820015_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

310�s a � sqf 17 �-o
0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 820015 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS820015
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit: Routine County: Sampson Region:
Date of visit: 09/20/2017 Entry Time: 09:00 am Exit Time: 9A5 am Incident #
Farm Name: Wendy 9&10 Owner Email:
Owner. Ironside Investment Management LLC Phone:
Watling Address: 107 River Woods Dr Wallace NC 28466
Physical Address: 1018 Waycross Rd Turkey NC 28393
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
❑ Denied Access
Fayetteville
910-285-1352
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34` 554' 37" Longitude: 78' 11' 56"
NC 903 E from Magnolia 1.0 mile, Right on SR 1104 (Beasley' s Mill Rd), continue 0.4 miles past Sampson line, Left on SR 1942
(MJ Johnson Rd) 2.8 miles, Right on SR 1943 (Waycross Rd) 0.5 mile to farm entrance on left. Farm # 2643.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator. Alfred J Linton Operator Certification Number: 18625
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Doug Atkins Phone
On -site representative Doug Atkins Phone :
Primary Inspector. Bill Dunlap Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
inspection Summary:
Calibration 5/15/2017 Assume Sludge unchanged since there are no pigs here in several years.
page: 1

Permit: AWS820015 Owner - Facility : Ironside Investment Ma Facility Number: 820015
Inspection Date: 09/20/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Wean to Feeder 9,000 0
Total Design Capacity: 9,000
Total SSLW: 270,000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Idernffier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
PRIM
19.50
19.00
Lagoon
SEC
34.80
62.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS820015 Owner - Facility : Ironside Investment Me Facility Number: 820015
Inspection Date: 09/20/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
0 ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
M ❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
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
❑
01111
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatmen#
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 (Le./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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 Me
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 100/c!10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS820015 Owner - Facility : Ironside Investment Mz Facility Number: 820015
Inspection Date: 09/20/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Coastal Bermuda Grass w/
Rye Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Wagram
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of property operating waste application equipment?
❑
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to Have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ME] ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
1f Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS820015 Owner- Facility : Ironside Investment ME Facility Number. 820015
Inspection Date: 09/20/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na we
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
M ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
M ❑
❑
(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
❑
013
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a PDA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
263 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
Yea No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
■ ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface file 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
❑
M ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
M ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

'� ivi`sion of Water Resources ""' � -
aciiity Number ®- 0 0 Division of Soil and Water ConservatiMill
on
type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
[lesson for Visit: tQ Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time:County: 41
Farm Name: _ !y Owner Email:
Owner Name: 1� y� V Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative
Certified Operator: I
fit
c 4S Title:
Region: t '-IrV
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number: !Zg-S 7315
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
L.i iI IIVIi Vl rill lu10 : l�illllUUC: "U1Jg1LUUC.
a�
� bu
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
9 Design Current Design Current -
Wet Poultry C cih 1'op 4�Cattle Capacity Pop.
o Finish
Feeder
La er Dai Cowo
Non -La er ! Dai Calf
Dai Heifer
to Finish-
to Wean
Design Current D Cow
to Feeder
EF
D ,Poult Ca aei P,o Non-Dai
to Finish
La ers
Beef Stacker
Non -La ers
Beef Fecder
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
1
Other
Other
Turkeys
Turke Poults'
Other
4r qAk
_ s
Discharees and 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?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DW R)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

IFacHity Number: - Date of inspection: Q 0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes E9Jbw---0 NA NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No A ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): C/ _
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes io [] NA ❑ NE
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
C9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[ 'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[frNo
D NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
E No
❑ NA
[] NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[I� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
I L Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 12<0 ❑ 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): k c-.
i
13. Soil Type(s): 6119
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes 03190 ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes [E No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes [3- Vo ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
0 Yes E3<oq
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
❑'�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design [] Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
C3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ RainfalI ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
[:]Yes
[] No
C] NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: lZ 00
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [+j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes El"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes O-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
E]�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
[2 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
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[3ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
❑"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
0
ID -�DK 6 k-1
Phone: ) -`
Date: '�(� Lou I V
21412015

Type of visit: A(d'i:om ance Inspection V Operation Review V Structure :valuation U Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: [)t) County:
Farm Name: WC AI L? Owner Email:
Owner Name: l It OAS 4w_ �C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: f �� S Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone:
Integrator: lV[j
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
a 0, t v I " )j .4
Region: FAL�
Design Current
Design_.._.
Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity
Pop.
Wet Poultry
@apacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
-`- =
- -
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
:Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D 1?oultr�y
tCa aea
,P,o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turke s
Other
Turkey Pouets
Other
Other
Dischariaes and Stream Impact
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)? _
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes .[q-W ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑,Ncr ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): _ ,=f Ll
5. Arc 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 DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
[:]Yes [:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
[] Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
Q. Crop Type(s): 1�_c.a kw-LP(j,- V 6 0
13, Soil Type(s): wq- A) v
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes [;]e o ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? [:)Yes 1_J o ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes [;�t<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes [:Jeo [] NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes B<O ❑ NA ❑ NE
Require_ d Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [ 110 ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [ o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
[:]Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes �FNo
,o ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

[Facility.Number: i-- - jDate of Inspection: F-A)G0 S
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes E3-N—o
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ff 5o
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 Er<o
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? [:]Yes D_
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
S-W7U 9 '�N
G Q V-n S dECULt
1
Reviewerhnspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
ick-3 O—tq r I �_'
AD fc� 5 -16-& C-S
v
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ONE
❑ Yes [_,o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0<0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
Vo
❑ Yes
[] No
Yi-
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
as
Phone: �� - 3 J 3
Date: 4 cp j
21412014

Type of Visit: 0 Compliance Inspection U Operation Review U Structure Evaluation U Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Q2 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Za Arrival Time: 3b Departure Time: County: �/ Region��
Farm Name: v2 Owner Email:
Owner Name: Ib00t�Gs Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ` Ot c1 A 4-1t t�� Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: t Integrator: M
Certified Operator: Certification Number: Jp' tj ?J O
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Discharmes and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
❑ Yes [t o ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes
[—]No
ErNNA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
[:] No
ErNA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
[::]Yes
❑ No
[:]Yes
[�No
❑ Yes
[TNo
rt NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412014 Continued

w r'
Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
-
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
31KO
❑ 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: �f t
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): _ 9 S
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
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
10
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental) threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
®'No
[DNA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
[:]Yes
[]4o
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
N
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
[:]Yes
[/]
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 10 ❑ 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): '6C'"V" SG O
13. Soil Type(s): Gght _
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
EDKo—
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[]JAIL
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation designs or wettable
❑ Yes
[a�<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
Eg-<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
E3 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑'�o
❑ NA
0 NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
�io
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall []Stocking [:]Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

F
Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes O-No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? if yes, check ❑ Yes [g-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 ET -No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [El'No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
00-No
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
[3 No
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
[� No
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
EfNo
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
dNo
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[fNo
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
No
51j7.c S..-.n7 - G1- 1-lY PoA Nmf�
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Phone: q33 -3 3 3
Date: 1y
214,12014

DENR--FRO
Type of Visit: ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: I /a Arrival Time: r
] eygr1pr 1Time: County: S Region:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: [ Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative:` �( �. Integrator:
Certified Operator: O 1 "t- ,--'As Certification Number: qE537 3j
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current Design Current-
Design Current
Swine @a aci Po �� Wet Poult . Casa i Po
P t3' P- � r3 P �' P
Cattle Ca aci Po
P t3' P•
Wean to Finish Layer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
`"
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design C6 en..
D . l;oul Ca aci Pop.
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
I Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turke s
Other -
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b_ Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes Vo
[—]Yes [—]No
[—]Yes [—]No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes zo
❑ Yes 2 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: Seca.
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in)
Observed Freeboard (in):
❑ Yes
Structure 4 Structure 5
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
t t 1 1 1)
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes d,No [DNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
was a managemen or c osure p an .
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
t 'threat, notify DWQ
or environm�VN
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ 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 Auplication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes N
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload [] Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ YesVNN)Y-
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for ]and application?
❑YesVNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
[a Yes
❑ NA
jNo
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
0 Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking [:]Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? [] Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
24'. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
g5�
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? if yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No _NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes FO0
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 ❑ YesNA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below, ❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other: 1 '
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes f N ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use addifional pages as necessary).
Cp5p L�4� 14 rega& wu\Tuo2d
Ties 7-/1a,
AJL- �o
JZslr 3
�/rS/13
3
3)'8h -3
1/ P-D- fir 3
- 1 _�-
. 4
Ato
ej
! q
0 0g
I C)
v Q
C
*rn
G1.*
�e_�Z+Vn
io� kS J
Reviewer/Inspector Name: ti-)� Phone
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date
RM
a5a �'l���Sy2
� 6
21412011

N Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 820Q15Facility
I --I
Status: Active Permit: AWS820015 Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine
County: S,jmnson Region: Fayetteville_ _
Date of Visit: 14110l2013
Entry Time: 12;12 E!M Exit Time: 12.45 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: Wendy 9&10
_ _ Owner Email:
Owner: Ironside Investment
Management LLC Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 1 OZ Rivgr WMds
Dr Wallpce NC 28466
Physical Address: 1018 Waycross
Rd Turkey NC 28393
Facility Status: 0 Compliant
❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 34°54'37" Longitude: 78°11'56"
NC 903 E from Magnolia 1.0 mile, Right on SR 1104 (Beasley' s Mill Rd), continue 0.4 miles past Sampson line, Left on SR 1942 (MJ
Johnson Rd) 2.8 miles, Right on SR 1943 (Waycross Rd) 0.5 mile to farm entrance on left. Farm # 2643.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other Issues
Certified Operator: Douglas Stephan Atkins Operator Certification dumber: 985738
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name
Doug Atkins Phone:
On -site representative
Doug Atkins Phone:
Primary Inspector. Ronnie T Smith Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

Permit: AWS820015 Owner - Facility: Ironside Investment Management LLC Facility Number: 820015
Inspection Date: 10/10/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Crop yield records reviewed
Soil Test 11/27/12
Cu & Zn levels wlin range
**due again 2015**
Waste Analysis N
1 2
6/14/13 = .13 .09
4/25/13 = .12 .12
2/15/13 = .10 .01
816113 = .14 .08
5124/13 = .10 .03
3/18113 = .11 .10
1122/13 = .02 .03
Sludge Survey 2012
6.67%
*`due again 2013**
didn't hae to pump any this year
**good vegetation on lagoon banks of primary**
Page: 2

Permit: AWS820015 Owner - Facility: Ironside Investment Management LLC Facility Number: 820015
Inspection Date: 10/10/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Q Swine - Wean to Feeder 9,000 9,000
Total Design Capacity: 9,000
Total SSLW: 270,000
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
agoon
PRIM
19.50
28.00
goon
SEC
34.80
70.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWS820015 Owner - Facility: Ironside Investment Management LLC Facility Number: 820015
Inspection Date: 10/10/2013 Inspection 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? 1101111
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than
❑
■
❑
❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes
No
NA
NE
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 (Led large trees, severe ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
Hydraulic Overload?
Frozen Ground?
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑ ■ 1111
Yes No NA NE
❑
■
❑
❑
n■nQ
01
Page: 4

Permit: AWS820015 Owner - Facility: Ironside Investment Management LLC Facility Number: 820015
Inspection Date: 10/10/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
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?
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16, Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
17. floes the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑■❑❑
Yes No NA NE
❑■❑❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWS820015 Owner - Facility: Ironside investment Management LLC
Facility Number: 820015
Inspection Date: 10/10/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
Checklists?
Design?
❑
Maps?
U
Lease Agreements?
Q
Other?
Q
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ 0
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
Weekly Freeboard?
C-1
Waste Analysis?
Soil analysis?
0
Waste Transfers?
0
Weather code?
U
Rainfall?
Q
Stocking?
Q
Crop yields?
Q
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
n
■ D
0
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
0
■ 0
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
Q
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate
i]
■ n
n
box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey f!
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels 0
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon 13
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? El ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

Permit: AWS820015 Owner - Facility: Ironside Investment Management LLC
Facility Number: 820015
Inspection Date: 10/10/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
w
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report ❑
■
❑
❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑
■
❑
❑
Air Quality representative immediately.
3t). Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e.,
discharge, Cl
■
❑
❑
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 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? Q ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 7

Itype of visit. o uompuance inspection �,_1 uperanon meview u structure Evaluation U tecnmcal Assistance
Reason for Visit: 40 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: j1 �. Arrival Time: Departure Time: ' County:SA1_K � Region: Gk'�
Farm Name: W"" g S 10 Owner Email:
Owner Name: QM f"iWM S 6A R&9-e- tUl LILC Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: tr►S Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: �1,1.{M �j2QWvt
Certified Operator: Certification Number: �OS%30
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
`Swtne I �i '
,�
Cac ty�
Pop tit
Wet Poultry
Layer
ton -Layer
Capa ty
I
CPop tit
"- Design Current
Castle Capacity Pop.
Dair y Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Dr, P,oultry
Design
Ca aci
Currettt
P,a
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Non -Layers
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Gilts
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
;.. :, :
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes fp No [] NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes [� No
NA ❑ NE
EPNA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 21412011 Continued

Faciti]Number: - Date of ins ection:
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? ❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: I —Pfl�
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): v
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 T� 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) T
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 q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window �f �❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): COi�J76{j�2r�►'lt�t� 6-1(-A.SS t-% a-7 )l e��t► 6C'-e�
13. Soil Type(s):
L
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.
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes [N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
1
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [-n No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall [:3 Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? [:]Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes] No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: a•- 13= jDate of Inspection: till
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 10 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check [] Yes �j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? [:]Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes C9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to property 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
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes W No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
21412011

i
Type of Visit: 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: I l o4 Z01Ij I Arrival Time: F Departure Time: County:1 URegion:
I I t
Farm Name: S / � Owner Email:
Owner Name: �I * ` rr'l ,5 l�Lfii-11 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: i
Facility Contact: _ �k�s Title: Phone:
Cf
Onsite Representative:
14
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Integrator:
Certification Number: �g/D
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design;'' Current
Design
Cticient
DeC+ sign urrent
SKine
Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
Cal ity
Pop.®
Cattle C►apacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Layer
Non -Layer
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Desi
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
DrFv PLoultry
Ca _aci
Po :.
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
s
4. a
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
e
`Othe ' < �'
Other
Other
Dischar es and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons}?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes Ili No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No T`n NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No [P NA ❑ NE
❑Yes
❑No
EPNA
❑NE
❑Yes
�No
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
CV No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: Date of Inspection -
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: oww- L
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3Ak / UZ5
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
Structure 5
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No q NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window r ❑ Evidynce of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving cropMiffer 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 desigm or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment'?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
1p No
[DNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
tp No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[] Yes
1P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available`? If yes, check [] Yes TT® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and l" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 1p No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes t} No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/20II Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes 6No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
2S. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
❑ Yes )I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
�Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e_, discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
T
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ 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 ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations fuse additional naaes as necessarvl.
ReviewerlInspector Name:
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date: Q
2/4/2 11

Type of Visit ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: /1'r 3 o Departure Time: ; t7 O County: Region: FAD
Farm Name: W gg ,Ay 2+t 1 O Owner Email:
Owner Name:rrn 15ZtzR s ;:5f-- zz5-5— At [ L C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: IT e----- Title: E4,j Phone No:
40,
Onsite Representative:Integrator:
Certified Operator: If Operator Certification Number:
4111-1
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = e = 1 = Longitude: = o = f = u
Design Current
Design C*urrent
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
i�Vet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder 17DyD
❑Non -La er I
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non-Dai
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ No ers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
etsa
❑ Pullets
El Beef Brood Co
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other I I
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2, Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
RjNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ELNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — — Date of Inspection L`lo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: '
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): / `jrr . s 3l{. 9'
Observed Freeboard (in): per- 5P_
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes U-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes &4o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 2,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
W o
❑ 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
I,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
UZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect application? if yes, check the appropriate box below_
❑ Yes
(_No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 [bs ❑ 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) 73cl,-,ct �� vr,,, • ,•
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
O 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
[R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Alt 'i�b' - M't'SiD Mi�"W'.:" ''{YY�l lII1X Ili
Comments (refer to,.queshon ) Explain any€,YESanswersandloranyreco�mm�endations or any�other comments.
Use drawings -of facility to liettteroexplam sttuanons.(useYaddttionalypagesFasinecessary):
Reviewer/InspectorName*" Phone D
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3
12128104 Continued
4

Facility Number: --�� j Date of Inspection 1 O
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 [9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes V No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Frecboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Main Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
UNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[2,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
gLNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
5a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
9No
❑ 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
E:jtNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
C,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12129104

11
IK. 1�11gloq -3vs Revi)eA_ Coel Paje t H60ek a11d
!r
Type of Visit & Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit &Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 191101AID Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: ar+ro Owner Email:
Owner Name: & '� LLC-- Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region:
Facility Contact: A Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: 'D" J`-i7Integrator:
Certified Operator: AS2 Operator Certification Number: AwA 1960Y-
Back-up Operator: Tf _ _ _ Back-up Certification Number: _
Location of Farm: Latitude: e Longitude: = o = 6 = «
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swii#e �'
Capacity Popula#ion
'Net Poultry Capc�ty Population
Cattle Capacity Populatiou
❑ La er
❑Dai Cow
❑ Non -La er
❑Dai Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
Dry Poultry .:.._:..
❑ Dry Cow
ElNon-Dai
El
❑ La ers
El Stocker
❑ Non -La ers
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Pullets
H Beef Brood Cowl
-
El Turkeys
El Turkey Poults
❑ Other
El Other
Number of Structures:
❑ Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
0
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑Gilts
❑ Boars
Discharges & Stream Impacts
i. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes -G�-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ErNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

•I Facility Number: %a -15-
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: N,
[
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): iQ,S a
Observed Freeboard (in):
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes IgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ]S�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes 1>__�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes CRNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes 5 -No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10_ Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 5allo ❑ 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 El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) l_..tt ada I �B'/1 c da Ray SG
13. Soil type(s),,
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 5j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes 15J No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes C'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to goest,on.#)Egplata any YE-SNansw ers and/6r any recommendat,onsVor any other comments
,� - .. ,
:Use drawings of ieffity to, better explain situatk sr (use additional pages as necessary,) f
Reviewer/Inspector Name limmSC �� � `C Phon4C?M,j 3a—MTX ,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature %, J-An&A __ Date: �p. II ,��
1212RI04 Continued

Facility Number: a — f '5�_ Date of Inspection
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes UNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [,9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application [:]Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No IN NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
to 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
Ej NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
B No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
N 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
R 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
15No
❑ 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
ERNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
ItgrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28/04

Facility No. —��' Farm Name t l
Permit COC ✓ O
Pop. jjpe Design Current 1f7
qq (0 Date q t01
.�
■� Flvfiu MA M
r i
II•�
Lagoon
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Spillway
Design freeboard
Observed freeboard in
rh
!
Sludge Survey Date
ja
Sludge Depth ft& %
1
Liquid Trt. Zone_(ft
Calibration Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Design Flow
Actual Flow
Design Width
Actual Width
Soil Test Date_ Weftable Acres Weather Codesy
pH Fields WUP Transfer Sheets
Lime Needed V()— Weekly Freeboard ✓ RAIN GAUGE
Lime Applied Rainfall >1" Dead box or incinerator
Cu ,/ Zn—i in Inspections ✓ Mortality Records
Needs P 120 min Inspections
Cann Yipid /
Waste .
W�,
� •1 �.
A 1/1
/ _
Pull/Field
Soil
Crop
RYE
PAN
Window
Max Rate
Max Amt
i-ahab
Ha se
I,
Verify PHONE NUMBMS and affiliations
Date last WUP FRO i ()3 k- ()q Date last WUP at farm
FRO or Farm)
Records
Lagoon #
S
Top Dike
Stop Pump
101,9
Start Pump
103 -
,1--Approx. Conveko'
- Cu-1 3000= 108 lb/ac; Zn-I 3000= 213 Ib/ac
App. Hardware s0I1df'aq

Sa
Type of Visit 8 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit '15k Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit- ® Arrival 'rime: 3CFZI Departure Time: county: —Region: i )QQ
Farm Name: W-&d q- o Owner Email:
Owner Name: D6kmS 4,-P— W1 I L L Phone:
Mailing Address: J)O Q?X Jj,-,,q _ _ _ _Iva 1)are aS
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 4;7 Linda, Title:
Onsite Representative: A-J- -1--�—
Certified Operator:
�c-1'101 ot7 A F M
Back-up Operator: � pD010—
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: AA 196z—
Back-up Certification Number: >Q�/A W I LS
Location of Farm: Latitude: =]' =' =" Longitude: 0 0 =1 ="
M-ne'
��t N�
Design Current r Design " Current`s r tWWIstgn Current
Capacity sPopulatton i �'et PoultryF�Capty op fatjon"
Climeacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
�..
x ❑ Layer
❑ Dai Cow
(Wean to Feeder
QtQ ❑Non -La er
❑ DairyCalf
❑ Feeder to Finish
i
El Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
�' �.
DryPoultry
[] D Cow
w to Feeder
�' '� "� "
La ers❑Beef
❑Non -Dairy
w to finish
Stocker
L
'; ❑Non -La ers❑Pullets❑Beef
Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Other
,� ❑ Turkeys
W� ❑ TurkeyPoults
a�
El
d':,�;:s;''
❑ Other
Nutriber of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
e. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
[R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 . 12128104 Continued

Facility Number.16 a, — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes E'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE'
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): qD 1 te a
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes P�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 C3 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 allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8.
Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
CRNo
❑ 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
[5jNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10_
Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
{5tNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11.
Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN> 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12.
Crop type(s) C126 Iu, D+r,A Vd &_ l
d
13.
Soil type(s) 1Ne4faM _
14.
Do the receivincrops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes
INNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes
IN No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[:] Yes
ERNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
C'No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
®'No
❑ NA ❑ NE
& "•ate., ��•�. 3 s _.; ` r" "� :�'.U'i u - .i- ;0th
_g.,Comments (refer to q�eshon:#} Explai ry YESansweis and/or any reMmendanonskor aner comments=Use darawmgs,offaeilityAto better explain iiWattons (use addtttonal pages as,%ecessary) aj+
�M
Reviewer/Inspector Name afiyc-1 k Phone: tp 33 3 0X-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: T Date:5gi3'1,90ft
Fa¢n 2 of 3 U 12128104 Continued

FacMty Number: a — OOK Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes CENo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes fgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropiiate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes a,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ RainfalI ❑ 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
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
aNA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ 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
ERNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus toss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
ENA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
t9 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
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
3 I.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
tgNo
❑ 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
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
J No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Ads �lih'ana)t C invents and/ror Dr`a tags:mill
at, Please �o,,I (roey"Wr -Co- aaDB,
o%. Pita,_ resek da.9-e r) 01C io Pa I-e � �
Yves l moKolik reto r ot, cNj,; r.
Page 3 of 3 12128104

l�ja4't � j yy �
Fadilify No. �a-M5- Farm Name _ *� Date G4�a3 f b� —p�
Permit COC
Pop,Type Design Current
OIC_
FB Drops
NPDES (Rainbreaker PLAT Annual Ced )
Lagoon
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Spillway
Design freeboard
(�
I
Observed freeboard in
Slud a Survey Date Perm Liquid ft
11 I Sludge Depth ft
,
Calibration Date
MOM
-�-
Soil Test Date IaL llm
pH Fields
Lime Needed N_
Lime Applied
Cu '`100 Zn A-5-00
Needs P-` W ^�
Crop Yield Waif 14444DM
Wettable Acres
WUP
RAIN GAUGE
Weekly Freeboard ✓
Rainfall >1" �7
1 in Inspections ✓
120 min Inspections
Weather Codes y�
Transfer Sheets
Waste Analysis Dateigift,
Date of last Waste Plan in FRO Date of last Waste Plan at farm 7103
AnD. Hardware SOI1r: lgd- "?
Pull/Field
Date of last Waste Plan in FRO Date of last Waste Plan at farm 7103
AnD. Hardware SOI1r: lgd- "?
Pull/Field
Soil
Crop
RYE
PAN
Window
Verify phone numbers and affiliations
�a�) Ir
�P�� Sfn9C�
�1p= i1�I4

l�
�u
--�
S
:D7
Ila,

Facility Number2 `S
V Division of Water Quality Dv t IV--"
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation �\ t10 f
O Other Agency C6..,
Type of Visit '�Q Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit �jP Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ll u1 Arrival Time: % A Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: �� `� Phone: _
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
3by\- Region: r—R-0
Facility Contact: 8:y U _ Title: Phone No:
t 0\` F_J
Onsite Representative: Integra or:
Certified Operator: >(1 5 Operator Certification Number: �� J
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ❑ o [ = ❑ Longitude: ❑ ° ❑ c ❑
Design Current Design Current
Swrine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
❑ Wean to Finish
can to Feeder M wo OM
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
❑ La er
❑ Non -La er
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: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Dai Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dai Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: ®'
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If ves, 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
IR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
N NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
RNA
❑ NE
t&,NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes [�J,,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No RNA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number:%Z — —,,5- Date of Inspection 11 tt, 8
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No C�LNA ❑ NE
Structure 1 cture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 1
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes 10 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 50 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Hcavy Metals (Cu. Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)Yp
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
*o
❑ NA
❑ NE
IT Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
ID No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ikNo
❑ 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):
1
I
r
Reviewer/Inspector Name Vx�� iE &A T�o IV Phone• Q Q
Reviewer/Inspector SignaDate:y iU Zi-I
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: "L— Date of Inspection
Re uired 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 EgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ipNo ❑ 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 b5No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No L&NA ❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes )!allo ❑ 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 [PNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes ❑ No A NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes TgNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes [DNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes No ElNA
ElNE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
tNo
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes ❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did ReviewerAnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
1
an 6 �. , i1, Vt," n�QYlQYIt; C
,
�
pp
12128104

Facility No. O � l Time In Time Out Date I I(' In
Farm Name � Integrator Yy1S
Owner USite Rep 06v 'q
Operator No.
0
Back-up
No.
COC
ti�
Circle: eneral or
-
NPDES
Design
Current
Desi n
Current
Wean — Faeco
Mv
Farrow — Feed
— Knish
Farrow —Finish
Feed — Finish
Gilts 1 Boars
Farrow — Wean
A
Others
l FREEBOARD: Design
Sludge Survey 2
Crop Yield
Rain Gauge
Soil Test t�
Weekly Freeboard
Spray/Freeboard Drop
Weather Codes
Waste Analysis:
Wettable Acres
Daily Rainfall
120 min Inspections
Observed
Calibration/GPM
Waste Transfers
Rain Brea —err --'
PLAT `__~
1-in Inspectionw__-*�
Date Nitrogen (N) Date Nitrogen (N)
a / I -1119
tl Z �. Sill 1"L
Pull/Field Soil Crop Pan Window
Y
i�6� y, �1.
Q(

—__�___ _ Division of Water Quality �
�Faciiity Number a O _ O Division of Soil and Water Conservation 0
Type of Visit 10 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit % Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up O Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: do Arrival Time: QCir- � Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: ! O Owner Email:
Owner Name 5 t Phone: _
Mailing Address: r o
Region
Physical Address: ]
Facility Contact: U. ►'1 Title: F111 U 12 r Phone No:
Onsite Representative: ,—S Ur4ionAlev I Integrator: MU
l/, V %
Certified Operator: Ow � `�` nS Operator Certification Number: 2
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = c = f =" Longitude: = ° = = u
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
WNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
&A
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No _�4NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
P)No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
)Kj No
❑ NA
❑ NE
irw6-._-
12128104 Continued

Fapility Number: -0jS
Date of Inspection �o
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: _Pt � r-w.c
Spillway?:
t� t+
Designed Freeboard (in): 1 3�
Observed Freeboard (in): 5-3 11
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes t!�No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
P9 NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ElE N
El Yes )MNo El NA El 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 1
Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ YesNo El NA El NE
El Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload El Frozen Ground El Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.) / �'
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > l0% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window El
ElEvidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) �M k_ � �- 41IAJu. .Gy o l S
13.
Soil type(s) ,.,..,.., OQO 2> v
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
qNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
IT
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
;R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment'?
❑ Yes
lffNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question {): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations ors any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as.necessary)
tq,q& O ngwx 40 of d6
tr
Re-viewer/Inspector Name r �I — LA - Phone. (]
ST
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: NIC U
�p
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Confinued

'Fa6flityNumber-Y G Date of Inspection ti Z�l
Reauired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes NLNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ 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 N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
jj,;�NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
1)ANo
❑ 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
MA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
qNo
ElNA
[INE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
ElYes
(�fo
❑ NA
El 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
P
[INA
❑ 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
MNo
[I 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

Pachity No. b --o ! S
Farm Name
Owner
Operator _ DQSM
Time In Time Out
Date I L 1-0
Integrator M? 19
ll
Site Rep fl nZ un�fb,,,
No. r313
Back-up No. -
COC ✓ Circle: ever or NPDES
Design
Current
Design
Current
Wean — Fe
O
Farrow — Feed
­0 F Iffnrsh
Farrow — Finish
Feed — Finish
Gilts / Boars
Farrow — Wean
Others
If
FREEBOARD: Deslgr�Observed [� I
Sludge Survey Calibration/GPM
Crop Yield V11, Waste Transfers
Rain Gauge Rain Breaker
Soil Test ��— m&4 PLAT ' Wettable Acres
Weekly Freeboard Daily Rainfall 1-in Inspections L
Spray/Freeboard Drop l�-5 ?
Weather Codes
Waste Analysis:
Date
120 min Inspections
4
Nitrogen (N)
"' Z,O d •11
�t_ L �_
Cl
Date Nitrogen (N)
a .o .�
Pull/Field Soil Crop Pan Window
en 0

Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 4& Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Z 0 Arrival Time: Ca =30 Departure Time: County: Region: Fll
Farm Name: WCAAd .I Owner Email:
Owner Name: A4[� E p S �fa� 41 f f . I r_ Phone:
Mailing Address: D &,K _ :?� _ P—o &,-- 44, cr � 1JL Zg Y118
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: A-,. L— +�'� �+� Title:
Onsite Representative: T A • J • L +�}�+'� POT
Certified Operator: r7' 1
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
® Wean to Feeder fedo
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
❑ Other
..APhone No:
Integrator:—'Niut"PAj — RI OUJ-tip
Operator Certification Number:��
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: 0 0= 1 Longitude: = 0 0 1= N
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
IE] Non -La et Ell
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey Poults
❑ her
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifej
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocket
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes. notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
[:]Yes 5KNo []NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
PNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
MNA
❑ NE
�KNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
FINE
❑ Yes
[Z-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No M NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: •rt S,ez_
Spillway?: KO k0
Designed Freeboard (in): `) • 3 `(. Pj
Observed Freeboard (in): r?� ` _to
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc_)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
;a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental threat, notify
DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
E9 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
[gNo
❑ 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 IS 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 Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) ( Z-+s) ,C"A- - 5�-,►1 c�w� e� SO) i S, jLax,-5. L IZO` IIZ, !Lo)
13. Soil type(s) 11�ia g ALL wo, , gab a No t-
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 [9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination: ❑ Yes
3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17_ Does the facility tack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
O�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Eomments {refer ta,questian #). Explain any YES answers andlor aey recommendations ar any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. {useiti oral pages as necessary):
1,5• s,pn( �mk Cis sc, c,.s. {�Ss, LLe .
Reviewer/Inspector Name d" 0A, gam' a�� ,� Phone:
ReviewerAnspector Signature: Date: �` L O
[ I2128104 Continued

Facility Number: 8z — l5 Date of Inspection Z?
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 appropirate box. ❑ WUP' ❑ Checkliste ❑ Desi gtt' ❑Maps" ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. Yes If No ❑ NA ElNE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall KStocking ❑ 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 O No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [-]Yes [XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
154 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[g 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
3 L
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
[:]Yes
$d 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
!D No
❑ NA
FINE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
[I Yes
QK No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

e
IType of Visit 0 Compliance inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit • Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: _/ •Q Tune- .00
Facility Number S
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Wermitted ['Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold —•---.
Farm Name: d' /O County: ...., FiP(%......
....... C,e �r.......9...Q'!................................................................
Owner Name: ..Q M ...... farm.& ...... _x f:._.�Q Se � flQ'II _.. � l �_ .� _....... Phone No:
Mailing Address: .... P:..0.....f7,2� .......l 5f......... 1�G5�-.-.•-H. �� - �..�.......... ..... y __.........
Facility Contact: t---- L,n�... 1W......_ �..... Title:.......... _ Phone No:
Onsite Representative:.._,..--'-----I'-'Q1� - . /j'�vr1a�G
Integrator: ..
Certified Operator: .......... A.....�........ ..................................................... Operator Certification
Location of Farm:
Eg'§wine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 4 �4 Longitude • ' 66
Discharges & Stream I_ mnacts _
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes L1Va
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes lidKo
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) El Yes
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'? 1
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes &Noo
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes EKo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes 2<0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes [{tor
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
%Identifier: ......... ..J................. _ .11,V9- _..................... ......... ..................... ._...........
Frechoard (inches): 60,
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 9A — S Date of Inspection /U o
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or 0 Yes B- o
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 maintenancetimprovement? ❑ Yes U1,14
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance!improvement? ❑ Yes ! o
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes [ fo
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenanceAmprovement? ❑ Yes [moo
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [] Yes
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type , fQ , �M�// Gr4,; , ` O✓erSeed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes 9-K0
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes 8-K0
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes am
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes Belo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes UNo
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
19, Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes M-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 KWo
Air Quality representative immediately.
lS. TAt SPrny �' -1� ties a p,•y
74e eampany bias Ai.rJ Se^eo*e 4o
!"lease "onirur ot?j 3pla'r for weed's
%D=_ oryany other oommeats:W
as necessary} giri-eld Copy ❑ Final Notes
r✓ePe( pyre i leyn 1 n Perf- of -/'Q _<
S/nra y Ci /l �o�.r�s a.,�. �p ��S T Ur• wPp�
GS needed[
Reviewer/Inspector Name
/r1Qrk , , 'Qrantf�.. , ,
Reviewer/Enspector Signature: _.. — Date:
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: gr� _ �� Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes
Blqo-
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
c tsts, dys*T> , etc.) ❑ Yes QAie-
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
❑ Wa ❑ Freebewt' ❑ Waste 4aal� ❑SoUSampkflS--
'�"I l LY- p,)1.71. 7 �3->1.$ 1-8-? 1.� Yes 24. Is facility not in compliance with any apcabFe setback criteria in effect at the time of design _ ❑ @-No-
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
EI-M
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
U-1!ifs
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
®-No
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
Rio
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
ER40'
\TPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
alto
3I . If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After I" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
12112103

Site Requires Immediate Attention:
Facility No. 9 Z - l
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: q-, 1995
Time: k 2-` 0 o
Farm Name/Owner: co _ F�►r .. �-+ srwru �u•�4��,_ ':;,,r,
Mailing Address: TI" x 333 ,_rkttj C_ 7-$ 3 ate_
County: Ste.
Integrator: 7 .i . F V_ r .» s Phone: Oita - 'z e 4t
On Site Representative: "Sd..r.:._ E•..`+.,, .11� Phone S"r'tl 'rr ao_s;3- zoo
Physical Address/Location: S �c�3 ��� +� :L •- Ec.a+. �� t oa ►t Neer7l.,..w.� �d
Type of Operation: Swine X Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: gb 6, Number of Animals on Site: 0� b
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: 0Longitude: "
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon sufficient freeboard of I Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) Yes r No Freeboard:_ - _-Ft. Inches
Was any seepage observed from theRs)? Yes No Was any erosion ob ed? Yes or�
Is adequate land available for spray?r No Is the er crop adequate? "e or No
Crop(s) being utilized: C_e �-itIr m' L., d•o.
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from DwellinuZ Ye or No
100 Feet from Wells? a or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or o
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map BlueFine: Yes No
Is animal waste discharged into water of state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes or No If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate was anagement re
(volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? es ir No
Additional Comments: Z- - tis a o N em C_
dcr4� 1a o0.1
Moe_%..et w.'.k6.e.
Inspector Name
Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.

� /�
MICROE9AC ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY, INC. CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
817 Castle Hayne St., Fayetteville, North Carolina 28303
Phone [phone] - Fax [phone]
PAGE I OF
P.0.0 CLIENTNAME PRtalEcrrLOCA7ION
+ F /1 c � ' f N
WATER COMPOSITE SAMPLING DATA
\
AUTOMATIC
SEND REPORT TO: f N n
t v 1 `
DWAM BEGIN: END: 7 p
- j s
PHONE( q1 D ) y�6 �r
TIME DATE DATE TOTAL FLOW
CONTINUOUS TIME TIME TECH
MIC OIWSION
sample C;;;w
Semple Tamp.
MeltgtR aR ShipnMMK
e
CMp Temp. 'C
'C
Date Tune
ROW ROW ROAI
PROPORTIONED INTERVAL ML8 r Semple -a Um ptea
LAB I.D.
SAMPLE NO.
SAMPLE DESCRIPnON I LOCATION
COLLECTED
DATE TIME
SAMPLE TYPE
COMP I L;w MATRIX
NO. OF
MWAINEM
CONTAINER
TYPE 1
ANALYSES REOUESTM
PRESERVATIVE
26
Cr
M
I
�
�el"Ie5
I
¢j25a`/ -
IvI,-�-tall
0-0 Mx
Fc��1 �gll
� 853�
I 1 tei S
�a
N
2S"�rAJ,
E
i
i
i
Reli;:�by: Si )
e
Time
Re ved : (Signature)
ate
Time
1
/z ��
Is-�
2
?t1
w
inquiahed by: (Sovftw4 V
Date
Time
Received by: (Signature)
Date
Time
3
4
by: (Signatume)
Date
Time
Received by: (Signature)
Date
AIIIIIIIR61inquWied Time
5
6
Relinquished by. (Signature)
Date
Time
Received by-. (Signatwe)
Date
Time
7
8
Comments or Special Hazards: