780086_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA .�
Department of Environmental Qua
II

I s �
M Division of Water {Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
780086 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS780086
❑ Denied Access
Inpaection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit:
Rome
County: Robeson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
0211312017 Entry Time: 11:00 am
Exit Time: 12:00 pm Incident 0
Farm Name:
Farm # 7684
Owner Email:
Owner.
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
Facility Status:
0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farts:
Latitude: 34° 46' 50" Longitude:
79' 16' 49"
On the east side of SR 1359 approx..8 mile south of its intersection with Hwy. 71, east of the Campbell Soup plant.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, 8 Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: dames Brian McGugan Operator Certification Number: 986752
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary lnspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS780086 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 780086
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
[] Swine - Farrow to Wean 2,400
Total Design Capacity: 2,400
Total SSLW: 1,039,200
Waste Structures
Dislgnated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 20.00 51.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS780086 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 713OO136
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yea
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?
❑
Elm
❑
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)
❑
❑ 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
❑
M ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na Ng
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
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 Ovedoad?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 100/6/10 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: AWS780086 Owner - Facility : Murphy-13rown LLC Facility Number. 780086
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
cotton
Crop Type 3
Small Grain Overseed
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?
❑
E ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
E ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ 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?
❑ E ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
[]
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS780086 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 780086
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yea No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPOES 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?
❑
E ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yea
No Na Ne
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,
❑
E ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
E ❑
❑
(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 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ ❑ ❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
page: 5

■ Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
780085 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS780086
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Robeson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
0310912015 Entry Time: 02:00 pm
Exit Time: 3:00 pm Incident #
Faun Name:
Farm # 7684
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
latitude: 34' 46' 50" Longitude:
79° 16' 49"
On the east side of SR 1359 approx..8 mile south of its intersection with Hwy. 71, east of the Campbell Soup plant
Question Areas:
Dischrge 8 Stream Impacts Waste Cot, Stor, 8 Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: James Brian McGugan Operator Certification Number: 986752
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone:
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone:
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

13
Permit: AWS780086 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780086
Inspection Date: 03/09/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 2,400
Total Design Capacity: 2,400
Total SSLW: 1,039.200
waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 20,00 31.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS780086 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780086
Inspection Date: 03/09/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharues & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
E ❑
❑
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)
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (t.e.1 large
❑
N ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
E ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any pan of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ S ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ O ❑ ❑
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: AWS780086 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780086
Inspection Date: 03/09/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop type 2
Cotton
Crop Type 3
Small Grain overseed
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?
❑
e ❑
❑
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?
❑
N ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ma
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ E ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ [] ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS780086 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780086
Inspection Date: 03/09115 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
E ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
.0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
[--]No[]
Other Issues
Yes
No Na We
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,
❑
N ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30, Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
S ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 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 Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

M Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 780086 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS780086
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit: Routine County: Robeson Region:
Date of Visit: 0311612014 Entry Time: 04:30 pm Exit Time: 5:00 pm
Farm Name: Farm # 7684
Incident #
Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC Phone:
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
❑ Denied Access
Fayetteville
910-296-1800
Facility Status. Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34° 46' 50" Longitude: 79° 16' 49"
On the east side of SR 1359 approx..8 mile south of its intersection with Hwy. 71, east of the Campbell Soup plant.
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 2125114.
Site visit 3118114.
page: 1

Permit: AWS780086 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780086
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Ej Swine - Farrow to Wean
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Strugtures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Dale Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 20.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS780086 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780066
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 1npsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any pail of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
LIN
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
110
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
M ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection. Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■ ❑
❑
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
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
■ ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
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%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: AWS780086 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780086
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No _Na- NB
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
cotton
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
❑
E ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
EEI
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS780086 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
780086
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25. is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
E ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na No
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 DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface Tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field ❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond ❑
Other ❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the 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

r e
M Division of Wager Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
780086
Facility Status: Active Permit: AVVS780086
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit:
Routine
County: Robeson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
03/0412013 Entry Time: 10:00 am Exit Time: 11700 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Farm # 7684
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
91D-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑
Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 34' 46' 50" Longitude:
79" 16' 49"
On the east side of SR 1359 approx..8 mile south of its intersection with Hwy. 71, east of the Campbell Soup plant.
Question Areas:
DisChrge & Stream Impacts
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other Issues
Certified Operator: Eric L Ferrell Operator Certification Number: 17634
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Records reviewed 2/15113
Site visit 314113
page: 1

Permit: AWS780086 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780086
Inspection Date: 03/04/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 2.400
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 20.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS780086 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780086
Inspection Date: 03/04/13 lnpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
1100
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)
❑
❑ 0
❑
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 Na
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7 Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
O ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
10. 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 > 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: AWS780086 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 780086
Inspection Date: 03/04/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain
Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
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
❑
E ❑
❑
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?
❑
EEI
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
No
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
❑
❑
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: AWS780086 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
780086
Inspection Date: 03/04/13 inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
M ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
E ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27, Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
E ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
E ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
It 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
❑
E ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33, Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

Type of visit: ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 4P Routine Q Complaint O Follow-up Q Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit:L. Arrival Time: l ,'QD Departure Time: m4, �ICounty: J?00i5tJ Region: .F190
Farm Name. ri 6 Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: /� �� �N�TP Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: M 5,�--Atvwpi
Certified Operator: 1547-1 G ,,,�U Certification Number: 1 rf 6 3 ! j
Back-up Operator:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Swine =
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
LayerWSW
Non -La er
D . P�o_uI
La ers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turke s
Turkey Poults
10ther
Design
Capacity
11 In
Design
Ca aeit
Current
Pop.
Ell
Current
P,o
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
DairyCow
DairyCalf
DairyHeifer
Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
2�(UD
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other IMI
Discharas 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 W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [—]No
[:]Yes [—]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
�NA ❑NE
7" NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
[:DNA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 2/4/2011 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 I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[tV 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
Fp] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
P9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? if yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
;U No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift [] Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13, Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment'?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Qd No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [:)Yes M No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 4 No
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? 0 Yes ® No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Ins ection: 3- q -/
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
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
�j ]j No
❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
7�
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
fp No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
(Pecn--d5
S e 0. 3 -- 4 -I3
Reviewer/inspector Name:
Reviewer/]nspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: f/o- `% ' 3 _2�-47O
Date:
21412011

t ype or visit: w t.ompuance inspection V Uperarnon meview V .3tructure r.vaivanon V i ecnnical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 49 Routine O Complaint O Fallow -up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: j j//j / I Z_ Arrival Time: �Departure Time: County: -RD�
Farm Name: 768 '/ Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: - �i� rt t- Lrplcl. Title:
Onsite Representative: _ 11
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Region:
Phone:
Integrator: AQ4ypwjn
Certification Number- 9VI57
Certification Number:
Longitude:
-s- aDestgn Current '"'
E
Design ^Cu` rent . -
Design
Current
Swine r = -
Capacity , Pop; Wet Pointry
Vim.•. .
Capact Pope
Cattle Capacity
Pop.
_
t
s
Wean to Finish Layer
DairyCow
Wean to Feeder Non -La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
'ram _ '� `
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean III
Design Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder D P,oultr}J
Ca acity Po
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other TurkeyPoints
Other Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If ycs, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
[-]Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No A NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No gg NA ❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) [:)Yes [:]No [3NA ❑ 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? 7�
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

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

Facility Number: - Date of inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes PM 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 Cq No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yeps
NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes JANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31 _ Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? 1 f yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWW? ❑ Yes M 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 ff): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or.any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
�ec,,�5 re.)I --3C�zz
54c ��5�� ;�112
Reviewer/Inspector Name: rf�� Maki -or, U `03_ 3500
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 3 ?
Page 3 of 3 21412011

Type of Visit 40 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: '3 r Arrival Time: �: Departure Time: OS j+i1 County: � Region:
Farm Name: [ (Sgi _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ` Ike CHo�d� Title:
h
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: lyI C_
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
M
Integrator: 1 rl "D T'��1OG�l��-
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = e = ' ❑ Longitude: ❑ ° ❑ I = u
Design Current Design Current
Design Current
Swiae Ca act l?o ` tilatton ` Wet Pa 1tryA F aci Po elation
P, h P:�.�.p� P
Cattle Ca aci Pa elation
P ty P
- r
Wean to Finish
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer I I Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
4 DairyHeifer
DryyPoultt y� ❑ D Cow
�'' ElNon-Dairy
❑ Layers El Beef Stocker
❑ Non -Layers
❑Beef Feeder
�] Pullets ❑ Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other'; .,a �'tf ❑ TurkeyPoults
❑ Other �❑ Other Numberaf Structures:
❑
❑
❑
Farrow to Wean 2 pP3
El Farrow to Feeder
El Fa
rELI
r
ow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Discharges & Stream Impacts
l _ Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharges & Stream Impacts
l _ Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
El Yes
FNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: El Structure El Application Field ❑Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
El Yes
❑ No
[FNA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
El Yes
❑ No
[ONA
❑ 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
[pNA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
El Yes
19 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
El Yes
(I No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
I2/28/04
Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes II] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No
�hNA
❑ NE
StruIWe 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes �RNo
❑ 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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
1 1. 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 l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window El Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
l,[�Q
12. Crop type(s) S&M"Qa-jjj1
?� �^
13. Soil type(s) Alkir,4[
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[19 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
IoNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[:] Yes
EpNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer: to question.#): Explain any YES answers.and/or any recommendations or any other comments.:
Use drawings of facility to,better explain -situations. {use additional pages as necessary.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: .9/p-S/ j _02D
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes �R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I " Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge'?
❑ Yes 14 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment'?
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
(� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26,
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2T
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification'?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
Q§ 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
pa No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewerllnspector 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
EP No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit (Mompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit a outine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: -Z,SyO Arrival Time: Departure Time: %: v0 County.
Farm Name: '# 769 * / _. _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: /h - 8 VOWA/ L t: C' Phone:
Mailing Address:
Region: �24
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: M V"— Cad d. Title: LAIM - ^1Aia4't� Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: M-aP2rt✓/✓
Certified Operator: 0-,' - F Operator Certification Number: 1763 %
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [= e = 0 Longitude: = o = , = «
•ri, Design KCurrent - Desi n Current
�:
SR ne � �.0 1 a�clty Populatton Vet Poul Capacity Population
Des Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
Y ❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
2447D Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers—
Pullets
❑ Turkeys
,� ❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other J
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ D Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
El Beef Stocker
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: ELI
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
U, theONOr -
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
El Yes
ElL7 No
�,/
NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
B<A
❑ 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)
ElYes
[I3 No
�
A
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'?
❑ Yes
S NNoo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
L►'I No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

Facility° Number: 7-Qg(Q
Date of Inspection -Zs-
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: 7 9
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): Z ��
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ic/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes SNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 2<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes to ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4_6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? B<o ❑ NA El NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, drystacks and/or wet stacks) El Yes
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require El Yes L7No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Aaalication
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 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. Croptype(s) u.k,d.., (-*,-/ -) S /f 6i'.'-'j 62')- `.D C"a741DA/
13_ Soil type(s) *.'yAl K
14_ Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
[TNo El NA El NE
10 ❑NA El NE
io ❑ NA ❑ NE
:�0
NA ElNE
❑ NA ❑ NE
IComments (refer to question #): Explain.anv 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 C' (s Phone: 9ID-+33-.3300
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: R " R Date: ✓;) S 2010
Il/26/U4 C.onUnued

Facility Number: 78 -Q�(p Date of inspection 3-ZS-1
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility tail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box, ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes UR<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes B o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1"
Rain Inspections El Weather
Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
LJ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�o
El NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
L�iNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
EMo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
B<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
�
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
al . ❑ 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
,_.,�
2No ❑ 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
Addltibnal,Commeits;andlor Drawings_ ,;_ -
12128104
12128104

Type at visit (♦ Compliance inspection U Operation Review U Structure Evaluation U Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ®Routine Q Complaint Q Fallow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ,�,- Departure Time: County: PO r 0� fi'-
Region: 7w
Farm Name: i 6 U g i / Owner Email:
Owner Name: / 'tGU' rn L LC Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: "�`,`''`�" is _ . Title:
K
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator: _ _ r*_ae7r Lic
Operator Certification Dumber:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =' = ' 0 Longitude: ❑ n [� g = "
Design Current
�
Desigo ' Current Design Current
Swine
Capacity Population
`Wet Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
7
� r :.
❑Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -Laver
❑ Dai Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish El Dairy Heifer
Dry Poultry) ;.0 ❑ D Cow
El Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Farrow to Wean `�
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Discharges &Stream impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑Structure El Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑Yes ❑ No [p NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters afthe State? (lfyes, notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No aNA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? ([Eyes. notify DWQ} ❑yes ❑ No MNA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? El Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State El Yes No ElNA ❑ NE
other than from a discharge? l
Page 1 of 3 12/28/04 Continued
Discharges &Stream impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑Structure El Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑Yes ❑ No [p NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters afthe State? (lfyes, notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No aNA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? ([Eyes. notify DWQ} ❑yes ❑ No MNA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? El Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State El Yes No ElNA ❑ NE
other than from a discharge? l
Page 1 of 3 12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection o
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 P NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
V
Observed Freeboard (in): "--
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes IrfNo ❑ 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 ❑ NA ElNE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ElYes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes �No El NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect 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 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
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
V3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment'?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question # ): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
l
Re-viewer/Inspector Name Phone:
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

• Facility Number — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes `� 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. ❑ W-UP ❑ Checklists jjj ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
6� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25_
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
T 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
4�' 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
ll
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
Page 3 of 3 12128104

� lt�S 3jialZvo� ��'
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ®Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Z —/ 4— b Arrival Time: ? ccw Ar.-.- Departure Time: :dd �,.- County: Ro�Scr— Region:
Farm Name: �� /��ZSZt/1✓ -7 g 7 Owner Email:
Owner Name: &&WA /gi't3s�l/✓ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
On site Representative: g mj!=+
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: F-1 a [= o = go Longitude: = o E J = «
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Population -
VEVI ultry . Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
z
i' -
Dry Ponttry"J y. -
❑ Dry Cow
El Farrow to Feeder
_
El Layers
❑ Non -Dairy
El Farrow to Finish
El Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑Non -La Non -Layers
El
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
:. �•,;._ _
❑Turke s
Turkey Poults
❑ Other
I IMIE]
Other I
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
JNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
❑ Yes
[4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
{rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge'?
Page 1 of
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: - S(.0 Date of Inspection Z -/ -p
Waste Collection & 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
❑ Yes IgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes J�J No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): ZO
Observed Freeboard (in): 3 Z of
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
oNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ 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
OlNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
/
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
IL . Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below,
❑ Yes
14 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)/41
�hw a ri
C � r+�--t c� �
/
13. Soil e s
() /�ol�k
�-
l4. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
IP No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
14 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
F9 No ❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
IM No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any recon_ imendations'or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name -- iZ 8�l. -~ -- — - i Phone: /@ q53. 3330
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Z-^0(Zab
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — MI Date of inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 0No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [)6No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ 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 V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes 14 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
Q1No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
/VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
[XNo
❑ NA
[:1 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
1;KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
91 No
ElNA
[INE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
FNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

ar/ffs / -// -zoo H
Type of Visit ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 13 -ZS-d Arrival Time: Departure Time: .�� 3v County: `��' �� S�� Region:
Farm Name: 74C -76 Q T Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Phone:
Facility Contact: !�Q �d`7 G�r"r Title:Phone No:
Onsite Representative: ^ GTiv`+� Integrator: S7,44/
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
�2�
ae-
Location of Farm: Latitude: [= o = . ❑ « Longitude: ❑ o ❑ . = "
t ft
vDesign Current ' Design Current* L Design C+urrent
Sw1ne :� Capacity Pouu
platton;�! +try Capacity roplatton C*attle Capacity Population
❑ La er ❑ Dai Cow
❑ Non -Layer ❑ DairyCalf
kx El Dairy Heifer
dDryPoultry ` w� ❑ D Cow
El ���_- ; ._ __r�
❑ Non -Dairy
q . ❑ Lavers El Beef Stocker
❑ Non -Lavers
El Pullets
❑Beef Feeder
... ❑ 'furkevs -
.10 Beef Brood Co++
3 $ _ = ❑ Turkev Poults
❑ Other, ❑ Other t Number ofeStructures:
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
z�
Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow t0 I' I I11511
ilts rs
L__
PE3_
DischarLes &Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
El Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑Application Field ❑Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'.'
El Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
El Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the +waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
El Yes
[M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Y""es
ElNA
❑ NI✓
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑Yes
,.fLoVdf�+No
lJ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of
I2/28/04
Continued

Facility Number:- — va Date of Inspection FT-2.d
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate'? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ®No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5.
Arc 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 = 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 4 No ❑ NA
❑ NE
8.
Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes (9 No ❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9.
Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes M No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10.
Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11.
Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes VjNo ❑ 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 El Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside
of Area
12.
Crop type(s) S� udL t`f% g6r'n CJ ��G! �i n1
�Q.S,�, pa,u �"✓
IV0A
13.
Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement'?
❑ Yes
�N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
ERNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
0 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 %� +`G Z4tle Phone: 910 • f`33. 336 0
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: ,3-ZS-ZUQS
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: '� — ��p Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [IT 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 El Checklists El Design ❑Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
QjNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24_
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
03 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Vj No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26_
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ 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
14 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
[A 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'? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
IeNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ® Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:-OIp��JJ�,,// Arrival Time: .Z Departure Time: a0 County: A&SeyV Region: Fla
Farm Name: / K,t � _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: , &a Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:�!'GIrG
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No -
Integrator: _�I/��f .OyIT�/V/
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = 0 = 0di Longitude: 0 e ❑ 1 = u
esign
_ Current Design Currenine
.t mlFhr
` Capaction Wet Poultry Capac tq
P.opu titian Cattte Capacity Population
❑
Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy Cow
❑
Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer I
❑ Dairy Calf
El
Feeder to Finish
's'
+"
❑ Daia Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Z
&Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any pan of the operation?
El Yes
00 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑Structure El Application Field ❑Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑Yes
❑ No
�WNA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
El Yes
❑ No
�NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
El Yes
�No
�//❑��`NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
El Yes
o
Aq
❑ NA
[INE
other than from a discharge'?
Page 1 of 3
12/28/04
Continued

Facility Number:79— Date of Inspection 7I
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No
KNA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
tr
Designed Freeboard (in): Q
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes KNo
❑ 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 J3�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
& Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ 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 [INA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ;Rr�to ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 1�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) JYo k,
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
0No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
I &
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):
f
I
Reviewer/Inspector Name iC l�C eNe� S i Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: �Dlv—ZOD��ZOD�
Page 2 of 3 — 12128104 Continued

c
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes Im No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WlJP El Checklists El Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes KNo ❑ 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 Cade
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
AX^No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
J<No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ 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
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to property 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
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
® 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
JkNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: RokesZr4
Farm Name: Nut,o26 teyoU1/V ft 7 to gq Owner Email:
Owner Name: OLD rrwn� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facilitv Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: R-.0LAJcat UM e- JY^4 e-Y
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Zq DO
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Region: FAO
Phone No: p
Integrator: t1u ✓A/f::7 BIr3 �
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = 0 0 , = Longitude: = o = , =
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Laver
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: El Structure El Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
Cattle
Design Current ,
Capacity Population .
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heitei
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocket
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
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)?
Number of Structures: �t
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 N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
tdNo
❑ NA
FINE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�j No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
IN No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: '7 — $(p Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
El Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure t Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): / 9
Observed Freeboard (in)- %
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
[�? No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(iel large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
19 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
09 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
®,No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
X 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 t0 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. Croptype(s) sevAAL4,j CG1-a4 e.rl� ) 5st,,q116eai1V
uwS�c�.1 [�oJ
13. Soil type(s) /Vc�rP1 K
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
IN No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination, ❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question#Y Egpl<ain.any YES answers and/or. any recommendations or, any other comments. {'
s
,Use drawings of -facility to,better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):.?
Reviewer/Inspector Name I l iG:K Re.V7e -5 • Phone: (9/OJ
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: a,_e.�"c� Date: //-2Z--QS
I2/2X/U4 Continued

Facility Number: 7g —$(o Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 1Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 1)9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists
❑ Design El Maps El Other
21 _ Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
;M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
U) No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
DO No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
t4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2T
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
FJ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
14 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
0 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
CK 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
X 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
IR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
5d No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

n
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ® Routine 0 Complaint Q Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit: � Timc: 5�.:.�s-
(y
rO Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified O Conditionally Certified 0 Re-gistered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: __ L[s r<a (1 S -'l rnr, _ 1-v,C.. _ Count:go ` �C�,,,
Owner Name: +r'r0 (� �' R __._ Phone No: lJ 3 3+3:j
i•lailing Address: 0, o, 13 o C v.S s , Z9-3 19
Facility Contact: J 1('-f- Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: lr.((G-N- Merkle., OcydC.er Integrator: CAr"r'o { i IS
Certified Operator: in CJ'l' 1"k Operator Certification number:
Location of Farm:
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 i " Longitude a �• ��
Design Current
Swine f`anarity Pnnnlatinn
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow tc NVean
010
❑ Farrox to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle capacity Population
❑ Laver I ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Laver ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons I JJ Subsurface Drains Present fIU Lagoon Area IU Sprav Field area �
Bolding Ponds /Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Dischar6es & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any par of the operation?
Dischar;e originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Sprav Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is obsen-ed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach k ater of the State? (If yes_ notify D%VQ)
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in salimin?
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?
V1'aste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): cj
05103101
�l
❑ Yes 5 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes [3 v0
❑ Yes No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection I
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 Aoolication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type g�Lscric'a d'- l� -i
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified
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?
Management Plan (CAWMP)?
16. is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
2 E Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes q No
❑ Yes QlNo
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes `[ No
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes [,,No
❑ Yes PNo
❑ Yes L?Q
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes [P�No
❑ Yes (Q No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
® No
[RNo
r-
No
No
(� No
C'No
P No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments {refer to question ft Explain.any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
crA — S. t 1 +CA l— US 63 cr, (I at / t�3
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: G Date:
O5103101 Continued

Facility Number: -- g6 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 ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
05103101

� _- thy.... , 5 c"Y ' "� �.•�: ''i.: . t AO Other Agene\ .a -t ; _1 � �'n...: xv { r Y � ,F * � �i.'
-'`(�i�,t�hrr�..�K�o'�, lPt ��'eb4 K��'���..� �k".�•S� � ���;. :�����y,: }_'�'f }' < <. `�� �'��K� ; � .�s t{- �c v ����r 3�r <<W ` 'e��y r�, s+c
Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up Q Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 78 86 Date of Visit: 2-13-2004 Time: 9:AOam
t♦ Not Operational ORelowThreshold
® Permitted ®Certified [] Conditionally Certified [3Registered Date last Operated or Above. Threshold: ..... -------------------
Farm Name: l ar"AI>1A.768-4................................................................................................... County: RQklojm ............................................ ERO ............
Owner Name: ..........
MailingAddress: 7.S............................................................................
Facility Contact- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- l'itle: .
Onsite Representative ........... ..... ..........
Certified Operator:.Matrlt........................ .......... Rug(...................
Location of Farm:
Phone No: 910-793.-343.4..................................................
RAs&.Ali ll...N C........................................................ 2.458.......
........ Phone No:
Integrator: Carroll.'.sjF.ogd$ tns..............................................
Operator Certification Number: 25585.............................
)n the east side of SR 1359 approx..8 mile south of its intersection with Hwy. 71, east of the Campbell Soup plant. A
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 34 • 45F 08 1 Longitude F 79 • 16 48 H
Design Current
Swine Capacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
2400
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 1
Discharacs & Stream lmDacts
Design Current De_ sign Current
Poultry- Capacity Population Cattle Capacity ""Po ulatioo .
❑ Laver ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 2,400
Total SSLW 1,039,200
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ® Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ® Other
x. If dischart�e is observed, R'35 the conveyance tna31-made? ® Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Witer ofthe State? (Ifyes, notify DWQ) ® Yes ❑ No
c. II'discharLTe is observed, what is the estimated flow in walhnin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lag on system? (Ifyes, notify DWQ) ® Yes ❑ No
2- Is there evidence of past discharge from any part ofthe operation'? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
I-Vaste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure j Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): ...... 3_2j�$.Ij Ap ...... ...................... ...........................
12112/23 Continued

Facility Number: 78-86 Date of Inspection 2-13-2004
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ❑ No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement`' ❑ Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes ❑ No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation'?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ❑ No
19_ Is there any evidence ol'wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ❑ No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑Yes ❑ No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Comments (refer to question#): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comriietits.
r ,
Use drawings -:of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ®Field Copy ❑Final Notes
On 2-13-04 the FRO was notified by Carroll's representative Matt Mellenbacher of a spill on farm #7684_ The spill had occurred on
2-12-04 at 2:00 in the afternoon. When staff arrived workers were repairing a damaged recirculation line outside of one of the
confinement houses. The wastewater leak was discovered coming out of the ground after an enzyme treatment to remove salt deposits
from the lines had been conducted. A subsequent system check revealed a drop in pressure. At that time the leak was found and the
recirculation pump was shut o(1. Wastewater traveled from the confinement house area across the farm road via a drain pipe and down th
wood line. At a point behind the houses it followed the topography to a UT of'Gum Swamp. Farm OIC Mark Hunt and other farm
employees built dikes near the houses and then attempted to recover as much waste as possible from the UT. Mr. Hunt stated an area
approximately 60 wide feet along the edge by 25 feet out into the water was the pink waste color. FRO staff photographed the area and
took samples. Farm staff used a pump to return wastewater to their lagoon. Mr. Hunt said they pumped for 1.5 to 2 hours the evening of
the 2-12-04 and then again for an hour the morning of the 13th.
Revi ewerA nspec tor Name Larry Baxley
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Mark Brantely
Richard Cannady
Date:

r ti a , , -, - ---•
5:
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ® Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
1=acilim_ Number S Dateuf\Visit: 1 OT Time: '3S
ro -Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted f3 Certified O Conditionally Certified C3Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: Count%-: h C,bQ'S C)._
Owner Name: GC.l f'JLlS 07 `i'�R�F Phone No: I t D 4- 5
Mailing Address: P b _ lnS�nl'S ^r~i CG ]. 3 If
Facility Contact: Title: L. M Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: CG, rtiro
Certified Operator: -Operator Operator Certification number:
Location of Farm:
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' �- Longitude ' 1
Design Current
Design Current Design Current
Swine Ca acit.. Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle Ca acity Po ulation
❑
Wean to Feeder
❑ Laver
I
I
❑ Dairy
❑
Feeder to Finish
JE1 Non -Laver
I I
JE1 Non -Dairy
Farrow tc Wean
24o a
❑
Farrow to Feeder
Other
[]
Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
❑
Gilts
❑
Boars
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps [ON
Lo Liquid Waste Manage,
Discharges S Stream Impacts
1. Is am, discharge observed from any pan of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Sprav Field ❑ Other
a. Udischarge is observed, was the conveyance than -made?
b. If discharge is obsen-ed, did it reach Water of the State? (If ties. notifi- 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 them evidence of past discharge from any pan of the operation?
3. Were there anv adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste ollection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure ;
Identifier
Freeboard (inches): 3
051010.1
[KNo
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
1P No
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ Yes
q 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 P,Urn— le�Lr-. u,Ar _ . 'C. : aS i
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes E� No
❑ Yes [�fNo
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes [)jNo
13, Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
[R No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[A No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
P No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required Records & Document
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ic/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
[� No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
P
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
N No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
5 No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as mecessary): ❑ Field COPY ❑ Final Notes
Reviewer/Inspector Name ,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: ' 30 £l3
05103101 v Continued

Facility lumber: -4-Q — 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)
A Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. %Vzi-e any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts. missinv 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 permanentrtemporary cover?
andlor
❑PCs $No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes © No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
05103101

Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facilih• Number Date of Visit: 6Z Time:
Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: .�-•- County:�sp�✓
Owner Name: ��+�i � �p Phone No:
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: � f �.� 5 Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' �" Longitude 0 0"
Design Current
Swine rsinnrih. PnnuuNtinn
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
f/00
2 �6_b
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design _ C©rrent .
- -> :-
Pouitn• Capacity Population Cattle -Ca achy Po 61ation
❑ Layer] Dairy
❑ Non -Laver 1 10 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design. Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ Ne Liquid Waste Management System -
Discharges 8- Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Sprav 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 flog;' in gal/min"
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system' (If yes. notify D%Q)
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 C21lection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 3 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): .2
05103101
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes V No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes K No
❑ Yes Jallo
❑ Yes ;P No
❑ Yes X No
Structure 6
Continued

r
Facility Number: -7— 86
Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ 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 ex��, ii"o—'Zo _
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes k No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes 10 No
❑ YesgNo
❑ Yes ;KNo
❑ Yes ANo
13. Do the receiving crops difTer with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes EgNo
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
XNo
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
JgNo
16_
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
)rNo
Repaired
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
PfVo
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
KNo
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
P-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
JRNo
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
KNo
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
)No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
Wo
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
X No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit:
Comments (refer to question fl: Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):. [] Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
•
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Revi ewer/] nspector Signature: Date: d2
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: % — Date of Inspection �z
Odor jam
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 K No
❑ Yes -17�Vo
❑ Yes 14 No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
ElYes lNo
❑ Yes $ No
Additional ,Comments and/Qr Dra' i S '.'};r . 1�9:X t:.a: 4'u . z rr sue_ w a h: c. R? � dh r
T
0510-1/O1

E Facility Number 78 �86 Date of Visit: Tau: E= Printed on: 6/5/2001 ��
10 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted M Certified 13 Conditionally Certified E3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: FArjn#.76H ......................................... County: . .....
Owner Name- Phone No:
Mailing 'Address:
Facility Contact: Rut-COMM ..................................... Title: Phone No: ......................... . ...........
OnsiteRepresentative: Integrator.
Certified Operator. Operator Certification Number.
Location of Farm:
Du the east side of SR 1359 approx. .8 mile south of its Intersection with Hwy. 71, east of the Campbell Soup plant. A
--TW
NS'Mne E]Poultry ElCattle []Horse Latitude EED- F-4S"J- " Longitude 0 16 1
Dischl= & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? 0 Yes M No
Discharge originated at: 0 Lagoon 0 Spray Field 0 Mer
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? [I Yes M No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) [I Yes M No
c. U discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallinin?
d- Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) []Yes M No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
El Yes CK No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse unpacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? [:)Yes M No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? 11 spillway []Yes 10 No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ...... .................... .......................... ....................... ...........................
Freeboard (inches): ------------ 4.2 ............ .....
...............

� � 0�[13✓OI
Facility Number: 78-86
Date of Inspection 5-30-2001 Printed on; 6/5200I
Z.(XilM/NGfi
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ief trues, 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 maintenaneerunprovcment?
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 Coastal Bermuda (Graze) Small Grain Overseed Cotton
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
© Yes No
0 Yes ® No
0 Yes ® No
❑ Yes 19 No
❑ Yes H No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes 10 No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes C9 No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes 0 No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reuuired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage &c General Permit or other Permit readily available?
I & Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19- Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis &. soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes J9 No
❑ Yes 19 No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Yes 19 No
❑ Yes CM No
❑ Yes ® No
25- Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes 19 No
jN No violations or deficiencies were rioted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Field Copy ® Final Notes
looking bermuda fields.
records.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signatt

Routine O Com taint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection = 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted 0 Certifi__ed[] Conditionally Certified 13Registered [3 Not Operational] Date Last Operated .
FarmName: ........................................... ......f.?...�..................._........ County..........�6 .........:...............................
j t -7 / Q�
Owner Name: ..... .T`�..L.�.... ... .... ll....� •.._.... ....C.._..........
Phone No: ...... ...�-L.!..'.b..CL....................................
A14Facility Contact: ..................... Title: ._.."":`5....... 4 Phone No: ...................................................
Mailing Address:.....................
Onsite Representative: tr /Inte rator: ......
Certified Operator: .................................................... .............................. I ......................... I.... Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 0 ° 11 Longitude 0 L 69
Discharges & Stream Impts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes #No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ElSpray Field ElOther
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: 44/
Freeboard(inches):.............................................................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed! (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes PO No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6 `
❑ Yes No
Continued on `back
3/23/99

)Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
[]Yes�j No
)
{If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
1
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 maintenancetimprovement?
❑ Yes No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes pqNo
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes AM
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes (No
Y�
12. Crop type P s l I e l
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designIA in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes A No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes o
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 14No
16. Is there'a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes Jo No
Reauired Records & Documents
IT.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
O 'No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
P(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
goo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ro
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 Wo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes KNo
... ...
yiolatiQgs o� def cencies mere pQte� dtx ing �his:visit: Y4►1f Wl >[eCt'1Ve i�O fui-t�er
.-:-coriesDoridence:a�onitithis visit_•:-:-.•.•.•.:..:::::•:-:-:•.•.•.•....:::•:.:..:.:.:.:.:.
la aki.4G , rl�r ado /d5.A.
Ver7 n,'ce J
eCura5
al
Reviewer/Inspector Namegr
... , ..... R
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: — Z)

1
a
Facility Number. r— Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes �No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes �'No
roads, building structure, and/or public property) YY��
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ONo
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes qfNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes fi�r&
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No

[3 Division"ofSorl and,Watei�_Conservatron - OperAtion Review x
[� Division of Soil arid Water Conservation - Comphancc Inspection
Drvtsion of Water Quality :Compliance Inspection J
z r Other,Agericy , Qperation`Revicw _ t E
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number r%
$� Datc of lnspeclion F�n
Time of inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm}
kkrmitted ❑-/Ceertifiiee%d 13 Conditionally Certified 13Registered 13 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
FarmName: ....'"......f.......--1.................................................................................... Cottniy: To/L�S......--...........--.--...............
I Phone i\o. ........ 2 6 040 c..!�
Owner Name:...-. u - : r`D I i� a� C ' .................
Facility Contact: 4¢5 S e Title:.... uu....... �� .......
l'lione No :.................................. .......
D
Mailing Address. ..I,,.�...�..........I.....................�.......................................................................�..4x'.S.�f.r......�..�:............. ..2`5....3...4
(�
OnsiteRepresentative: e S % & . .............................................................. Integrator:.......................................................................................
Certified Operator:.....` e.c.J...f ........ ...... t.................................... ... Operator Certification Number: .............................
Location of Farm:
.................................................................................."........-.....--."...........................................------------- .................... ..........................,,.....................................................�
Latitude Longitude • �° ��<
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Z
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I d flDairy
❑ Non -Layer Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
1
Number of Lagoons ❑,Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation (If yes, notify DWQ)? ❑ Yes KNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
h. If discharge is observed. did it reach: ❑ Surface Waters ❑ Waters of the State
c, if discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in galhnin"'
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 Structure 2 Structtir; 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches): .........:.................................................................................................................................I—— ...................
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ Yes
ONo
ti IA -
El Yes
*0
ElYes
PINo
❑ Yes
VNO
❑ Yes R1 No
Structure 6
1 /6/99 Continued on back

7�-
Facility umber: — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the inter=rity 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 pact of the waste managgement system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required top of dike, maximum and minimum
liquid level elevation markings? 4
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement'!
11. Is there evidence of over application? j ❑ Ponding ❑ Nitro��
12. Croptype
e�+t....�".... ...t.t............� w• +'��. k�r:............................................................................
.....
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. Does the facility lack wettable acreage for land application'! (footprint)
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate ol'Covera,e & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ irrigation, freeboard. waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20, Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21, Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
22, Fail to notify relTional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Xo'v-Iolations'or deficiencaees .were noted dnrin-gxiiis'visit. * Y-oti wiil.re�ceive nor further . �.
C•OrriA)iHidel}Ce. BbOfit_ tills .vlslt._ _ : .:. : .:.:.:...._ _
❑ Yes �jNo
❑ Yes ,fNo
❑ Yes 5�No
❑ Yes [ANo
❑ Yes 0No
❑ Yes VCNo
❑ Yes 0No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes 9(No
❑ Yes Q2fNo
❑ Yes r(No
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ` No
❑ Yes "` ��\ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes KNo
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. _ ni
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):.:
Na � rA/�
J
Reviewer/Ir►spector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �/ . { Date: 1 1/6/99

State of North Carolina
RECE
Department of Environment
q ur
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
JUL 2 �qq�
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
FEG�EVILLE
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
01--FICE
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 26, 1998
Carroll's Foods Inc.
Farm # 7684
PO Box 856
Warsaw NC 28398
/ 01WAJ
•
NCDENR
NORTH CAROUNA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL. RESOURCES
Subject: Reissuance of Certificate of Coverage
No.AWS780086
Farm # 7684
Swine Waste Collection, Treatment, Storage and
Application System
Robeson County
Dear Carroll's Foods Inc.:
The Division of Water Quality modified the Swine Waste Operation General Permit originally issued to
this facility on July 28, 1997. In accordance with the issuance of the revised General Permit, we are
forwarding this Certificate of Coverage (COC) to Carroll's Foods Inc., authorizing the operation of the
subject animal waste collection, treatment, storage and land application system in accordance with
General Permit AWG100000. This approval shall consist of the operation of this system including, but
not limited to, the management of animal waste from the Farm # 7684, located in Robeson County, with
an animal capacity of no greater than 2400 Farrow to Wean and the application to land as specified in
the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP).
The COC shall be effective from the date of issuance until April 30, 2003, and shall hereby void
COC No AWS780086 dated July 28, 1997. The COC shall hereby incorporate by reference any specific
conditions of the previous COC issued to this facility. The purpose of this COC is to allow coverage
under the revised General Permit. Please review the revised General Permit (enclosed) and pay
particular attention to Condition 1I.10 regarding tree removal from lagoon embankments, Condition III.1
regarding inspection frequency of the waste treatment, storage and collection system and Condition III.6
regarding notification requirements for system failures, spills and emergencies. Pursuant to this COC,
you are authorized and required to operate the system in conformity with the conditions and limitations
as specified in the General Permit, the facility's CAWMP, and this COC, with no discharge of wastes to
surface waters. An adequate system for collecting and maintaining the required monitoring data and
operational information must be established for this farm. Any increase in waste production greater than
the certified design capacity or increase in number of stocked animals above the number authorized by
this COC will require a modification to the CAWMP and this COC and shall be completed prior to
actual increase in either wastewater flow or number of animals.
Please be advised that any violation of the terms and conditions specified in this COC, the
General Permit or the CAWMP may result in the revocation of this COC, or penalties in accordance
with NCGS 143-215.6A through 143-215.6C including civil penalties, criminal penalties, and injunctive
relief
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Certificate of Coverage AWS780086
Farm # 7684
Page 2
Upon notification by the Division of this COC's expiration, you shall apply for its renewal. This
request shall be made within 30 days of notification by the Division.
This COC is not automatically transferable. A name/ownership change application must be
submitted to the DWQ prior to a name change or change in ownership.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this COC are unacceptable, you have the
right to apply for an individual non -discharge permit by contacting the engineer listed below for
information on this process. Unless such a request is made within 30 days, this COC shall be final and
binding.
The subject farm is located in the Fayetteville Regional Office. The Regional Office Water
Quality Staff may be reached at [phone]. If you need additional information concerning this
COC or the General Permit, please contact Katharine Keaton at [phone] ext. 533.
Sincerely,
for . Preston Howar , r.,
cc: (Certificate of Coverage only for all cc's)
Robeson County Health Department
Fayetteville Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Robeson County Soil and Water Conservation District
Permit File

M,13 Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency ,
i a 4 ivtsion of Water Quality
f♦ Routine O Complaint O 1 t)1low-up o' f DWO inspection O Follow• -up -of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number
Date of Inspection "-9y�
'
Time of Inspection ,3 ; 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Registered Certified 0 Applied for Permit Permitted 10 Not Operational j Date Last Operated:
FarmName:... .............. f County• ..............I.........................��.............----.-......................................-................. _ ............... orb.....................
Owner Name: C�r�o+!l 5 Phone No: %IQ' �-3.... �3
...............................y�.......................................................�....................
Facility Contact: .......... ��,� /Lf Title: Phone No: ..................................
p
Mailin Address P .9 JC 95C _ rs .. Nc .................. a.?39g
g :..�:............. �..... ..........-----...... ... ...... ,r......-•••-•-......
Onsite Representative:...............l,. L ...........NA...-................................. Integrator:......... !q4 .............. /.... �
Certified Operators .................... . !� /". ..... .....t..�.�!1..I .... Operator Certification Number ........................
.................
Location of Farm:
o
Latitude • 4 46 Longitude • 4 "
x.. Design _ Current - Design ; Current %` .Desrgrt {` Current.
„ SvcnneC'apacrtyPgpulation" Poultry Capacity Population :Cattle '.. <<-•Capacity ,Populati6e,:
M: Y.
Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
-n
❑ Boars
❑ Layer I JED Dairy
❑ Non -Layer r❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design ­Cap49ty
Total ! SL
General
1. Are there any buffers that need n aintenancelimprovement?
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 aal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
m ai ntenance/i mprovement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
❑ Yes P(No
❑ Yes Ix No
❑ Yes ;4 No
❑ Yes [XNo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes X' No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes EKNo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes kf No
Continued on back

Facility Number: —
S. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed'?
Structures (1-woons.Iiolding Ponds Flush Pits. etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure l
Identifier:
Freeboard (ft): ............... ......../.............
Structure 2 Structure 3
10. Is seepaoe observed from any of the structures?
Structure 4
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes AN
'[]Yes A 1 o
Structure 5 Structure 6
..................... ...... ...................... I .... --
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes XNo
12. Do any of the structures need. maintenance/improvement?
Yes
❑ No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers"
❑ Yes
ANo
Waste.Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
ANo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State- notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ----...... .. .........! 1 �..-.. .-.-....1/ f 1.. ........... ......
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
WNo
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
XNo
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
Cl Yes
Po
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
XNo
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
9No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative"
❑ Yes
KIN
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
O(No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
PdNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes
XNo
[� No.violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit.- .You.will receive no further
correspondence about this.visit"
Comtnents'(refer to`question`#): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any+other c©nmentL
Use°drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional'pages as necessan):
, A
J,
�p Te : r+``
�� Sti►�e I1� W4
4L.0 a ze /far PATf /¢ v
7 4TP � UtIL[a,IC 4O_X_
4., � &f 25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name -
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
Date:

_
0 DSWC Animai Feedlot Operation" Review ' k '
.-
srRwM...�'
Routine O Com taint ()Follow-up of DWQ inspection O FolloH-u of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection - 24j- 9
Facility Number Time of Inspection 7: a 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: ❑,Registered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for I hr 15 min)) Spent on Review 5
jI Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection includes travel and rocesi!2
0
-N7ot Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: L� _ _ County: ----
Land Owner Name: .._...... Phone No: 2—.76
Facility Conctact:. L-eS ..�.. Title: LI -_A • Phone No: 2 74 — 66 i?
Mailing Address: Pa�wer
T_..
Onsite Representative: e
p.-...1!�...._.......----•............_.._.._..............-._......... Integrator:......... a'h- .._..�............�..
Certified Operator: _... ......... _.... _ . _ ...... ..... �._.. _._ Operator Certification Number: �.. _ .. . .
Location of Farm:
east �......... -- 3.�g� - R �►► a �_ _ .. �.. ._..(. � ....�� e n � �. _.._— ... _ 4
Latitude ' ° K Longitude • 4 u
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
f "'s
Desgn .;Currents °: Design �Cuixentxk.. Design CurKent
Swine yP 1 �y t.x,x
,.xxs Q Ca -aci Po elation ,� :- _ ou tTY .._.Ca' acity .Po elation' tfle .�-.„Ca aciPo elation=..
H a 4Q
❑ Wean to Feeder Layer
❑ Dairy
❑Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -La er ❑ Non-DairA Farrow to Wean DO
Yc. �St:.5.:.
Farrow to Feeder �T�ta1 Design Capacity 2 DOS
Farrow to Finish r
_
❑Other ' �; ^ g�� : «�»�� a' � ,� ""'�, r � ,r�Rs'-^ ,� �"'
-
�s � �°Number of Lagoons 1 Holding Ponds '�,� ❑ 5ubsur[ace Drains Present
rns�
,�
n a
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ANo
No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes
Discharge originated at: [ILagoon ❑ Spray field ElOther
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal./min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes �10
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? El 'tx
\o
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require El Yeso
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement? Continued on back

w •
Facility Number:...- —
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes P(No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes 10 No
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes ANo
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding -Pon"
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ANo
Freeboard (ft): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes JqNo
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes )4No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? XYes ❑ No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? ❑ Yes ANo
Waste Aoolication
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes ANo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff
,..�ente 'ng waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type _ Aeryvt� e.
.....__.... w.....................
....
. .........
— ----
-------
---------
— - • ..........
._....
•.....
..........
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes K
No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ANo
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? AYes ❑ No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ❑ Yes XNO
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes P�No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes ANo
Facilities
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes )KNo
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes No
24. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes INO
Comments (refer to question:. Explain any YES " answers and/or any recommendations or any other commerit5 s'
Use drawings of.faciltty;to.better.explaitt situations. (use additional pages as necessary): z,
4:� j Z, 4 4F- IT, 71--h le, I s a.$ AecZ �rYA_ -i-kq+ w i I� r�e-f In +0 4
1 �" r � q� -�o r 8 k � �"� S b �e '�-L r►� e.. � � 5 Ot. r-e ut.n, Q� `� �
6 o-� e 1 K wl��iw a �o e rvort� ne s
[ �� 'e �c� a t LDS• �, e l� S
`E-o �D A d a ,� e o ►•- S P � �r S -� C o r`'�r � rrc �t��.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
cc. Division of Water Quality, ater Quality Section, Facili "Assessment Unit 4/30/97

C, ro!'rr>/ /f
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Don P. Butler
Farm # 7684
PO Box 856
Warsaw NC 28398
Dear Don P. Butler:
AM15VA
14
L J
r Y�
IDEHNF1
July 28, 1997 _ ! LJ
JUL 2 9 1997
FiEG. 01- 'iCE
Subject: Certificate of Coverage No. AWS780086
Farm # 7684
Swine Waste Collection, Treatment, Storage
and Application System
Robeson County
In accordance with your application received on July 14, 1997, we are forwarding this Certificate
of Coverage (COC) to Farm No. 78-86, authorizing the operation of an animal waste collection, treatment,
storage and land application system in accordance with the State's General Permit (attached). This
approval shall consist of the operation of this system including, but not limited to, the management of
animal waste from the Farm # 7684, located in Robeson County, with an animal capacity of no greater
than 2400 Farrow to Wean and the application to a minimum of 38 acres of Iand as specified in the
Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP).
The COC shall be effective from the date of issuance until December 31, 2001. Pursuant to this
COC, you are authorized and required to operate the system in conformity with the conditions and
limitations as specified in the General Permit, the facility's CAWMP, and this COC, with no discharge of
wastes to surface waters. An adequate system for collecting and maintaining the required monitoring data
and operational information must be established for this farm. Any increase in waste production greater
than the certified design capacity or increase in number of stocked animals above the number authorized by
this COC will require a modification to the CAWMP and this COC and shall be completed prior to actual
increase in either wastewater flow or number of animals.
Please be advised that any violation of the terms and conditions specified in this COC, the General
Permit or the CAWMP may result in the revocation of this COC.
Upon notification by the Division of this COC's expiration, you shall apply for its renewal. This
request shall be made within 30 days of notification by the Division.
This COC is not automatically transferable. A name/ownership change application must be
submitted to the DWQ prior to a name change or change in ownership.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

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

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
CERTIFIED MAIL
_RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Carroll's Foods Inc
Farm # 7694
PO Box 856
Warsaw NC 28398
Farm Number: 78-86
Dear Carroll's Foods Inc :
June 11, 1997 RECEIVFD
i0!97
F_
AY�'EVI�
REG, `i 10E
You are hereby notified that Farm # 7684, in accordance with G.S. 143-215. IOC, must apply for
coverage under an Animal Waste Operation General Permit. Upon receipt of this letter, your farm has
thin 0 days to submit the attached application and all supporting documentation. In accordance
with Chapter 626 of 1995 Session Laws (Regular Session 1996), Section 19(c)(2), any
owner or operator who fails to submit an application by the date specified by the
Department SHALL NOT OPERATE the animal waste system after the specified date.
Your application must be returned within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter. Failure to submit the
application as required may also subject your facility to a civil penalty and other enforcement actions for
each day the facility is operated following the due date of the application.
The attached application has been partially completed using information listed in your Animal
Waste Management Plan Certification Form. if any of the general or operation information listed is
incorrect please make corrections as noted on the application before returning the application package. The
signed original application, one copy of the signed application, two copies of a general location map, and
two copies of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan must be returned to complete the application
package. The completed package should be sent to the following address:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section
Permits and Engineering Unit
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
If you have any question concerning this letter, please call John Jallah at [phone] extension
364 or Ed Buchan with the Fayetteville Regional Office at [phone]
Sin ely,
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: Permit File (w/o encl.)
Fayetteville Regional Office (w/o encl.)
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 100% post -consumer paper