑ NA LINE
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
V1No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside
of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14_ Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
06 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
[4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #)c Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments
g ty p ( `cessary)
Use drawings of facili to better explain situations. use additions! pages as ne t` -• � ..w �W
Reviewer/Inspector Name/�r'Gl�j C t�s�r..lS' + rr`
Phone: %d - Sf33 - 3aO
Reviewer/[nspector Signature:
Date: 3 -25— Z OO
Page 2 of 3 12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number:'7g _77 Date of Inspection
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [1) 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 El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Q1No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[7 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CA WMP?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
J4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
VrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

t3 r
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Z'13 — 67 Arrival Time: 7;Od Departure Time: 1i:30 County: RobeSonl
Farm Name: roQ ,14S/on1 "' 707/93-Z Owner Email:
nwniTl. Pr Nnma• /"'AI — tQ1"/,.! Phnna-
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: a� d ti $� hw 4a rn/e _ Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Region: FQO
S r • Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 0 0 =, [� ., Longitude: = ° = [ E__1 W
MR
Design Current
�:, :, ...
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry
Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ DairyCow
❑
Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
❑ DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
00
�.G �.
DairyHeifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ D Cow
Dry Poultry
' °�,
' " " ''
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Non -Dairy
❑ La ers
La ers
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
Gilts
FBoars
ElPullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
waw�-- —.
❑ Turkeys
Otber
El Turkey Poults
- J=
❑ Other
Other
;;'==
�lumber�of�Stiructures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a_ Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
(P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
V No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
(9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'?
❑ Yes
JA No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
�X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12128104
Continued

',
Facility Number: - — -7 -7
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[)6 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: 70 7 93
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): J 9
Observed Freeboard (in): 33
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
14 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
4. 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
-i�g No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
RINo
❑ 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) L7,,�
G b-�N Cosh
13. Soil type(s) NO
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
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
V No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES;answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. .(use.additional pages as necessary)=
a
Reviewer/Inspector Name f G �Qy�[.S Phone: 9/0 . $L33 . 333a
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Z —/ 3 — 2007
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

+ .. r
Facility Number: 7 $ — 7'] Date of Inspection 2-l3�Ol
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [4 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 El Checklists El Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes -9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
JjO No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
EdNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
VO No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
jo No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
14 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fait to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 1228104

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: Arrival Time:,DO Departure Time: County: Rob_so^/ Region:
Farm Name: 49 0 7 0 7 /p! `Si' `Z Owner Email:
Owner Name: 11 T BI?Sl..f/✓ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: t,— ri er �e_tr►r���
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
09
Phone No: Integrator: . /l�Lk�/J�, 9I'ata1N/ _
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: a o = 4 = Longitude: = ° = I = "
urrent Design Current
Swine ulation Wet Poultry Capacity Population
OWPOI
MEN
Design C*urrent
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -La er
airy Calf
Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean Dry Poultry
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ Layers
❑ Gilts ❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Boars
❑ Turkeys
Other ❑ Turkey Puults
❑ OtherJ1 ❑ Other
❑ DairyHeifer
❑ D Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
I
Number of Structures:
Discharees & Stream Im acts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes ;K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
fA No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: 7 —77 Date of Inspection b�
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
LEI No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
[A No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): [ g
Observed Freeboard (in): Z
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
jNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
[$No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[� No
El NA ❑ NE
S. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[31 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
Q(No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
q No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑/Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) BZYN� u aC a , rz , �it�f�s�� C�Ya ., / (,o
/
ye_a coo!/
l
U
A'
13. Soil type(s) dmez'it<
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[$No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments'
Use drawings of facility to. better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):.
Reviewer/inspector Name Phone: �'1 S46 1-5
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: fj-D(P-Z-04 fix
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: � —"� 7 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 1� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? 1f yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ W'UP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [` No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
T No
`A
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
El Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
14 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
CgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
C, 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
IoNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
ElYes
rd
Ill No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/orDrawmgs:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

r
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region: f:X0
Farm Name: �11j'11L. 13eaLW 70-79 — 2 Owner Email:
Owner Name: _%� ,�Q" Phone:
__.
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: PtiQ N i4 (A wta a►.N r_ it
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Other
❑ Other
Phone No:
Integrator: ryl t. L. L _gt j,, l n !
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o = { = Longitude: = o ='
= u
Design Current. Design Current
Capacity Population Vet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
J ❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
ffDry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
Number,of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, 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 (g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
IN No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 7 g— 7 7
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
ED No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure ? Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
h
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 32
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
to No
❑ NA ❑ NF
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
1�1 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
[S No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
� No
El NA El 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 Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) (� t°J'M ud G
13. Soil type(s) AL -Pal
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
FX1 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination,
El Yes
W No
❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
20 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
19 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
questwnm Ezplatn'any
y to better eipIa,sitiF
Reviewer/Inspector Name F K`G /�pv r✓l5 Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12178104 Continued

Facility Number: 7 g —7 7 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 C[ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ ❑ Maps
Design
g p ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I " Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ 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
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[, No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[„� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Addifl6*iComments nd/o Dra gs . , f s rz : `
12129104

N
Type of Visit ® Compliance inspection O Operation Review (J Lagoon Evaluation
Reason far Visit Q Routine C)Complaint 0 Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
pate cat Visit-. Time:
Facilih- \umber
]got O erationai Below Threshold
-Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: C,6LPr-o { l S b t%d .:h C . County: tca l C ss" 6_-
Owner Name: crab IY< _ rr rM f S! — 3 Phone No: M 1 „ - S 4 3 7-
flailing Address: 0616. a o k 9. L lj elSr_�I
Facility Contact: W6,Weh Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator: C'6''n' (i S -
Operator Certification Number: j + 4.S-d
® Swine ❑ Pouttry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 L 0` Longitude ` Y
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder I I I I[] Laver I I ❑ Dairy
® Feeder to Finish 1 4200 1 1 JE1 Non -Laver I I JE3 Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to W'ean
El Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
Y
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lsaoons F ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Dischar-es S- Stream Impacts.
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is obserx-ed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify D`VQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in sallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes. notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (incbes): 31
05103101 3 k
❑ Yes Ep No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 4 No
❑ Yes [�JNo
❑ Yes 1� No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number. —
Date of inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7., Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type Rc-s-^mv . c f r- 4- S w.. is r—" ".' 0 .
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes EANo
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes [�JNo
❑ Yes 9 No
❑ Yes q No
❑ Yes UNo
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
0 No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ 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
Q9 No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
0 No
Reouired Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
®No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively terrified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[�INo
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
PNo
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
®No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments{{ efer toFqu, on.:
O.E plain any ICESt`aas ers aad/oraan} recommends"tions anyiother"�commcnts' �
Use drawings Ulfo better explain srtuationsb(use addrtionai pages as necessary) t
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
1 S 6,_0AR I L/ ar' 103
tCaV10'-.. i , A„-� ( adof Qk- Sin Ce
co C "
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 0'9
05103101 C Continued

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
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?.
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover'?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [XNo
❑ Yes QiNo
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes PNo
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes ❑ No
05103101

•
IType of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit ® Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
L
Dare of Visit: IYL1S_l �J f Time: i 3 a Facility Number � f
E ?dot Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
r r
Farm Name: — GG�l'r a d S 61,1"4-r to C County:._ _ S kobct'm i� r`-
r
Owner Name: - c +-r a i i S _ t Of -4-ia $_I —3 Phone No: __ Q i b 2`7-4 — SG 3 2-
Mailing Address: 1' d, 13 a X �� _ i^16XCa LJ N s"T 4,T 9
Facility Contact: __ P—Lx S ,� f f ,. C Title: 1 Phone No: Sa,
Onsite Representative: S -Z % UA I Integrator: ._ �� r'rD IL 1
Certified Operator: ln[ G s. r.P- _ _ Operator Certification Number: 2 L o 1. 3
Location of Farm:
q Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �' �9 0 " Longitude ' • i
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultn Capacity Population Cattle Ca acity Po ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder I I I0 Laver I 1 ❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish $prc ❑ Non -Laver ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ soars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ( ILJ Subsurface Drains Present" IILJ Lagoon area JLJ Sprav Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 01, ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream lmRa_cts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge ori_*inated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is obsmed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notiA, DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed what is the estimated flow in sal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection 8- Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes [A No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes W No
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: -- Date of Inspection EO=
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ yes No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? El Yes � No
(if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes MNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes 0 No
12. Crop type 6 er v , t` 0,4 , 1~ S iAw .
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes � No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
-❑ Yes
❑ No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
(B No
1 %
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
IQ 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
M No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes [53 No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlimpection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes MNo
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes] No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
toee4 QrAPt F&,,- "O&.r cz, '
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
111�1.=11
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
Date: (n & a,
0510310I Continued

Facility Number: 7�-? — Date of Inspection
Odor Issges
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lag*oon fail to discharge atior 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 anv 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. N ere am, major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
Or broken fan biade(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 permanentitemporary cover?
❑ Yes [3� No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
El Yes f2fNIO
❑ Yes � No
❑ Yes Q No
❑ Yes q No
O5103101

of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ® Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit: % D dZ Time:rO
�
Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: _ _ ���� �C.P��,3 County: /�4 j
Owner Name: Si. • • WOW !Phone No:
Mailing Address: 0BOX
7,,��
Facility Contact: ! .•/•S Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: a-r_ Integrator: h GB
Certified Operator: 43:90 9C'� �z Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
[]Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �' �' �" Longitude
Design Current
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry Ca acity Population Cattle Ca acity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder 1i
10 Layer ❑ Dairy
® Feeder to Finish
I❑Non-La er ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
_.. -
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
�
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
Number ofa agoons
10 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oon Area ❑ 5 rav Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System i
Discharges & Sty Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
❑ Yes to No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes fPSNo
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
XNo
```"`
Structure 6
05103101 Continued
l

Facility Number: 7? — 77 1 Date of Inspection 0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9" Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement?
11. is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated m the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16" Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reauired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does cord keeping need improvement? (ie/ irriga'fion, freeboard waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes JV No
❑ Yes g] No
❑ Yes hTlo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes �dNo
❑ Yes ,-No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes O'No
❑ Yes (9No
❑ Yes foNo
❑ Yes EgNo
❑ Yes IQ No
❑ Yes 9No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
N No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
rRNo
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
RNo
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
LrNo
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
/. p.✓/'e�r� 7
.���A/�r
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Ili ill it i��1�1
05103101
Date: 7/ "/o Z
Continued

Facility Number: 7 —77 Date of Inspection 7 2i aL
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes No
ElYesNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes kNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes PSNo
❑ Yes J91 No
ildditioual Comments:iui°d/or l2rawmSs ; 4 ' , � C� IN 4+
O5103101

_Division of Soil and Water Conservation' -.Operation Review
: -
r O.Division of Soil and:Water Conservation -Compliance inspection
s Division of Water.QuaEityCompliance'Inspection
�.QtherµAgeiicy OperatiomReview =
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow7uof DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number '7 Date. of Inspection
Time of Inspection HEM 24 hr. (hh:mm}
Permitted 13 Certified
// 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered ❑ Not Operational Date bast Operated:
Farm Name: 7fP.. 1 " 3 County:......-.. {,� eSa.--- ...............................
.............../J................... .......---.----.-........--.
Owner Nante:...0 �1�� ICecc ¢r rl� ,,_, _c r Z 7 Oii
G11[`1!'............................�'.}..- Sl4 Phoneitia:.....................:..-...�.......................... ......
Facility Contact: La.S 545 Title:....G'LU ... -,L........................ Phone No:..................... ................
.Q..........I ...... ................... ..... ......----- �.Mailing Address: P0.�LJ �S� ..A/ r. %�..l..K.0......................... Z
Onsite Representative: ........ �YC II`1 integrator: . ...........
Certified Operator:..... e,r4,Yc,(„S ... 0..` a ✓( Uperator Certification Number:
Location of Farm-
A
.........................................................................:................................................................................................................................................................................................
Latitude 6 Longitude 0 • 4 46
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish
UO
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
-17ZFOV
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ID Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation (If yes, notify DWQ)?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
h- 11-discharge is observed, did it reach: [-]Surface Waters []Waters of the State
c. If dischar,-e is observed. what is the estrniated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system?
2- Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any 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
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): ---... .........................
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes K No
❑ Yes M;rNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes 0 No
Structure 6
1/6/99 Continued on back

4
�Raciliiy umber: -7— .7 7 Date of inspection ®
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑YesNo
seepage, etc.)
6_ Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes PNo
(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 [ANo
8. Does any pact of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes WNO
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required top of dike, maximum and minimum
liquid level elevation markings?
❑ Yes
9No
Waste Application
10_ Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
ONo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Ponding El Nitrogen
12. Crop type Kr u r� rQ r k a. Z e
El Yes
.........................
E�(No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
No
14. Does the facility lack wettable acreage for land application? (footprint)
❑ Yes
O�No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
J�INo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
U No
'\
Required Records &_Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[ No
,\
18. Does the facility fail'to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
A No
19, Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
�TNo
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 certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
�No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
discharge, freeboard
❑ Yes
ANo
(ie/ problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
A No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
42�No
IM-NA.violations:or def cieide's.vuere noted drsring A_is:visit:. You will.recceive nay further. .
•;-...-* .s... .eii ......this visit.; . ; . ; ; ; ; . ; . •;.: : . . .
Eomiaents (refer, to ,question #). Ezplaiu:any YES answers and/or any`recommendations or any otlier comments a x
drarvtm/gs o/f facilityto-better.eaiplaini situations. (use additional pages.asnecessaiy) t - �� d OfP
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 6 A�L I Date: 3 - 2 4� - Y 7 11/6/99

Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency
Division of Water Quality
{O Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWO inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review 4F Other 1
Facility Number
-
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection
0 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Registered © Certified 0 Applied for Permit © Permitted 10 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
�! )j n j r
Farm Name:.......... ` .rlO l l S .........l.r?�f.............._3 County:..........................A4 '-izf ?.........................
�` Jl ..................
OwnerNarrte:.............. f'jrt7(/s.... ....... ..'... .I..... .. Phone No: ................................ .................... ..................................... ............................. ......
Facility Contact: .............. .......J.ki Title: ------............... Phone No
MailingAddress: ..................................................................................................................... .............................................................................} . ..........................
Onsite Representative:........... S �C:..............................I..._......._................ Integrator: ..................... ..�CIlG?'..5........lf..
Certified Operators................
Location of Farris:
Operator Certification Number;
Latitude • i it Longitude • ' 46
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (if yes. notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gaVmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenancelimprovement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7125/97
❑ Yes ❑ No

Facility Number:
—
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structures (Lagoons,Holdi g Ponds, Flush Pits, etc,)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft)..................................... .......................... .......... ................................... ....................................
10.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
❑ No
It.
is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
❑ No
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
xycs
❑ No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff enteri g waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
Crop type ........................ralina . ......... ......... ...........................................................
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
❑ No
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ 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
❑ 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:vialations•or'deficiencies.werenoted-duringthis:visit. You:willreceive•n' irilier'
Ofr&06fideke. about this:visit: :
-m Tk,o 77, CA MOV ddl &01
Fl"j C.-w nn
l D 30 'Ofit J 7 Le
A" A.o 9 cta t., J�7H,P �) �8 � 0!1 C P,&J 25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: 7 -�/Y�

❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation [3Other Agency
ff Division of Water Quality
10 Routine O Complaint O Follow-un of DWO insnection O Follow-uD of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number
Date of Inspection —a
S
Time of Inspection / O 24 hr. (hh:mm)
13 Registered 9Certified 0 Applied for Permit Wermitted 10 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ......... l...arjrJP5 ..r i............... E' 1.....-. 3...._....... County:... .................... !7be!-,n .._..................
...
I � r
Owner Name: .............. e l ....._... r�!I,,......1 Phone No: 91 a 93 — -?XWL
// / ..... ... r......................................_._.................._...._ .......................
Facility Contact: �.°.�.jl.c 51445. Tale• •...... Phone No: ..... :... _........................................
MailingAddress . • �, ,tr........gs�o
•..................................... ................I.._.---...f-----
Onsite Representative: e e + 1 �a u / Integrator: �r S p..................................................... g ......4_.:.-------...._
Certified Operator.....................eri_1l.!5......... ........... --.C%.t2.In-.�; .......----._.---...._--- Operator Certification Number :.................................. ......
Location of Farm:
Latitude �• �� ��� Longitude �• 0` �"
-.'Design--,'Current „
,K
3.
Capacity Populahou Poultry
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
WOO
4.
[] Farrow to Wedn
❑ Farrow to Feeder
y
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
h,
❑ Boars
Current•
Population
❑ Non -Layer ❑Nan -Dairy
❑ Other 1 a, s
�TOtai DeSIgn CapaCltyj(�
a ;Total SSLW
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
' ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System:.
x
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes IXNo
2. 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 Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
0 No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
IVIA
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
Na
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
j$ No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
(VNo
5. Does any pan of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
l�,No
maintenance/improvement?
-- ``
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
[(No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
JKNo
7/25/97
Continued on back

Facility Number: g-
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes [)[No
Structures LLagoons,11olding Ponds, Flush fits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 01No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 0
Y
Identifier . ............. ...I............
Freeboard(ft):............................................................................................................ ..........
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? El Ye,; P(No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? ❑ Yes No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes ,( No
(If in excess of WMP, or run ff entens waters of the State. notify D }
15. Crop type....
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes IX No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application' ❑ Yes XNo
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes Pq No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ❑ Yes X No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes IN No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes JKNo
22. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
For Certified or Permitted FacilitigN Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste :Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes M No
24, Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes XNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit? ❑ Yes % No
0 No.vitilations or deficiencies.were ntited-during this. visit.- .Yoiimill receive no further.
correspondence about this'.visit.-
Comments (refer -to question #): =Explain. any Yk 5 answers and/ iir`any recoriimendatioris-or any aver` comitients
Use' draw4rigs of fa6lity to better explain'situations use additional pages as necessarv)
. ,
rct ► , � vn S%e , NQ - n e r yt
vk�.Ww Azr- P14"f At" +jd___7
C u0j iA1:3-".
7/25197
Reviewer/Inspector
for Name`""
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 1 Date:

Site Requires Immediate Attention: 40
Facility No. 141A
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: '{t H I y' 1995
Time: 1 S : 13
iFarm Name/Owner: C o.rro 41 ' ,s No , rich' ass%gyred) 7l0 813 / &J-ro /f' Aocl T.v c ,
Mailing Address: (4- +-- asE. - .J) _ - -- - - -- --
;County: foEaesoh/
Jntegrator: Phone:
:On Site Representative: Phone: (910) z7& 0G 49
'-Physical Address/Location: SA 407 Al of Hwy 93
Type of Operation: Swine ✓ Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: 4 So0 F-iAj Number of Animals on Site:
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude:_ ° *1 ' 31 Longitude: 79 ° zZ' 32"
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) (�;)or No Actual Freeboard: / 1 Ft. O Inches
Was any seepage observed from the la oon(s)? Yes o No Was any erosion observed? Yes o Nc
=Is adequate land available for spray? es or No Is the cover crop adequate? &or No
Crop(s) being utilized: to be d 4frv-r.;ar�d
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings? es or No
100 Feet from Wells? QDe 0 or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes o No
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line: Yes o No
Is animal waste discharged into water of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes o No If Yes, Please Explain.
:Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes f manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? Yes or No/ i
Additional Comments: ekr t_aCiE114
I��GKy IQe.r �l-s
Inspector Name -
� R
Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.

101 00 100 00:00
�O 1 �GGJv
.%TI <<
,3:13
Nv .ssA/
- DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
CArr011 s Foods =irc.
November 4, 1994
P t--,
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
Carr&it15 rar.. HcSR - I/07
County
5; r
Dear
on , an inspection of Your animal operation was performed by the
Fayetteville Regional Office (FRO). Please find enclosed a copy of our
Compliance Inspection Report for your information. It is the opinion of this
office that this facility is in compliance with 15A NCAC 2H, part .0217, and
that Animal Waste Management is being properly performed.
should you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact
me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Enclosure
cc: Facility Compliance Group

-member of tho
nily. It. aaem.
the �rna�l-Wiled
ng -,W66dchucl
it, tree -dim binj
t remehiber aIsc
le, -nd grounc
Jerstand
11" - ,,_.njnds u
tricestry by cWn
to keep a Bette
Y.
ad typical hiber,
Whe&'the tam
We fag, abou
,ck, fat as i
s down to hi:
hole in -after hin
passage to tho
he winter.
atiork nothing L.
Itobe' ' convem
ion of thb blooc
'MM, tine lung. -
is an oocaslona
)n of breath-bu
gen In the lung
, the -slow hew
gases
Qodchucks do
ir steep promp,
nd, to watch RN
orth aithei case
xne restless and
lau
.g out tc
nt.'-.-:.J tender
laved to be in
we born In Lm
small -:and un-
&W fdrlibout a
an file don and
)K They begin
't of Brass and
le to 9a out to
erents,;.anwub
fig dum'where
1 soriie'of the
ba.found in
.0 n,
um favored
A or swale ad-
ffaftAne en-
d by, -a heap of
vadorbut one
thout . pftmal
so' Thew con-
)Okmits-or spy
mhes intruders
ted by the ob-
hock'himsell
burrow
sur-
inc *,. may be
d 56'feet, and
L
0
A
.IL
L-1
A
LM
JJ
LLL1
lim LM
M7"
un LM
120

021 P03 �a
ClkRoLINA DEPARTMENT OF ZXVIRO , 11RALTH & NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRCM8CMAL MANAGEKE Rr
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
M4i ::..ya_:oAa �.. .K eia ��ni.M +tag �'svt��•
w.�+e:.n.:i:o....:�.�. .. .. 4P3`.• - Y.'•e¢s�R�aRK3V:�tAwk
.Wn�ti..n �� wy' •� r KK4:4Mi4h4�
y �S
Y'.94+�M vJ4Y:4 WO�M'� .K K
�
aik:xa�e ism : '. � ' "" xf w<...s..+s.,,�,",.<,..ro«n..............a.�.
:Wi �:x ..oA::4:6 w wKK .S��:tt�:�tJee:r� af��� :...s..-ns.
�rwtnvr.. r
'�� ;.k«> �r.�.c'n Ai�7 J�f\iRlipOi�
•� 4 •ww...swn
`'�:�:.e.'.".:�:::=�,.. eµ�i.:n:�,::i.y.'nY'M`o..� oc-�raois :e:�:.. "nt'. 'p
.,
a:4 �ieyw.
<.In[ii'�.+•.e.tYi[ti:fe.oC4l4'.Le��NC.—,�J�y+�
o» v:'..w'•.. wa'<" w' Y:?:a:e2Msv.,•.;..•� "'si„`..t,'w:'anY;: x o:... n�...-.�
►r �1$r^.:. 1�{�.;�
���4. �w"�.,a
4y+0AJ.`4v.ntOf4M�.� - .MaMr.akn[ 4t.
,�.�a.�..Y.Y;�..isy.:.:��..:/:..�'4'•�.,-.'�°.
<•
�y���Y S1YCY+iif1'w.w..✓�-.r..�.w
5� t to-`[ N aF N ..,�3.=Z71,
- O�l�� �
%'40"00�11F
be discussed in detail in
questions
answered
ndsatively
Will sufficient
the Comments Section to
enable the
deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
SEC'i'ION I
Animal .Operation TT tQ_e_:
Horses, cattle, swine poultry, or sheep
1. Does the number and type of animal meet or exceed
the (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75). swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system))
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal operation ROGISTRAR'ION?
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12-month period?
4. Doers this facility have a CKRTIFIED ANrKhL
WASTE PLARAGMEWT PLAN?
S. Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
6. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc?
Y I N I COxiMIMrS
IC�-'
F00

grI N III
r1old. site Management
1. 2s animal waste stockpiled or lagoon,
construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
Map Blue Line Stream?
2. Is animal Waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS leap
Blue Line Stream?
3. Does this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
4. Does the land application site have a
cover crop in accordance with the
CSst'1'IFIG'PI� PLRW
S. Is animal waste discharged into waters of
the state by man-made ditch, flushing system,
or other similar man-made devices?
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best management Practices
( 14P) of the approved MTMCATION?
7. Does animal waste lagoon have •sufficient
freeboard? How much? {Approximately I4.5- ?
8. Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
SECTION IV
Commenta
-no
©© ..: :.
is :x.3 0.. `t �t� f �s