830012_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NUH I H UAHULINA
Department of Environmental Qual
II

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
830012 Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS830012
❑ Denied Access
Inppection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit:
Routine County:
Scotland Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
02/1312017 Entry Time: 04:00 pm Exit Time: 5:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
CarrolI's Farm # 7078 - Unit 1
Owner Email:
Owner.
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone.
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Sox 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
Sr 1621 8346 McQueen Rd
Laurinburg NC 28352
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator.
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
34' 41' 32" Longitude:
79' 27' 58"
8321 McQueen Rd. Take 401 bypass south, turn left on Hasty Rd. At Hasty Crossroads turn
left on McQueen Rd. Go approx.
114
mile farm on right.
Cluestion Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Star, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: .lames Brian McGugan Operator Certification Number: 986752
Secondary OIC(s):
OnStte Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone:
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone :
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWS830012 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 830012
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 7,920
Total Design Capacity: 7,920
Total SS LW: 1,069,200
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
7078
19.00
53,00
Lagoon
7078-1
19.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWS830012 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 830012
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 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?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance manmade?
❑
Elm
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ N
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ ■
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
[]
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
■ ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Stora-ge & Treatment
Yes No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
[]
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (LeJ large
❑
❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS830012 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 830012
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain 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
❑
M ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
M ❑
❑
18, Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS830012 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830012
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yaa No Na We
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
N ❑
❑
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
N ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yea No Na No
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,
❑
E ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
00
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface file drains exist at the facility?
❑
N ❑
❑
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 ❑ E ❑ ❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewerlinspector fail to discuss reviewlnspection with on -site representative? ❑ E ❑ ❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ M ❑ ❑
page: 5

f
Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number:
830012 Facility Status: Active
permit: AWS830012
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit:
Routine County:
Scotland Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
03/09/2015 Entry Time: 11:00 am Exit Time: 12:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Carroll's Farm # 7078 - Unit 1
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Sox 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
Sr 1621 8346 McQueen Rd
Laurinburg NC 28352
Facility Status:
ECompliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator.
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
34° 41' 32" Longitude:
79' 27' 58"
8321 McQueen Rd, Take 401 bypass south, turn left on Hasty Rd. At Hasty Crossroads turn
left on McQueen Rd. Go approx.
114
mile farm on right.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Slor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other Issues
Certified Operator:
James Brian McGugan
Operator Certification Number: 985752
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name
Mike Cudd
Phone
On -site representative
Mike Cudd
Phone
Primary Inspector:
Robert Marble
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS830012 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830012
Inspection Date: 03/09/15 1npsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
rffSwine - Feeder to Finish 7,920
Total Design Capacity: 7,920
Total SSLW: 1,069,200
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
7078
19.00
Lagoon
7078-1
19.00
42.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS830012 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830012
Inspection Date: 03/09/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges $ Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
1101111
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)
[]
[] 0
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
M ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na Na
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (LeJ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
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
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWS830012 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830012
Inspection Date: 03/09/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain 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
❑
E ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
E ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
E ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ E ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

C-
Permit: AWS830012 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830012
Inspection Date: 03/09/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑0
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
[]
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
[]
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
M ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andlor document
❑
M ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29, At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
M ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30, Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32, Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

N
Division of Water Resources
❑
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑
Other Agency
Facility Number.
830012 Facility
Status: Active permit:
AWS830012
Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Scotland
Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
03/1812014 Entry Time:
01:00 pm Exit Time: 1:30 prn
Incident #
Farm Name:
Carroll's Farm # 7078 - Unit 1
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: Sr 1621 8346 McQueen Rd Laurinburg NC 28352
Facility Status: ECompliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34° 41' 32" Longitude: 79° 2T 58"
8321 McQueen Rd. Take 401 bypass south, turn left on Hasty Rd. At Hasty Crossroads turn left on McQueen Rd. Go approx. 114
mile farm on right.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator:
Michael L Cudd
Operator Certification Number: 25233
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name
Mike Cudd
Phone:
On -site representative
Mike Cudd
Phone:
Primary Inspector:
Robert Marble
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Records reviewed 2/26/14.
Site visit 3/18/14.
page: 1

Permit: AWS830012 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830012
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish
Total Design capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
agoon 7078 19.00
agoon 7078-1 19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS830012 Owner- Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830012
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No No No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
[IN
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ M
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, storage & Treatment
Yes No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le.! large
❑
■ ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No No Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS830012 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830012
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1 Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 2 Small Grain 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?
❑
N ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■ ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑E
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS830012 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830012
Inspection Date: 03/18/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yea
No Na Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
■ ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
01111
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26, Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other issues
Yes No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32, Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

M Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Otter Agency
Facility Number: 830012 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS830012
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Scotland Region:
Date of Visit: 02/26/2013 Entry Time: 10:00 am Exit Time: 10:30 am Incident #
Farm Name: Carroll's Farm # 7078 - Unit 1 Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC Phone:
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: Sr 1621 8346 McQueen Rd Laurinburg NC 28352
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
❑ Denied Access
Fayetteville
910-296-1800
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34' 41' 32" Longitude: 79' 27' 58"
8321 McQueen Rd, Take 401 bypass south, turn left on Hasty Rd. At Hasty Crossroads turn left on McQueen Rd. Go approx. 114
mile farm on right.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator:
,lames Brian McGugan
Operator Certification Number: 986752
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name
Mike Cudd
Phone.,
On -site representative
Mike Cudd
Phone
Primary Inspector:
Robert Marble
Phone:
inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Records reviewed 216l13
Site visit 2126/13
page: 1

Permit: AWS830012 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830012
Inspection Date: 02/26/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 7,920
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 7078 19.00
Lagoon 7078-1 19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS830012 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830012
Inspection Date: 02/26/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■ ❑
❑
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)
❑
110
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
[]
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
M ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na Ne
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 (I.e./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS830012 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
830012
Inspection Date: 02/26/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain 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
❑ M ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ M ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ M ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS830012 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830012
Inspection Date: 02/26/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Ka No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
M ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
M ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and dale of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
M ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
❑
❑
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,
❑
M ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
M ❑
❑
CAWMP?
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
page: 5

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
�� Arrival Time: p V� ! I� County:'s � Region:�'Q
Date of Visit: D'a ` Departure Time:
Farm Name: �r7 Owner Email:
Owner Nanie: /mot u�-,( '�S `�" L� C— Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: I' ►`W� aidcTitle: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: 2ylljP&'J0'UwncL
Certified Operator:/ L Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = = 4 = Longitude: = o [= i
Bruins
Finish
Design Current
Capacity Population
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity. Populaon
❑ La er
❑Non -La er
Design Cnrrent
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dai Cow
❑ DairyCalf
Ento
n to Feeder
Dg Feeder to Finish 20❑
DairyHeifer
El Farrow to Wean
0111��1111N�
DrY Poultry
❑ D Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
"""
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
La ers❑
FEI
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
ElPullets
ElBeef Brood Co
- - - - -
El Turkeys
- --
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharees & 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
10 NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
C�NA
❑ NE
c, What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
O NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
V No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
V No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection '
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No [P NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
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
[�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
06No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside
of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
Q91No
❑ 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
Pd No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
�� c t�rd5 reJ %f?c s2d 3 13 jl 1
vislT' Como 3�1b1 r1,
Reviewer/Inspector Name I /V it2j!fJJ f Phone: D
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 3 3
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [P 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 ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22_ Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
;9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes P
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes (U No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[p No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
P 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
WNo
❑ 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
C�jNo
❑ 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
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency'?
❑ Yes
CgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

iype of visit: to t-ompuance inspection tV taperatnon Kevtew v atrucrure r vaivatton V i ecnmcai Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine O Complaint 0 Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: p 'pp Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: 10 i & ---I Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: II
Facility Contact: 1 1
Onsite Representative:
i1
Certified Operator: Fx % 1✓ �e C ( e- 11
Back-up Operator:
Title:
Region:
Phone: rn
Integrator: l ' V 1. &Own_
Certification Number: l I
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
Design Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D . P�ou1 Ca aci P,o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Pullets
Beef Feeder
Boars
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 LOW ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
KI No
❑ Yes
�] No
WNA ❑ NE
RNA ❑ NE
L� NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

jFacWty Number: - Date of Inspection: r-.
WasteCollection & Treatment
less
NA
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
❑
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
[] No
NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
11
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
CEPNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
It 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
fig 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
F] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, 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
A r r, f_ .r 1 r i _ I i
12. Crop T ype(s): 'E-i CYIUL{GL Ludt: SS L Ct-t.l I L&S1,_r t-
) �m - q+l-Q1�f5
13. Soil Type(s): Q (Y`
14. Do the receiving crops di er from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
(P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reouired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
o No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking [—]Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:]Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412071 Con&nued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [ No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check [—]Yes [RPNo
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No
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 reviewlinspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
aNA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [V No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [53)No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [3jNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No
[:]Yes ® No
[:]Yes [] No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question # ): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pagesasnecessary).
J
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur+
Page 3 of 3
Phone: Q 10 433 33eb
Date: CV L,:;1411-3
21412011

� °fit ti
�,. Drvis�on�"o`f Water Quality
Facility Number ®- r Division of Soil and Water Conservation
® Other A enc
I
l'ype of Visit: M Compliance inspection U Operation Review V Structure Evaluation U Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: 3 ? Arrival Time: Departure Timer County -.I Region: FjQX
Farm Name: '70'7g 3 Owner Email:
Owner Name: ALA'vo I, Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: j1/ 1l K Q C"d Title:
if
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: "i�_ Pdr w
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone:
Integrator: %�l,(,frQQI,c1Yt
Certification Number: /%63V
Certification Number:
Latitude: Longitude:
DesignCurrent.
Design �Ceirrent
Design Current
Swine Cap ity Pop Wet.Poultry
Capacity �P.,op.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
a
Wean to Finish Layer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -Layer
airy Calf
Feeder to Finish
7(}Dairy
Heifer
Farrow to Wean
._:.
Desig'nCu'�renf
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Ca actPo
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Imnacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
TT
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
[] No
NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
[] No
NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[�>No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
1�1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

F'acili slumber: - .-2— Date of lns ection: 4 7
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 9 No [g NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: - -�
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):y"
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.) 1P
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes M 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 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 > l0% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops
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?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
No
No
No
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ Yes T No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? [:]Yes [� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists [:]Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes P No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1 " Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 'M No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:]Yes R9 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
DNA [:3 NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

FaciliNumber: - Date of Inspection: 2
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [] No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes 0 No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ NA ONE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes [)No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [—]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:Q� a --4 Date: Z
Page 3 of 3 21412011

9.01s y-12--z0/0
` �ivisiop of Water Quality
Facility Number g3� ® 0 1 Z. Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit _Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit &,Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral Q Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:-2.5-/b Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
5C1b+ia A,d.
Farm Name: 7 0 -7 A.3 Owner Email:
nwnrr Name- M- 50-n WrJ L LC Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region: 17126
Facility Contact: A4' kc- (fudj nTitle: L^rM M4A/4�cr Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: M - Sro wA!
Certified Operator: Yr�G �r'v+'�l� Operator Certification Number: 176 3T
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = 0 0 I = Longitude: = ° = ' E__1 "
Design Current
Swine Capacity Populatio
Design Current Design Current
ultry Capacity Population Cattle �Capa&:yj Population
❑ Wean to Finish
10 Layer
❑ Da'y Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
El Dairy Calf
ElDai Heifer
El Da Cow
ElNon-Dairy
Dry poultry
❑ La ers
Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
ElFarrow to Wean
ElFarrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Gilts
E Boars
Other
❑ Beef Stocker
ElBeef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of 5truetures:
❑ Other
❑ Other
I
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N-A
[I NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
El No
Lf NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
lA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
ff No NA
El NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes;No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: Kg—Q/Z Date of Inspection 3 ZSlO
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: 707 83
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 2 5
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'?
(ic/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes Na ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes WO❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes BNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Vo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental) thrc notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes L'No NA [I NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Apolication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes B o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application'? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Croptype(s)
13. Soil type(s) W6Leve, t,,
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
0-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
G N ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
°Commenfs-(re fer to gaestion #1). EKplatn any YES answers and/or any recommendations or -an-y other comments
h
Use drawings offacility to better explani situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ;
/110 fit— 7y-� < P �'I t- �-7�` �� r�I
S �crG� V d vC-1 ,
9r
Reviewer/inspector Name URIC k JZeve 1-s
Phone: 9l�-i�33 -3300
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: S Z 0% p
12129104 Continued

Facility Number: —OlZ Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes B o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Desig
n ❑Maps ❑Other ,�, �
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes L7No ❑ 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 3<0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 93 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑Yes
HNNo
El NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
M<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
UrN.
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
BNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes L'"TNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ErNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes L7 "10 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 'LTN0 NA El NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104

aws V10316g Rw-
s on of Water Quality
Facility Number S / Z O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
4.
Type of Visit (315o_mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 13 /Z —6 9 Arrival Time: .>?: Uo Departure Time: 3 . /r County: sta��a�.ot+ Region: FW
Farm Name: 0 707 g Owner Email:
Owner Name: &VW.%f Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: kd-^+d ti Title: )r-' ,O - iK�/", Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: „ /NF'� j azlml
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ❑ o = Longitude: ❑ o = 1 ❑ u
Design Current Design Current Design Cv rrent
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity: -.,Pop 1atxon,
L❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La er
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
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?
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
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 L7No El NA ❑NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
ETNNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[ 'NA
❑ NE
L�
B<A
ElNE
❑ Yes
El No
❑ Yes
E No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Q0'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: '73-12 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 P<A ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
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
0IN. ❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? El Yes
is
B<o ❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes
E o ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need El,
Yes
�/
L7 No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement'?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
ETNo ❑ 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 DriA ❑ Application Outside of Area
� �
``0r5. ) ' / 4V-10
12. Croptype(s) ere", dki4l S-ial% Grni 1
Cr rrS-5
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?
❑ Yes
,03<.
oo ❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
,1��,
L'SN0 NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes:'No
o NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
IComments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. I
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/InspectorName h2eav�ed S Phone: 91O,1A33.3300
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: dd.6 Date: .3 /Z "-ZlJO
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 73 —/ Z Date of Inspection 3-IZ - 69
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 B o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropiate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes To ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ErNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes E3<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[ <o ❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facilityfail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Io 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
io ❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues /
28. Were anv additional nroblems noted which cause non-compliance of the hermit or CAWMP? El,.,
Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
ETONo
❑ 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?
El Yes
�,�
Ls_f 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
ElYes
M<
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
B'1\lo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

9_rWS e Aj �e* C-d elle z/o g k •`
Type of Visit CIrCo-mpliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 'ZS- Q Arrival Time: Departure Time: /: 29 County: S�VllfAe6 Region:
Farm Name: 70 7Z Owner Email:
Owner Name: Lc j25�>�✓N _ _ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 2" Title: l`ci k^ t �3 A'Phone No:
Onsite Representative: ��"��� _ 4 f"`S� t"�'w _ integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Dumber:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: o = O Longitude: = o = L
Design Currentjoil
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
«'et Poultr}'
Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La er
pe }Puultrj
A'`
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ La ers
El Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Nan -La ers
❑Pullets
El Turkeys
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cou
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
.. _.r,>=,_......
❑ Turkey Poults
El Other
Number of Structures:
❑ Other
,:..
_
Discharges & Stream I mpacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2_ Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes UfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
Ip No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
($ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ONo
ElYes
rANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: S3 — f Z Date of Inspection 3-25-08
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier: La _
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): z
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
[9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
Vj 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
LYNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the smctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit'?
❑ Yes
73 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
P? No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks. or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA ❑ NE
mai ntcnance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below_
❑ Yes
7No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) ,�i jl(� r �. S• J
13. Soil type(s) AkIs
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
JNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
Lff No
❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application'?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name!' _ Phone: yid• u33.33da
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 3-2 Z00 g
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: ;?3_ Date of Inspection
Reouired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [!� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box_ ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑ Other
21, Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Z 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
[9No
❑ 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
0*4o
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
El NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
El Yes
rM
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
LFrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
U�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ 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
,gyp
E1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
$No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
JM No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/drr Drawings:.
Page 3 of 3 12128104

n
Type of Visit i® 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 O�t_h_e�rJ �❑% Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 6;�0 Departure Time: g; ss County: air `'ram`' Region: F/-0
Farm Name: # 7 07 $ _ Owner Email:
Owner Name:Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: C f Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator: mu'vpt ' 13 raw ri
Operator Certification Number -
Back -up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = I ="
Longitude: = o = I = W
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity G—nil anon
Wet Poultry
Capacity Pop la�tion
Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ an to Finish
L
IEJ La er
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ an to Feeder
10 Non -Layer--
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish 9W 1
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
z - El Dry Cow
,��'
❑ Farrow to Feeder
"'""
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ N ers
El Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
Nets
El Pullets
❑Beef Brood Cow
El Turkeys
%
Other f.
TurkeyPs
Eloutt
❑ Other
❑ Other I
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
ym No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
[X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
$21 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
1W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ N E
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
11/18104
Continued

4 -o 7-e (o
Facility Number: g — Z Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? [:]Yes CgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes P$No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: -k'707 si
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 9 ��
it
Observed Freeboard (in): .1
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ""M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes 91 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan'?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
] I. 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.)
❑ FAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop /Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) 36*7 4 ' d �& 5KW�lt cY4' /✓ --
13.
Soil type(s) "A �.
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
09No
❑ 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
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
qNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers+andlor any recommendations or gny other cammeatS -
Ilse drawings of facility to better explain situations: (use additional pages as necessary):'x
a
Reviewer/Inspector Name r - !� 'S`
Phone:
ReviewertInspector Signature:
Date: '�;—d
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: $3 — j Z Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design El maps El other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[�No
El NA
El NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
�9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[;i�N0
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�iNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
qj'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
P9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[jNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
[XNo
❑ NA
❑ 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
1� 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
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

(Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: II-ZZ 'd Arrival Time: Departure Time: Count]':See��Q�/d
Farm Name: ✓ 1-0 W 7079 Owner Email:
Owner Name: /�4vD��. b&6aAl _.. Phone:
MaWmg Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: Ru "Ad u Hu w, 6 a hot
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Region: /A
Phone No:
Integrator: ��✓/�
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o = ' = Longitude: = c ❑
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population NVetPoultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Zp
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkeX Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current"
Cattle Capacity. Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifej
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocket
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Co
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes. notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
�9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[ 8 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Dd No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: $3 -- /2, Date of Inspection I H-2Z-D
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: 9 70 7T
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 5/ u
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(iel 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 ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes QfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes 0 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 [)9 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 U No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes E9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) la-C_V^4. 4t 1-14,,�, . _Sn'la // 6 r4 `��✓ J —
13. Soil type(s) We- A
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
r No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination[]
Yes
5d No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or, any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to Ieetter ezplain Situations. {use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name! Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 Continued

FaciUty Number: $3 — Z . Date of Inspection
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 29 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Desig
n ❑ Maps p El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25_ Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Dfl No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[�l No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
CA 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
[Y No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
1� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ®Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility• Number Date of Visit: Time:
Not O erational Beloµ• Threshold
[] Permitted 0 Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified ©Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
/ r
Farm Name: _-_��C ra ll S I—o9,
A i� C_. Count: r—
r
Owner Name: —Crrn 1;-0 If Phone No: —11l 0 9-4'c' -SI 3�-
Mailing Address- P•0,, L�QyQ5 b ,�,. 3c'
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: MI-tir Me.1-1"NE 'ACQ r Integrator: La ncp C-
Certified Operator: ik ewxd n4, Operator Certification number:
Location of Farm:
0 Swine ElPoultry ElCattle ElHorse Latitude Longitude �' •�
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle capacity Population
❑ "A,ean to Feeder I 1. 10 Laver ❑ Dairy
10 Feeder to Finish ;k.O I IEJ Non -Laver ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ FarrovA- to Feeder ❑ Other
D Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JE1 Spray Field Area
Bolding Ponds / Solid Traps Q ._ ❑ No Liquid Waste Management Svstem
Discharges d Stream lmpaCtS
i. is anv discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (Ifyes. notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in ealimin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify, DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there aDy adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
'Waste Collection & Treatment
4_ Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure l Structure 3 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure j
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): S
05103101 40
❑ Yes ZNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes F No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: X 3 — I D_ Date of Inspection {'
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes RNo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes BNo
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
8.
Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
[4 No
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
[�JNo
Waste Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
Q5:lVo
11,
is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
[.No
12.
Crop type , ernl c. _�— X v" . Cw-?' � C' n
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
0 No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
52 No
Reouired Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[S)No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
V] No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
USNo
21,
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22-
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes M No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes ;,No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
■aiu 5uuauv1a. uaceauusuuuaa a cn as uca.ca.�ai,
Lj Field Copy LJ FinalNotes
I" �- s o, ( -C &,vy9ke kt c, ,, 1 r /.0 1,03
kt �k t ck. e, i e.vl_e ►"n vti/{ w"c kj A-ffi ( 4- t'v 4 03
7 4'rM, rt- torr)--j 4-- &S--c— LZC Q'd �110
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: S33 — 12= Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
29. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan biade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanentftemponuy cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes] No
❑ Yes (� No
❑ Yes ❑ No
05103101

Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit ® Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
FacilinNumber
$_.�_. f �
Date ofVisit:
��� Time: L._.=
NDt O erational 0 Below Threshold
O Permitted ©Certified 13Conditionally Certified
(] ReTistered
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: Ulrra
lu
County: �rz
Owner -Name: C
Pbone No: _ q Iy 2,76
Mailing Address: �,
c] , �bk' A 'L
_c—
Facility Contact:
{
Title: ni
rA_ Phone No:
Onsite Representative:
integrator: _ C_6,MrJ Vs, _
Certified Operator:
9=
Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
[]� Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0' 0` 0" Longitude C�• 0• ��
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder 10 Laver ❑ Da
Feeder to Finish O ❑ Non -Laver ❑ Non -Dairy
El Farrow- to «`ean
❑ Farrow- to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow- to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons E�: J ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ICSPrav Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps I ❑ No Li uid V4'aste Management System
Discharges 8 Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any pan of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is obsen•ed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in eallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there an' adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure j
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): l(,
❑ Yes PNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑Yes El No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [�a No
❑ Yes 91 No
Structure 6
05103101
Continued

Facility Number: '3 — I a I Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (lie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
E4 No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
El Yes
Q No
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
[P No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
J�gNo
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
[+No
11. is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pending ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
[4 No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
[] No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
�N No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
O No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
W No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
W No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
[� No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
1� No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
JD No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes No
23. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes [ No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ® No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit
al;pagesEaslneeessary) ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
kcn G.,-n Q 3 '_"L J`6J� "-Z --N t%j "k- '_� Z It Q,"c ".S. c(C 1 "-n ,
�L & re ,d � I—, G u-C`.
UNU-11u[ c,onnnuea

Facility lumber: g3 — Date of Inspection G'
(}dor Issues
26_ Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atior below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt.
roads, building structure. and/or public property)
24. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30lVere any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s)• inoperable shutters. etc.)
31, Do the animals feed storaE!c bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submersed fill pipe or a permanentitemporary cover?
Additional Comments
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
El Yes [0No
❑ Yes E9 No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
05103101

frlformation contained in this database is from non agency sources and is considered unconfirmed.
Animal Operation Telephone Log
DWQ Facility Number 83 —F2Fj Date 5/28/2003
Farm Name Carroll's Farm # 7078 - Unit 1 Time 8:15
Caller's Name Rusty Collins Control Number 12979
IS Reporting Q Complaint Region JFRO
Caller's Phone #
Access to Farm
Lagoon Questions
Farm Accessible
from
O Yes O No
Breached 10 Yes O No
main road
Inundated 10 Yes Q No
Overtopped 10 Yes O No
Animal Population
Water on Yes O No
Outside Wall10
Confined
10 Yes O No
Dike Conditions O Yes O No
Depop
10 Yes p No
Available
10 Yes O No
Freeboard LevelFeed
Mortality
10 Yes O No
Freeboard Plan Due Date Date Plan Date Freeboard
Inches (? equals blank) Received Level OK
Lagoonl 9 7" 5/30/2003
Snray AvailabilitA,
Lagoon2 L_ _
Pumping
Equipment
O Yes 0 No
Lagoon3
Lagoon4 L
Available
Fields
O Yes O No
Lagoons
Lagoon6l�
B
dvised to call back and send POA at 16".
.............................................................................. .....................................................................................................................................................................................................
5 t Y'iY � S-� 5.- � t 'i- 4 t�:'.-- 4.-.i..-. S:�xY� _,,:; N'S. ,,. N, .. r.. _,. S: ,SC,4�.: -5,.. .. -. ..�, v„.'Y., .R,.',F-. •}.l1 ,{cF�n}4, a. ..,.,�. Y..�.t}:,u:;��8litli4^:{/F�aYr. E: rri':?t:Z �.
person taking ca!!r Larry Baxlev
G}
a:-s..ei-�rr„s„,=.:r''ts er iS,r _ _� r��� t'G'�i .r^ a'�_�u �" s cat G , o..y• .�vs!� �„� ! t E
i.- �� r i�S :t
z tip,.,
.Yi;;!
Comments2

MRY.30.2003 9:26AN CRRROLL'S FOODS
NO.739 P.22
PLAN OF ACTION(Poa) FOR HIGH FREEBOARD AT ANIMAL FACILITIES
Facility Number: 83.12 County: Scotland
Facility Name: lol8 I
Certified operator Name. i n :> operator Number. 26039
1. Current liquid level(s) in inches as measured from the current liquid level In the lagoon to the
lowest point on the top of the dam for lagoons without spillways; and from the current Elquld level
In the lagoon to the bottom of the spillway for lagoons with spillways.
Lagoon'! Lagoon 2 Lagoon 3 lagoon 4 lagoon 5
Lagoon NameAD: 7078-1
Spillway(Y or N): N
Lavel(Inches); 17
2. Check all applicable gems
Liquid level Is within the designed structural freeboard elevations of one or more structures.
Fire and 30 day Plans of Action are attached, hydraulic and agronomic balances are
within acceptable ranges.
X wriuld level Is within the 25 year 24 flour storm elevations for one or more structures. A
30 day plan of Action Is attached. Agronomic balance Is within acceptable range.
Waste Is to be pumped and hauled to off site €ocatlons. 13olume and PAN content of waste
to be pumped and hauled Is reflected in section III tables. Included within this plan Is a fist
of the proposed sites with related facility numbers, number of acres and receiving crop
Information. contact and secure approval from the AWQ prior to transfer of waste to a site
not covered in the facility's CAMP.
Operation will be partially or fully depopulated.
`Attach a complete schedule with corresponding animal units and dates fro depopulation
`if animals are to be moved to another perrnilted facility, provide facility number, lagoon
freeboard levels and herd population for the receiving facility
3. Earliest possible date to begin land application of waste: 411-12,1 3
I hereby certify that I have reviewed the Information listed above and Included within the
attached Plan of Action, and to the best of my knowledge and ability, the information Is
accurate and correct.
Phone: lC1 Z?f -:SL3]
Facility ner/Manager (grin
Pate; G►3
Facillj Owner/Manager (signature)

i AY. 30.2003 9: 2&qM CARROLL' S FOODS NO.739 P. 23
PLAN OF ACTION (PoA) FOR HIGH FR9EBOARP AT ANIMAL FACILITIE1
30 DAY DRAW DOWN PERIOD
1. TOTAL PAN TO BE LAND APPLIED PER WASTE STRICTURE
1. Structure Name/identifier (ID): 7078-1
2. Current liquid volume in 25 yr./24 hr. storm $tomge & structural freeboard
a. current liquid level according to marker 17,0 inches
b. designed 25 y024 hr. storm & structural freeboard 19.0 inches
c, line b - line a (inches in red zone) = 2.0 inches
d. top of dike surface area according to design
(area at below structural freeboard elevation) 167032 fe
e. line d12 x line d x 7.48 gailonsW 208233 gallons
3. Projected volume of waste liquid produced during draw down period
f. temporary storage period according to structural design 180 days
g, volume of waste produced according to structural design 281105 fts
h. current herd # 7s2o certified herd #1 7920
actual waste produced = current herd # x line g = 281105 ft'
certffied herd #
1. volume of wash Water according to structural design
j, excess rainfall over evaporation according to design
k. (lines h + i + j) x 7.48 x 30 daysAine f=
4. Total PAN to be land applied during draw down period
I. current waste ana"Is dated 1 04/17/2003
m. ((lines e + k}11000) x line I =
REPEAT SECTION I FOR EACH WASTE STRUCTURE ON SITE.
(Click an the next Structure tap shown below)
100157 fO
450373 gallons
3.00 lbs/1000 gal,
1975.8 Ibs, PAN
POA (30 Pay) 2/21100

MAY.30.2003 9:26AM CARROLL'S FOODS
NO.739 P.24
II. TOTAL POUNDS OF PAN STORED WITHIN STRUCTURAL FREEBOARD AND/OR 25 YRJ24
HR. STORM STORAGE ELEVATIONS IN ALL WASTE STRUCTURES FOR FACILITY
1, Structure ID: 7078-1
line rn =
1975.8 Ib PAN
2. Structure ID:
Ilene m
lb PAN
3. Structure IP:
litre m
lb PAN
4. Stnrctrlre ID:
line m =
Ip PAN
5, Structure IP:
line m =
lb PAN
6, Structure ID:
line m =
lb PAN
n.lines 1+2+3+4+5+6= 1975.8lbPAN
Ill, TOTAL. PAN BALANCE REMAINING FOR AVAILABLE CROPS DURING 30 PAX DRAW DOWl+
PERIOD_ DO NOT LIST FIELDS TO WHICH PAN CANNOT gE APPLIF13 DURING THIS 30 DAY PERIOD
o, tract #
p. field #
4• crop
r. acres
s. ramalrnina IRR
2 PAN [ eMnce
{lblac;e)
L TOTAL PAN
SALANM FOR
FIEW Uhs-)
column r x a
u. apppcalon ryrd,'
1
11
Bermuda Hay
2.90
150,00
435.0
Mar -Sept
1
12
Bermuda Hay
3.80
150.00
570.0
MarSe t
1
13
Bermuda tLay
2.30
150,00
345.0
Mar -Sept
1
14
Bermuda Hay
3,80
150,00
570,0
Mar -Sept
1
15
Bermuda Hay
0.70
150.00
105.0
Mar -Sept
1
16
Bermuda Hay
2.30
150.00
345.0
Mar -Sept
'State cglrent crop ending application date or next crop application beginning date for available
receiving crops during 30 day draw down period.
v. Total PAN availaple for all fields (sum of column t) a 2370.0 lb. PAN
N. FACII-RY'S PoA OVERALL PAN BALANCE
w, Total PAN to be land applied (line n from section II) = 1975.8 lb. PAN
PoA (30 Day) 2/21 too

MAY.30.2003 9.26AM CRRROLL'S FOODS NO.739 P.25
x. Crop's remaining PAN balance (line v from section Iq) _
y. Overall PAN balance (w • x) =
2370.0 lb. PAN
-394 lb. PAN
Line y must show as a deficit. If lisle y doss not show as a deficit, list course of action here including pump anc
haul, depopulation, hard reduction, etc, For pump & haul and herd reduction options, recalculate new PAN
based on new information. If new fields are to be included as an option for lowering lagoon level, add these
fields to the PAN balance table and recalculate the overall PAN balance. If anlmal waste is to be hauled to
another permitted facillty, provide informatlon regarding the hard population and lagoon freeboard levels at the
onto existing spray fields will continue as weather and field conditions permit. Additional land is
for pumping if needed.
Actual available PAN is greater than 150 Ibslacre.
PoA (30 Day) 2121l00

Type 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: G� Time:10 d
Facility Number 3 /Z
Not Operational O Be
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: 1ep— %'� O 7T — County
Owner Name: _���;;/7/l/� /�y qs _ Phone No:
Mailing Address: , .2
Facility Contact: Title: Phone
No:
Onsite Representative: k f O .v-f Integrator: .�h►-f�+ /y �� S
Certified Operator: Y.66ClG - .S/5_7 Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 —u Longitude a 4
Design Current
Swine
❑ Wean to Feeder
1@ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current
Poultry Ca acity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Other
Design Current .:.
Cattle Ca—acity Population
❑ Dairy
❑ Non-Dairy
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons �; ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oon Area ❑ S ray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Li uid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes $No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes KNo
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes KNo
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes WNo
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes No
Waste Collection R Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes KNO
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
7`ol
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: Y3 — 1 Z Date of Inspection 0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
❑ Yes
KNo
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
KNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
KNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
�KNo
Waste Application
KNo
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
I�INo
12. Crop type _d+rli 5/lfi� C"
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
ElYes
KNo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
K No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
XNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
%No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
JA No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
A No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
is No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP,hecklists, design, maps, etc.) ✓ � ✓
19. Does record keeping nee improvement. ie/ irrigario ebaard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
RYes
� No
❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
19No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
P No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ® No
23_ Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes gNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes 2SNo
10 No violations or deficiencies were anted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit
srawings of facihty to better explain sihiahons (ase additioiiai.pages as neeessary) Ue d❑Fie ld Copy El Final Notes
Aloft = ;4S'' CoC/L o�G.,.J /�cJx/dif/5/
61
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Zel' Date: 71JOlor Z
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: — JZ
Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
24. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
*Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 'gNo
❑ Yes — No
❑ Yes P-No
❑ Yes tN
o
Yeso
❑ Yes 111No
O5103101

L
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit XRoutine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
_--]Date of Visit: ©'rime-
Z
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
Permitted [3 Certified © Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Ab ve Threshold: ............ ..... ......
G
Farm Name: ............... % 0 "...t'``�.L ................. Couniv:.._._....._.. ..............
...._.--------
7.................... So.._..-
Owner Name:........ C�:.t"I'`Q.-.....1... ....1.... �-5. —f� Phone No•.......................................................................................
C
:.........
Facility Contact: .J 1 5. ........L 6f s .. Title: (...J " st , hone No: ............ .......................................
Mailing Address:. ....................................
OnsiteRepresentative:A............................................................................................. Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator:............
O .......................... Operator Certificalion Number: „........,
Location of Farm:
T
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �' �I 4� Longitude • 6 16
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wcan
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Other
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
PE Dairy Non -Dairy
Total Design Capacity
Total SKM
Number of.Lagoons 10 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at. ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a- if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man -nude?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c- ll' discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Docs discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes. notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts toot to Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes#No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
[]Yes No
❑ Yes YNo
❑ Yes V�
01/01/01 fj (0
Continued

Facility Number: — IZ Date of Inspection Printed on.• 7/21/2004
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancehmprovement?
11. Is there evidence of over appli adon%?1 ❑ Excessi Ponding #PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type �!` C>n /
13_ Do the receiving crops differ with those designat in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
e) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes k(No
❑ Yes No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes n7f No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes kNo
Ayes ❑ No
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes kNo
❑ Yes [KNo
❑ Yes ;No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes Po
�; �'�1Q yipla iggs of deffeieuc{e ' -w' ' itQted dirr;ing this;visit' • Yoit} will •receive d6 further
ries deike' abauti this visit: ::: :::: : eo
:Cmmcnts (refer to quesan #) Ezpiatn aay YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other commenig
Use dra of far�i to better e " lain situations. use additional es as nec r
wtngs:_. - �'- P - -I a Pa , essarY)
41f_ p,,W ff jj ,cvv �d e,�o� s r-ePor b7 CcLr"1 15' 0"j e ifyr;q efc�ers w19Te se -+.
#1�_ i%cc ���ica��a� 4eIrk tkac, ne��- �� re ri moo(
�;,� 2000, 1 P �9 Pdo,
ReviewerlInspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
5100

Facility Number: 3 J21 Date of Iaspection Ff—�—J Printed on: 7/21/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged till pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
o
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
o
❑ Yes
o
❑ Yes
1 No
❑ Yes
o
/519es
❑ No
ammentsan or__ .ravangs::
5100

Division of Soilnd WaOpRW aCervtion_.erao;
Division of SiiWtw6X.nbeIpn
`
Division of Water Quality' Compliance Inspection
other Agency Revtew
„Operation y. a
Routine O Cum taint O Follow-u of DW ins ection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
!, Facility Number 3 1):►tc o#' inspection ,3D-
dy
Time of Inspection ; 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted © Certified Conditionally Certified 13 Registered © Not O erational Date Last Operated:
�ii�� [
Farm Name: _..1.��.�d�... 5.......w../....�......{:ti.�1�.. �•• ... County ..-....-.�'Dil..`"".... .............. l � / !(Q'
Owner Name: �lQ l .tr...- s 61-{ l-r. �°% j�r.QQ..... Phone No: �.�1�7 D....C....a..._..
Tr 6
Facility Contact: .... `.e.� ...... ............................... Title: ...............
Phone No ....................................................
MailingAddress: ................... lQ..........................................................................................r<Y...... ^,.,...J.�..C.................. � ...
Onsite Representative:.,,.. �5....... ��{�. Integrator: ...........................
............................................
Certified Operator: ... Z.e.�L-i. i......... Operator Certification Number:_.... ..............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ` Longitude • 4 4°
Design Current'. ,-'Design Current . Design Current
Swine . Capacity Population Poultry Ca act Population Cattle Ca acity . Po ulation
,: ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish ❑Noo-Layer ❑Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean _
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑Farrow to Finish Total DesigA.Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLVY.
Dischar es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. It discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑Yes No
T
b. If discharge is observed', did it. reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) El Yes No
c. if tischarge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Dries discharge bypass a lagoon symetn? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes kNo
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes Atlfslo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ONO
Waste Collection & Treatment
4- Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes & No
Structure I Structure ? Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 3 Structure 6
Identifier: I/
Freeboard(inches): .........30 ............ .............. I .................... ....... ............................ ................................... .......................•-----............................. ... ...... ..._...................... ...................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes gNo
seepage. etc.}
3/23/99 Continued on back

•
A�
Facility Number: — z Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑Yes
gNo
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
�'J No
11
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
No
11 • Is there evidence over applic tion? ❑ Exc ssive Ponding $ PAN
9(Yes
❑ No
12. Crop type A4.j�
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those de nated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
(dNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? C) t
❑ Yes
V( No
c) This facility is pended far a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
ANo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
Yes
o
16. Is there'a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[XNo
Required Records & Documents
IT. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
0 No
19. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
No
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
[0
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
No
20: Is facility not incompliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
jj No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
ONo
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
24, Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
r No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
ONo
1Q-061. 4ioris'or dgfcjeucles -were noted•don ihis'vis t: Yoi� wii� ceaeiye Rio #'ui-t cr
"Comes deisce: about: this visit. . . ..: ... :.:. ............
l/. DJ���p/.�o�-��// l Ay grlht e?�'
w 62S rasp^ 7 PL `Sa, � -gyp. 7or �c
k
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature Date:

Facility Number: — Z Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes o
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes )!(No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ZONo
3l . Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes l:lo
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
♦J

Facility Number 3 Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection ITw ;4U 124 hr.. (hh:mm)
Permitted WCCe7rtified [3 Conditionally Certified p�❑ Registered E3 Not Operational Date Last Operated: ...
Farm Name: ......[.�R.�Yi�f l -S ... rye.. (o.�.5�.......... ... ... County:.......... -... Q........ ........ .... ll
Owner Name:....... ��t �... P tlt. Phone No:...........9�� - a93 - 3 3
r......j........... �((� g .........-..-.............................��......,��:.................
Facility Contact' ��. [.. n .!f? Title:.... ............ Phone No:
Mailing Address: .......�...t.........,J,factir�G,r........................................... ...................�.C17-5 .......( .................. ..Q�.�i.3.9Lt.
Onsite Representative: ............ ..! !' .M�..... .......111` ...................... Integrator:........ al.r...'1.:5........i s�cx!�?,f... i
..............
Certified Operator : ................................................... ............................................................. Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
.. ............................................................................................................................................................................:...............................................................
.._* ...........
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Latitude 0~C7� ��� Longitude �• �� ��i-----_�
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
IQ Feeder to Finish ri 9a0 ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
El Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity 719 a 0
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps JE1 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation (If yes, notify DWQ)?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance 3matt-made''
h. li'discharge is observed. did it reach: ❑ Surface Waters ❑ Waters of the State
c. I1 discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in galhnin'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system?
2- Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure 1 Structure 2
ldenlifier: �
Freeboard(inches): ............-..........................................
Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes x No
❑ Yes IxNo
❑ Yes PQ No
WA
❑ Yes [XNo
❑ Yes IX No
❑ Yes (No
❑ Yes xNo
Structure 6
1/6/99 Continued on back

acility Number: T3_—___j30 Date of Inspection
5_ Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? .
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7_ Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required top of dike, maximum and minimum
liquid level elevation markings? 4
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes IXNo
Yes ❑ No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [XNo
Waste ,Application
10_ Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes XfNo
i _ is there evidence of over application'? ❑ Ponding ❑ Nitrogen ❑ Yes No
2. Crop type ............... Q'374 ....... t�r"/4
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. Does the facility lack wettable acreage for land application? (footprint)
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
I& Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? -
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
1.
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24_ Does facility require a follow-up visit by saute agency?
0. No.vio. n'tions:or de' iciencies.were noted during this -visit.. Y'ou will.rere1ve nu Mrtlier.
c6&-4espondenee: abi) f this :visit... ... . ........ . .. ... .. . . _ _ _ ... .
❑ Yes E f No
❑ Yes . CfNo
VYes ❑ No
❑ Yes Ifo
❑ Yes [KNo
❑ Yes U( No
1KYes ❑ No
El Yes 00 No
❑ Yes "No
❑ Yes 4 No
❑ Yes [X No
❑ Yes X No
Comiinents (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/br any recommendations'or any.otlier. co>nments. w s
Use drawings'of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary) _
b _
an
�. rA&%o AV17
6VO.4, Air, qlol" Vj
4k ql�-- &
Reviewer/inspector Name'�` M
dike.
ReviewerlinspectorSignature: Date: ii A7 21
11/6/99

Facility Number: S7 —
Date of InspLction
Additco al Conunents and/or Drawings:
d, w
rl
S ►.� a,-� Swj ktv r lun dsrd 1.1, `T1v GxjW
as. -7-7w cnwIi,o d;.l
pon
64 Tile el-17
191, ,vw-oj �* 'WO -NO .,L n ll,�j
Old n�W- CW Ad el�
-&r WI'd L-4 c"I
,,�,Q� ivy i�/��P�✓ � -!� ��w�-ci' �
7/25197

G
Division of Soil and Water Conservation 0 Other Agency
Division of Water Quality
IUD Routine O Complaint O Fallow -up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection 1/0
Facility Number'�j 2A hr. {hh:nun Time of Inspection )
E3 Registered 0 Certified ❑ Applied for Permit 10 Not O eratinnal Date Last Operated:..., _
Farm Name: . cD�_�!�jci tc ..................... ..��.Q.........!L..h.r..... L .. county:...........(.J....... .... ......
..... .
f 5 0.r net" Z
i � t
Owner Name:...... �-t. 5�..�...�........... e ........ ..........Rl�. Phone No. i�� ............... .... .
r`
Facility Contact:.... .e5..l.e..... 5.................... Title: .... r!.... Phone No:......z�6...'..�.......
bd-
Mailing Address:.......Q....�.........u......:�?................................................... � �� .sC . �. �J.. L V ......... ..... ...Z.dr'3 �J. j....
Onsite Representative:..... eS......... A--//,5......................................................... Integrator: ................................................. .....................................
Certified Operator:................................................................... . Operator Certification Nutnber;
Location of Farm:
Latitude =• =` « Longitude • 6 0"
» �zcsyip=yy�vpw ��g y]Sig[l� L`Urrent Z;g gill CGrrellts ` De51gnRrleIEt ° °
S}I
?: . Capacity` Population Poultry Capacity, aPopulatiott Cattle Capacity^Populatron,�"
a„ r `
❑ Layer [] Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other i
^C�
Total Design Capacity Z a
-.rYi /4.'�MW W
.a :Total SSLVV ,
,az..,.._..._.._-.._.__._ ... _............
yr.r.; ;tcyawb {x:.aP '',: '�'*• ""'^. 'r. <.,:: x
EZ�
{mberofLaOP
goons 1 Hoiduig Pgnds ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Areaw.a < ' ❑ No Liquid Waste Management Systems^ A
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
General
1.
Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
No
2.
Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes. notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? {If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
3.
Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
4.
Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from. a discharge?
❑ Yes
No
5.
Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
KNo
maintenance/improvement?
6.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
ONo
7.
Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
� No
7/25/97

Facility Number: — 12,
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes o
Structures (LaQoons.Ilolding Ponds, plush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
.............. .
GG.....................................................................................................---......................... ........................... ...................................
Freeboard(ft): ..................................................................................................................................................•--...............................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes O(No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ((No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes ENO
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13, Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? ❑ Yes CE(No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes )Vo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff ent ' n waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .......... ...- -- e......................................................................................---------------------..---------.-----•----.......------------..-----------
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes ;No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes 5No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ANo
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ❑ Yes $ No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes O No
22. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes RNo
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit? ❑ Yes W�No
No.violitioiisor deficiencies. were noted -during this.visit.- You:will recei�e-no-ftirttier : -
c0rrespptiden6c Ei4oaE this'visit:. :.. , ..: .. _ : : ; : ,
�',•_ /l 15` � mere. i see w&r-k a� Aee4sdame �a� QoO�t.1/ w.e�+,
l j / f I e- r- a...-- r.- P rr a!' i m �cx.� S-
®,1CrG.. it � is �r-Kti �dOK S /�titCl� !p i`7"�'
7125/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:

Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency
Division of Water Quality
Routine M Conn faint O Follow-up of ins ection O Follow-up of DSIVC review O Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Registered Certified © Applied for Permit 0 Permitted ;Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: .. :.... �.......�._. r County:.�a..........................................
L -- _
OwnerName:.- .r.-A v l ��. ............................................ Phone No: , ! o............................................
Facility Contact:........Lt (`........ c 1Ci'r1.................... Title:... �............................ Phone No:. :...
Mailing Address:. ... ........... ...f�i(l�.......... r..l.!'.......... 3
Onsite Representative:.................... .... ................................................... Integrator:-- :CGi.Y` i`p ...•- a.......
Certified Operator................................................................................................................ Operator Certification Number,
Location of Farm:
C
ME
Latitude a 4 « Longitude 0 =' "
Des'q! 4 Cuireatt
n g Design> Gnrrent '': Destgrt nCtIrlQllt
u K
a "Svvuie Capacity Fopalah9"11,', Poultry <„ Capacity Popuiattiiti Cattle " tiCapacity I?opulatton
r ..", ,.
❑ Feeder
r "' ❑ i ayer ❑ Dairy
Rot
o ❑ to Finish
,
❑Nan " ❑ Non -Dairy
-Layer
❑o Wean
r n M_ R
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other aA h - ri
❑ Farrow to Finish_-
TOta! Design CBpaclty ' %JZ
. ❑ Gilts45
❑ 13oars
-
a x� 'SSLW
n LW
xNow
Number of Lagooris ! Holdtng Ponds
F: ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area
T
., ❑ INo Liquid Waste Management System_ q
4 µow
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes t
o
2. Is any discharge observed fromany part of the operation? ❑ Yeso
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in pal/min?
A. Does discharge b}yass a lagoon system? (Ii' yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lanoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes No
maintenance/improvement? *f
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes gN 0
7/23/97 Continued on back

i
Facility Number. —
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
No ..
Structures fLa oons lioldin g Ponds )Flush Pits etc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
ANNo
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
..........
Freeboard(ft):........ /if.........................................................................................................................
............ ........ ................ ....................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
K No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement'?
❑ Yes
KNo
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type irr'&C............................ .....................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Mana eme
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20- Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
Plan (AWMP)?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
No. violations -or deftcieneies.were-nated during this" visit. You:will receive i�o drther-:-
: correspondence about this:visit: :
❑ Yes )eNo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes *o
❑ Yes $No
❑ Yes JO No
❑ Yes 9No
❑ Yes ANa
KYes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes AO No
❑ Yes 15(Na
❑ Yes ❑ No

FJz")
State -of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor � C
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C
Andrew McCall, Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
July 19, 1995
Mr. C. L. Jones
C.L. Jones Estate
P.O. Box 1663
Laurinburg, NC 28353
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
SR 1621
Scotland County
Dear Mr. Jones:
On July 14, 1995, and inspection of your animal operation was
performed by the Fayetteville Regional Office (FRO). Please find
enclosed a copy of our Compliance Inspection Report for your
information. It is the opinion of this office that this facility
is in compliance with 15A NCAC 2H, Part .0217, and that Animal
Waste Management is being properly performed.
Should you have any question regarding this matter, feel free
to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ricky Revels
Environmental Technician IV
RR/Sc
Enclosure
CC: Facility Compliance Group
Wachovia Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH & NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
-.gnu. unlha
...
C. L. Jones Estate, Inc. July 14, 1995
Bob Jones
:,.
........:......
MAILING ,ADDRESS
P. 0. Box 1663 910 276-3800
Laurinburg, NC 28353
Clinton, NC 28328
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
SECTION I
Animal Operation Type:
Horses, cattle, swine, poultry, or sheep
SECTION II
1. Does the number and type of animal meet or exceed
the (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal Operation REGISTRATION?
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12-month period?
4. Does this facility have a CERTIFIED ANIMAL
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN?
5. Does this facility maintain waste management
records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
6. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc?

SECTION III
Field Site Management
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
Map Blue Line Stream?
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream?
3. Does this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
4. Does the land application site have a
cover crop in accordance with the
CERTIFICATION PLAN?
5. Is animal waste discharged into waters of
the state by man-made ditch, flushing system,
or other similar man-made devices?
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices
(BMP) of the approved CERTIFICATION?
7.' Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approximately 2 ft )
8. is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
SECTION IV
Comments
ry4

Sb
li4 'Fa Llil 1'B
ur
e -
Let
u � o
Lill - — MV, MU
1L+' t� .. L • •
:a` � • L17! � 1 ] r LILT !
c.•.1 t =r' �
t 1 LUL
4 Lill
l3M s � l
w I1 tiL w >a is y }
»'i
Lin % S
.i
i.A
tat -
1
— ti
•
x % Lb! a tilr+� L1J � 1.
� ♦ "}� __
�
�
�'
♦� T
uil Lftl
i� '�-�
it Ily� ,+ 4 .r
f>R-'
\�,
� �
L14!
�tu J L78 C"w'k 11 M,t
4. Ltsl !II1 • �-
-
�.tr
^ �. l '
jin
ME
ll
li-
•It�
1
.4 `
ilk
1
J
'8l.'-
QLW" ,
mil
t Nn 3
Qi
�f. '�� s¢tt t+a '1� ... 1.r ` �VF
ti,S ♦',i -M �_\
rM I - •. 11LL .r � J
LI 7.
�
a
LW
t1
%
`
P
.•\
t
L�
1, U
Liu
Scotland County'
This southern border county was
estab'sh d
n
e urm
county seat of Scotland County, named •\ %
so for Scotland in the British Isles from ••`C
which many of the early settlers of the •'�
.ti
region came.