830019_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROL#NA
Department of Environmental Qua

1
Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 830019 Facility Status: Active
Permit AWS830019
[] Denied Access
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit Routine County:
Scotland Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit 02/15/2017 Entry Time: 01:00 pm Exit Time: 2:00 pm Incident d
Farm Name: Farm 5171
Owner Email:
Owner. Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 4729 Hasty Rd
Warsaw NC 28398
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator.
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude:
34° 39' 24" Longitude:
79' 2640"
On the south side of SR 1615 at its intersection with SR 1612, south of Johns; NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Ronald Lee Matthews Operator Certification Number: 990008
Secondary OIC(s):
OnSlte 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: AWS830019 Owner- Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 830019
Inspection Date: 02/15/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Feeder 1,000
Total Design Capacity: 1,000
Total SSLW: 522,000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Data Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19,00 90.00
page: 2

permit: AWS830019 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 830019
Inspection Date: 02/15/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine .
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na He
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)
❑
❑ 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)
❑
❑
❑
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
Yea
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 (I.e./ large
❑
❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property 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
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na He
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance altematives 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 Ibs.?
❑
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: AWS830019 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 830019
Inspection Date: 02/15/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
yes No No Me
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Conn, wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 3
Cotton
Crop Type 4
Small Grain overseed
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Coxville loam
Soil Type 2
Dunbar fine sandy loam
Soil Type 3
Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2%
slopes
Soil Type 4
Wagram loamy sand, 0 to
2% slopes
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ E ❑ ❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ M ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ 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?
❑ N ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS830019 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 830019
Inspection Date: 02/15/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
[]
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
M ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
M ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na He
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 concem? If yes,
❑
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30_ Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tie 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 ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
❑
❑
page: 5

U Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number.
830019 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS830019
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Scotland Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
03/11/2015 Entry Time: 03:00 pm
Exit Time: 3:30 pm Incident #
Faun Name:
Farm 5171
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
4729 Hasty Rd
Warsaw NC 28398
Facility Status:
0Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 34' 39' 24" Longitude:
79' 26' 40"
On the south side of SR 1615 at its intersection with SR 1612, south of Johns, NC
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator:
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representatives):
24 hour contact name
On -site representative
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Ronald Lee Matthews
Name
Mike Cudd
Mike Cudd
Operator Certification Number: 990008
Title
Phone:
Phone:
Phone
Robert Marble Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWS830019 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830019
Inspection Date: 03/11/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
❑ Swine - Farrow to Feeder 1,000
Total Design Capacity: 1,000
Total SSLW: 522,000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00 59.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS830019 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830019
Inspection Date: 03/11/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
Elm
❑
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)
❑
Elm
❑
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 ❑
❑
Stale other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ 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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
E ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ME][]
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: AWS830019
Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830019
Inspection Date: 03/11/15
Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Conn, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 3
Cotton
Crop Type 4
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1 Coxville loam
Soil Type 2 Dunbar fine sandy loam
Soil Type 3 Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2%
slopes
Soil Type 4 Wagram loamy sand, 0 to
2% slopes
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
0 ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
N ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Nt?
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?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS830019 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830019
Inspection Date: 03/11/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
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 ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Sail and Water Conservation
❑ tamer Agency
r
Facility Number. 830019 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS830019 ❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Date of Visit: 0311912014 Entry Time: 12:00 pm
Farm Name: Farm 5171
Owner. Murphy -Brown LLC
Inactive Or Closed Date:
County: Scotland Region:
Exit Time: 12:30 pm Incident #
Owner Email:
Phone:
Fayetteville
910-298-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 4729 Hasty Rd Warsaw NC 28398
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34' 39' 24" Longitude: 79' 26' 40"
On the south side of SR 1615 at its intersection with SR 1612, south of Johns, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
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 lnspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Records reviewed 2128114.
Site visit 3119114.
page: 1

E
Permit: AWS830019 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830019
Inspection Date: 03/19/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
rffSwine - Farrow to Feeder
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW;
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00
page: 2

a
Permit: AWS830019 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830019
Inspection Date: 03/19/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharcies & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ E
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
[]
❑ 0
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na 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
❑
■ ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
E ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ N ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ N ❑ ❑
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: AWS830019 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830019
Inspection Date: 03/19/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Cotton
Crop Type 4
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Coxville
Soil Type 2
Dunbar fine sandy loam
Soil Type 3
Norfolk
Soil Type 4
Wagram
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15, Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ E ❑ ❑
determination?
17. Does the facility tack 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?
❑
❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
❑ ❑
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?
❑
N ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWSB30019 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830019
Inspection Date: 03/19/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
N ❑
❑
(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?
1101111
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 property 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?
❑
E ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■ ❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number. 830019
Facility Status: Actrve
permit: AWS830019
[] Denied Access
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine
County:
Scotland Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 02/26/2013 Entry Time: 11:30 am Exit Time: 12:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name: Farm 5171
Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 4729 Hasty Rd
Warsaw NC 28398
Facility Status: Compliant ❑
Not Compliant Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
34' 39' 24" Longitude:
79' 26' 40"
On the south side of SR 1615 at its intersection
with SR 1612. south of Johns, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other Issues
Certified Operator: Eric L Ferrell Operator Certification Number: 17634
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
24 hour contact name
On -site representative
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Records reviewed 216113
Site visit 2126/13
Name
Mike Cudd
Mike Cudd
Title
Phone:
Phone :
Phone
Robert Marble Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWS830019 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830019
Inspection Date: 02/26/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Feeder 0
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon i 19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS830019 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830019
Inspection Date: 02l26/13 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)
❑
EIN
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na 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 (I.e./ large
❑
M ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑M
❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/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: AWS830019
Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830019
Inspection Date: 02/26/13
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Cotton
Crop Type 4
Soybean, Wheat
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
COXVille
Soil Type 2
Dunbar fine sandy loam
Soil Type 3
Norfolk
Soil Type 4
Wagram
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
0 ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
N ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
E ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
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.
WU P?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
[]
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS830019 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830019
Inspection Date: 02/26113 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
E ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25. is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
N ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a PDA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑E
❑
❑
2T Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other lSSues
Yes No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
E ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
■ ❑
❑
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 Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
E ❑
❑
page: 5

Type of Visit: ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: ® Routine O Complaint Q Follow-up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: 2 :ov ,L.County:, JpLc+ _
Farm Name: S1'1^_ , ` �- ri I Owner Email:
Owner Name: Mu Chu Y�krtNon _ cc' Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region.
Facility Contact: 1 `t `� Y4 (� Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: Mu-P- &ZLAZ
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Desi n Current
�
Desi .Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Pop.
�'Veit�Poultry .
Cspac tyP,op
:. �
Cattle Capacity Pop.
-
Wean to Finish
Layer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
_
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Q(,17
D . P,uul
Ca ac"
Po
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
= MAI
Other
Turkey Puults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? [:]Yes [NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[RNA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
[?I 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
[RNA
❑ NE
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[;4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
29 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - 11= I Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ,E2 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 W 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
M 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
g] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
F] 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
)g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outsidehof Approved Area
12. Crop Types}:LSL e GL'� fA S SL U4-
� U UJ ��
13. Soil Type(s): "-VL"fll1�--
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
V3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
Pa No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check
❑ Yes
B 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 Ej No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes E�? No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [—]Yes gE� No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

_1E<acility Number: .. - lI Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
P2 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
[:]Yes
(yNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
�NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
0] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
J�g No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[gB No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
Ej� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
�D No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments.. (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recvrtiinendationvor any other coEnments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain' situations (use additional pages as necessary).4,
?jE�O�S�E��� ZIb�13
Reviewer/Inspector Name: � bbed J TY1_ o v iV 1 E.
Phone: Q! o 1f33 33
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 3 of 3 21412011

Type of Visit 0Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit *Routine 0 Complaint O Follow up O Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: �rr� j Arrival Time: O , qv Departure Time: QI 5 J County: Region:
Farm Name: f + — rJ 7 17 1 ) Owner Email: __.
Owner Name: Af fi�1J�'1 - Vat Lt _Q Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �Le Cu" Title:
q
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: &X-O 14 "�` b
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator Uc
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: E__1 c = ' = "Longitude: a ° 0 l 0
nl...� , - Cam
Designrrt
- C , , .,.
Design Current
.
Design Current
Swine 1 acir�u�l
p ahon
Wet Poul
try specify PopuliiEt'on
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La er
❑Dai Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
�Dryoultry� �,
El Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
,V..m
El Lay�Pers ��
El Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
El Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
Non -Layers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
Pullets
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
;y:: „ _ ":
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Number of Structures: El
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
P)NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
PNA
1
❑ 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
MNA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: Z7Date of Inspection 7
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
toNA
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
ElNA [INE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
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
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) �_4ASJa,j L (64NC i Vb;-, ) , Cod fb ✓i ► 5A,
13. Soil type(s) J!7"t,4 W I Vcvv,6Cx,,_, /VR-V
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
U9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
U No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name I '-peo Mf Phone: &0--L �33
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: —j Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes �N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists El Design [I Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[�]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
El Yes
D9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
�9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
$1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29_
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
1� 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
O 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
[I NA
El NE
33_
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
,�,,``N,,o
L--"o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:.
AL
Page 3 of 3 12128104

)D7111-_S 4(-1Z - zol2-
p Division of'�Vater Quality
=AeiNumber g 3 0� 9 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of VisitCommp�pliance
Inspection
Q Operation Review O Structure Evaluation
O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
&f outine O Complaint
O Follow up o Referral O Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 7; oD/4+« Departure Time: 7.00 PM County: -SRO p Region: .r2a
Farm Name: ZCS/ 7/ ` / 60lP f W 71) _ . Owner Emaii•
Owner Name: M - 9rat.J)kj L C- Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Mi Ke.. C 4 J d _ Title: L Aou /1!a "'a5 "r Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: 4(` ErOL,1,4I
Certified Operator: hoar -old E1 Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: [latitude: =0 0' =" Longitude: =o =' =
Design Current
Design Cnrrent
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Eattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -La er I
Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder /000
❑ Layers
ElNon-Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
Non -La
❑ Beef Stocker
ers
Gilts
❑ Beef Feeder
P Boars
Pullets
El Beef Brood Co
❑ Turke s
Other
❑Turke Poults
❑ Other
❑Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
El Yes ®No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
® NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[]No
VINA
❑ NE
[9 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
CTNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
RINo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: Sf -7
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes a No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes [7No ❑ 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 El NA El NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes OPNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[--]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Croptype(s) &J-AW1JC1,R, (A6,j) CD-40J-1 , SwKa// GYVLrNIOUasec-1), $oy4oe4Ar,
13. Soil type(s) Ox Vr i1G. L__ �>c'Nbar L Nor4ol k WaIva h-.
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes On No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes P5 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes 0No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes [,'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer [o' question #j: 'Explain`any YES aaswers and/or any recommendabous or, ay other s M comments
Use drawings offacrity to,better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): „` 4: -
L
Reviewer/Inspector Name[ �Z� t��.vc:�5 � ' LL `� �'`�'` Phone: /O, V33. 3300
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: -1/-19 —Z0/O
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

I t
Facility Number: 83-0/9 Date of Inspection 13-2S-10
Required Records & Documents
l9. 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 VNo ❑ 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 ONo ❑ 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 [9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
tgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ yes
OfNo
❑ 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
53'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
0 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
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments iini or Drawings:
a
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Type of Visit erCompliance
Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
outine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 3 /� —Q g Arrival Time:: UO t•+ Departure Time: . /S' County: ���/`� Region:
Farm Name: J%_ 5'1711 _ Owner Email:
OwnerName: .y �'Z'-�� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:dv
Title —Phone No:
Onsite Representative: integrator: /&/6O'o-AJN
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [= o = 4 = Longitude: ❑ o [� d
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -La et
Other
❑ Other I-
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ 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?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifej
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
I
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: I
J
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (Ifyes. 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 L✓9<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No L�7, N/A
❑ NE
ElLJ Yes ❑ No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes El No LJ NA
ElNE
ElYes 2 No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

acility'Number: $319-0
-
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ErNo ,❑ NSA El NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes El No CI l-A ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ¢ 51 7//
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
ETNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
ffN.
❑ 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
B
❑ NA
❑ NE
8_ Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
B 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
2io
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 2-5-o ❑ 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. Croptype(s) ge,+witdee 'n/y $ lf6r+i�v�D,S�, Iw�l►w�. ��ylf7t,t,Ys
13. Soil type(s) (fix V i l jt Ak P4 bar- /V o 4 1AJ ck F?
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
[TNo ❑ NA
ETIN'. El NA
B o ❑NA
,r N'o El NA
L'No ❑ NA
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name Revt- Phone: 9/n, 33 .33oa
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: %1 Date: 3
12128104 Continued

• Facility Number: r3 — / Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes LJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Q'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and l" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22_ Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
ElNE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
[IYes
B o"�
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
,L_fNo
L�fNo
❑ 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 10 ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
011o­
❑ 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
Flo
❑ 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
Ergo
❑ 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
ElNA
ElNE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
ElYes
Ej<oNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
12129104

Facility Number
O Division of Water Quality
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit • Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ,,,,❑ Denied Access
(�/�
Date of Visit: 22 0`t Arrival Time: / `OD r+ Departure Time: �6io0 County: ` COH4? ' Region: F
Farm Name: _ _ r ►"'� l — _ _ _ _ _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: �y► I f��
Facility Contact: 9' l� n T l M� 5 Title:
Onsite Representative: ti
Certified Operator: u
PhoneNo:
Integrator: Ali-vPtL,
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Latitude: 0 O ED' 0 4 Longitude: 0°❑ I = "
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
_ ❑ Layer
❑ Non -La er
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Pouets
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made`?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Cattle
Design Current:
Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Daia Calf
❑ Daia Heifej
❑ Da Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
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 W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
R NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
ONA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
P
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Eff No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

;,
Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
IN No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
9 NA ❑ NE
Structure i Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
Lr-] No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ic/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
$0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
In No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
(a No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) { d ��n C&f 4s, Sr►.
13. Soil type(s) l p }r Wa P Alt „�►-,Cg�Cy '1 fP
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes [IM No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement'?
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
[j9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Q9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Q9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
0No ❑NA ❑NE
Comments refer to • question # Explain q ). ap any YE$-answ.ers'andlor any recommendations or any other comments
Use drawings`offacility to better eaplatn'situations. (use additional pages as necessary)::
Reviewer/inspector Name phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: w0d'Date: 3 O
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Con#inued

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

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 48 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: —/Z— Arrival Time: ,Z Departure Time: 94
County: SCa-#aN d. Region:
Farm Name: -7SI 7// 1(01d C4irrcll05 71 71 Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Phone:
Facility Contact: A Ke, Amma &iS Title: Phone No: 3/�
Onsite Representative: Integrator: Nt#,,n4,., iP,&�A/
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: =o =' E« Longitude: =°=, =
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Papulation Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑
Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La er
❑
Daia Calf
Dairy Heifer
❑ Feeder to Finish -i
❑
❑ Farrow to Wean Dry,,l'oultry
❑
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Feeder /000
❑ Layers
El
❑
Beef Stocker
El Farrow to Finish
El Gilts ❑Non -La Non -Layers
El
Beef Feeder
❑ Boars El Pullets
ElBeef
Brood Cowl
I
❑ Turkeys
Other ❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other 1 10 Other
Number of Structures: a
moms&s. .
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
❑ Yes
C9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
[j 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
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page l of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number:'53—i C1 Date of Inspection
Wastc Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
.Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
❑ Yes Ld No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 17 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): - J
�r
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 14 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes [JNo ❑ 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
Q?No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[A 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
[8 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes V9 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 El Evidence of Wind Drift P❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) kceJ e_k^f14 d G-. (�'1 ) _ c_-C�'t'r�Al _
13. Soil type(s) /VO? 6kjf t S /VhaI, . nX V!!AL
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWW?
❑ Yes
Co No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
[A No ❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(, q Explain y: y.
Comments refer to question E lain an YES -answers and/or an recommendations or; any other comruents.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
w
Reviewer/Inspector Name r� I G �y et1 Phone:
%�0 �✓��—$3��
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: —JDate of Inspection
'1
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps
p ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. El 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 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
O 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
§1No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (icl discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
5d No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings
w
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Z:0 S y, Departure Time: County: S: 1PMAlt{ Region: t'RO
Farm Name: # s-a/ 1 _ ( O 14 CaVYbI+'S _ 4- 7 17 _ Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Phvsical Address:
Facility Contact: TGrua. f-Ir Title:
Onsite Representative: 2e_10CS4 it1 e— 1r
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phone:
Phone No: p
Integrator: IMk vD� 14 Vd VJa
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o =' = - Longitude: = ° = = u
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
_4 ❑Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Lavers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey Pou Its
❑ 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?
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Populatiou,'
1
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
QDry Cow
❑ NOD -Dairy
❑ Beef Stockei
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:.
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ)
e. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge'?
❑ Yes [�i No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
IgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑NA
El NE
El Yes
[NNo
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — r< Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes., is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): % Gf
r/
Observed Freeboard (in): S�. ®-
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA . ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement'? ❑ Yes �&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) �yy
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Ig
Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes oNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ 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) L5 erlqu d a,- ( Ha,,, ) . col fon/, b.)k cc.-f . Say. 1,rL A!s .. i�1 C9r��,✓CD
13.
Soil type(s) NOx btlo B DNS! 19Gil/_. Cax j/►��/Z —_ '
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
1A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination`
❑ Yes
[)I 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
ERNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/InspectorName��/ _�`: Phone O �y'% Jg
S:.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: j Z —ZD — Z J O
IZ28/04 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check [--]Yes fgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps
p ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers [:]Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[% No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[�jNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
Q9 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
[5 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
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
AddEtioaal+Ca tmentc andlor Drawings: f� i �, 4 I.- _� . .
12128104

IType of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facilin- Number Date of Visit: Time:
-- Not O erational Below• Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified M Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
���
Farm Name: C G fit-ril S] UCr� :� ->/1 C.. County: —�—'=—
Owner Name: ca rcb 1 �S 1 �rn-i 7-1 al PhoneNo: (e ry
Mailing address: p .b , PiQk E 1 4, _-- - {�+'�`' Sfa j h%C-,
Facility Contact: M&k Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: L%f t-cAks�
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator- (L'- 6 (�
Operator Certification Number: zt SX 1e4
*Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �4 0" Longitude ' I
Design Current
Swine Canar-itt• Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to «"ean
® Farrow to Feeder
j Coo
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Laver ❑ Dairy I
❑ Non -Laver I I 1E3 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons i I JLJ Subsurface Drains Present J{LJ Lagoon Area JLJYSSprar Field Area
.Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Lig uid Waste Management System
Discharges & 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 observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is obsen ed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d- Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes. notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection 8 Irearment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure
Identifier.
Freeboard (inches): 2—�
05103101 a 0
❑ Yes 55 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Continued

{
Facility Number: z3 — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes QXNo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? El Yes 1� 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 maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes [I)INo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes qNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes [�)No
Waste Application
10. Arc there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes (,a No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes W No
12. Crop type 13e1c .,,,.rI e, O_S- . oe—k s . C.o
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
M.Vo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
0 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
W No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Q No
Reuuired Records & Document
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
, qNo
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
[2kNo
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
J3.No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
Q No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
22.
FaiI to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
[� No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
�RNo
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
P9 No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
e No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer tofgpesbon,fi) �Ezpiain any YES. saswers and/or','any recommendatrons or any othercomments. µ:
IUse','drawmgs of�facilrtyto 6eiterteaphun sitnations.(use ad`dtttona! pages as necessary) ,; ❑Field Copy 3 ❑ Final Nates
t-¢, CIS• _�Lf03
�t' �7tc4aUwd Ieu..e(S in r11� 4-- MI-1 ,03') Ok—' SInCr-i%P.rt,
t+-Q c.A tY.1.- � l � S,o-mot•,. �- �'c_r �-�, �.o o L.� � � •
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: a o
05103101 L Continued

Facility Number: Y3 -
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 No
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 P No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan biade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes PNo
31, Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes M No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permancnt/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
05103101

Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit (M Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Faeilit. lumber Date of Visit: ` t Time: '.
- ••—R Not O erational Belnw Threshold
® Permitted M Certified M Conditionally- Certified © Registered Date bast Operated or Above Threshold:
r
Farm Name: C_ 6,f'LyG� d` Count.: S
Owner -Name: c-r—Prr,,I i > -(`�-I __. Phone No: �L
flailing address: ! a _L.� �!`S&,.f 3 if(
Facility Contact: Title: �V VOL _ Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: rk
Certified Operator: _�t7sJ`ei� .)6,.:�iG 1l4i� Operator Certification Number: 2S 1- 04
Location of Farm:
S 1 & lS -cc- ra SS va, l -J-epS . A- S P. 16 1.Z `
W Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' ° " Longitude I 0 �• ��
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Ca acitt Population Poultry Ca ackv Population Cattle Ca acitf Po ulation
❑ R'ean to Feeder ❑ Laver I I I
❑ Dairy
El Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Lave: ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to 'Wean
® Farrow to Feeder QO 6 ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps
dace
Discharges S_ Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any pan of the operation?
Discharge orininated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If ves. notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in eal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If ves. noti& DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): .2s
05103101
❑ Yes ED No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes �j No
❑ Yes [D No
Structure 6
Condnued

Facility ]Number: — 19 1 Date of Inspection
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 [A No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes Q�No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes [N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes Q No
Waste A lication
10, Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ®No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes [�] No
12. Crop type At I-,%, , A e- 1" .F- el u-a Pce of Can 4&-, .4— 10
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 dctermination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reauired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes 14 No
❑ Yes [P No
❑ Yes �allo
❑ Yes [,9 No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes JK] No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes E4 No
❑ Yes ER No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit
jo
G merits (refer toyquesbon #) Eiplatn+any' YES ensurers and/or any, recummendattons ar j-"Fi!n,11N�oWs
ges:ns
�l c l f vac t<G� 1-4 4 C LLI� [c�
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Z Continued

Facility Number: Date of inspection n a3
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? V
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
38. Is there and 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?
i0. �l ere an} major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts. missing or
or broken fan blade(s). inoperable shuners_ 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 petmanentrtemporary cover?
❑ Yes MNo
❑Yes [PNo
Cl Yes El No
❑Yes FQNo
❑ Yes N1 No
❑ Yes Eallo
❑ Yes 9J No
05103101

A— ,a
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 4& Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: % O 4 Time:
Facility Number ' /
55 Not Operational 0 Be
J9 Permitted U Certified [3Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above
/Threshold:
�l
Farm Name: ��iC+'11 County: /�G'O �e��✓ �/y
Owner Name: Sh"� /� r�� Phone No:
Mailing Address: _'Rol &;r—
T
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: 5,
Certified Operator:�2b/���iJFaC Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine []Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑Horse Latitude a 9 " Longitude 0 6
Design Current
awmc
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
5 Farrow to Feede
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons
ng Ponds / Solid Traps
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Da
❑ Non-Lav 10 Non -Dairy
❑ Other f
Total Design Capacity
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
�❑ Subsurface Drains
LI No Liquid Waste
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
Total SSLW
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4, is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches)
05103101
IDL
❑ Yes ,W No
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes kNo
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes P?Tlo
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes CQ-No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: YJ — f 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?
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
M
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated 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?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ W'UP, checklists, desi, maw etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22_ Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes K No
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes PqNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes ; No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes �V'No
ElYesNo
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes WO
❑ Yes 1WNo
❑ Yes X-No
❑ Yes �&
❑ Yes JEgNo
❑ Yes )ffNo
❑ Yes P@ No
❑ Yes J}No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes ElYes;Z)
❑ Yes wo
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments((to question #): Explain any YE5 answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
inrefer
Use drawgs of facility to better explain sltuations. (use additional pages as necessary.): ❑Fie/ld Copy El Final Notes
f�glc� /¢..�,s.�ja+ [�/�G✓/!�� p/frir�/ vgrY ��ca� f�l.�f
ve
+r1O✓4/�.ST �� Pei i Oil�-C�/
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: J7_7 —/ Date of Inspection �U m
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31 _ Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanentitemporary cover?
XYes ❑ No
❑ Yes kTNo
❑ Yes �WNo
❑ Yes FNo
❑ Yes Pi No
❑ Yes !Po
0 Yes ❑ No
-Additional Comments and/or Drawings:9�
05103101
05103101

N
Drvwsion of Water ahty _
Division of Soil and Water Conservat,on
w Q Dtlt eY Ageney-W -2 = _
a
-E
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit. S �g� J Time: C= Printed on: 7/21/2000
i
0 Not -Operational 0 Below Threshold
ftJ Permitted 0 Certified 1 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: 1 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- County: ...... �Cof lC�n.1:�............
Owner Name: �4fro `�5..
... .. ................
.........
G ............................
Phone No:....................._...........
Facility Contact: ...... .......u. .....
al!�'nS. ........................
Title:
M�--1L Phone No:
Mailing Address:
Onsite Representative:.......................................................... . Integrator:....
J ............ .....
Certified Operator: ............��r.ro. f1,,,,.. . ........................ Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
i L
A,
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude �• �� ���
Design " Current ` Design Current Design Current
Sw% —capsaty Pa utatiion Poultry Ca aci Po elation Cattle - p6pillation.. .
_ Wean to Feeder 10 Layer I Dairy
r Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer I I ❑Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
' Farrow to Feeder ),00() ❑Other
UM
Farrow to Finish
ToW Design'Capan 1, as C7
Gilts
Boars Total SSM.
Nilber pf j,� ❑ Subsurface Drains Present10 t,ag.on Area I0Spray Field Area
H µ Potud /:Solyd T
- raps ; ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System j1
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes AND
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes �No
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State'' (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ,Kio
c. II' discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes �No
1Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 4No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ,KNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes XVo
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S Structure 6
Identifier: .................................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ....................................
Freehoard (inches): 36
5100 Continued on back

J� ,1�
Facility Number: Q3— 19 1 Date of Inspection 1 6-a 5-0 printed on: 7/21/2000
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 TO
(if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an ` �1
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes KNO
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes Woo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes � No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes EkNo
11. Is there evidence of over application?❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN [I Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes &No
/,7�
12. Crop type M Jet /SMcdr� ralm �/ i Cr_5en
erX- IC-Ar\
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated 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?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
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?
(ic/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22_ Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
Y: N4.004jiQiis;oe. deficie d.. r►= ... Of, diu:ing this: visit: • You will -r' eeeiye iio futtho • .
coriesporideitce. alb6Uk this visit: . ... • . .. ' .. ..... •
Comiiifents (refer to question'#) 'Eiiplatn any YES answers and/or any cecomendatiiins or any other coauae
iJse dra�vtngs;of facility to betxer explatin situations (se;addlttional pagess as necessary} _-_
FTj�
MAR 40 @ �'� �� ll �� s�F wank a1d)Le
ev,,,(ud , , c,►c�- 'el� r r~c sPr�`iI$
4;r we4 P alo/.sus
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes " No
❑ Yes No
26.Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes Q No
❑ Yes O No
❑ Yes [& No
❑ Yes Wo
❑ Yes KNO
❑ Yes 9No
❑ Yes [yNo
❑ Yes 14No
i
IV
Reviewer/Inspector Name Qj w
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 602 a 5100

Facility Number: �� Date of Inspection V—.2-9—c4 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 J(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) Ir
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes j�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 o
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes 1:0
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? Ar,94CPs ❑ No
S/00

f
Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-ug of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection 4
T imee of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted 0 Certified ©,Conditionally Certified [3 Registered 13 Not OperationalDate Last
%Operated:
Farm Name : ................... .. r....7...1..._.._.................................. County: ...... .....,57,?d !. `. _
rr T
Owner Name:....... .� . }..L�..+S.----- P �' d�s -f c . Phone No: Z 7 - 0 6.. �.........................
C/.........................................j. ...................6...`.
Facility Contact: �s.-. ....... Title: L 14. lu. Phone No: ..........-^------
........... ..... ..... ..
Mailing Address:........'o.._. ...... ta..... � C.......... Z .
Onsite Representative: ..... L,, .5...... ,, &A. .................. .... Integrator:..................
Certified Operator:......` �±�-!w_.i. .....................CJ!is~i al.§;............................. Operator Certification Number: ....... .......... ...... ..... . _....
Location of Farm:
Latitude =•=' « Longitude =• =' ="
Desrgnt =Current
Design Current ._ Design Current r:
_.. -
"apactty.;t o Mahon Poultry,_,
=
Ca aci Po u atioCattle. � -..
ty.., p `,:...Ca�ac� -�Po ulattoa•=.
❑ Layer
w ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer
F-', ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
F
_. i
iOtdl DeSlgn CAp�City _r
s
- T©tal SSLW..
.:;
.-
Nutniber of.iLagoons : ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ID Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area
Holdtng Ponds-/ Solid Traps ' _ `:- ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System -
_
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
�
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
.
Boars
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 rnan-made? ❑ Yes [�No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑Yes [No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes JkNo
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ZNo
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 & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes �No
Structure I Structure ? Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identiter: �� 11
Freeboard (inches): ...............1.
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes [�NO
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: — j 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
9No
(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
VNO
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
IgNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
10 No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
JNo
11. Is there evidence over applic 'on? ❑ Excessive Ponding *AN
Yes
�C�
❑ No
12. Crop type Q.
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those des nated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
O(No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
9No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
KNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
kNo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
2fYes
❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
6No
Required Records & Documents
IT.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
gNo
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
dNo
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
kfNo
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
[:]Yes
,�(No
21,
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
dNo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes 4No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes Cho
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes dNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes e6No
iVq violaticjris:o� dgfciei�cie5 vre �tgtecl dtririg fjijs:visjt; Yop wi}l teiyeo #'ui•th�r'
co rresaoridence: aboi uk this visit .......... I ..... :..:................
/ ees aT- Iccis� o Y jaya0hto�P� lay _5'o, r' - k/,7 t Ave Leh r�kx.4iXcri
�!1• Dvero1_f�PIG��'
/S� A,r{s +Jere fesPriy jed' ,:� H19, ley Ql-e /00/:u� �r�r gdo4 du7 fm�e Cd,•��e��1�ia:__
w
i:k 3—,23 ok
FReviewerfluspector
er/Impertor Name s � alai 7s�§; s� $ r s. W4E�g t a wfi�
Signature: VxoE Date:

Facility Nurnber:f5— Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe froni 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 KNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes RNo
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan btade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes Y�`NO
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes 5-N3
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional, omments'an ofr ravv�ngs = F -
y
y
3/23/99

Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency
Division of Water Quality
j Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DW2iUection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number 3 Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Registered ,Ce�rtified [3Applied for Permit Permitted 0 Not O erational Date /Last Operated
FarmName:... ....(.y/............................................................................................. Count �Ca l4 h .. .......................
Owner Name:......�Q.ICIQ.LL S._...� 5 C .................................... Phone No: . ...............................................
Facility Contact: • G r?S1i...lt......................... Title:............ Phone No:... ....
Mailing Address: r`O �(cJGtrScs-..e............................ ..z. ....
Onsite Rep resentative:.5'. ...... '/ .-•----•-•-•-•.............................•-•-•----•........... Integrator: .................... ............................................................. .....
Certified Operator: ............................................... ........ ............. ........... . ............ ......... .......... Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm;
Latitude 0=1 66 Longitude • 0' 0"
5 Design ,Current "Design, Current: :s Design' ; Cnt n#
Capacity Population
r: t w,
.: Poultry Capacity PiipuEatiaa Cattle ,; ; .Capacity Ptigulatzon.
�..:.
1❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
" ❑ Non -Layer I f I0 Non-Dairy
[I Farrow to Wean
❑Other
Farrow to Feeder
❑Farrow to Finish
Total
❑Gilts
W Design
"� ❑ Boars.,y
p a t" Ai ��R:Totai sSw
�". .:..:. :... ............. _,, ..
a
.� f a4,i+: „1. sxf.- � �•.. k �`�a° !� (::n,-., :F-u '.: i:�: � 4� { .:S.z 1:
Ntember of}I.ag�ons 1 Hoidtng P©nds
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑Spray Feld Area
�..
< n�> : ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
" l i.
General
1.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ 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
gNo
4.
Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
�_N_o
5.
Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
[IYes
No
maintenance/improvement?
6.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
(PkNo
7.
Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yeso
7/25/97

Facility Number:—�
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes gNo
Structures (La2oonsMolding Ponds Flush Pits etc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes ` "0
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure6
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft):........ .%.................................................... ...............................................................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes KNO
11. is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
, ❑ Yes 9No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
CdYes ❑ No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes ONO
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
VdNo
te waters of the State, notify DWQ)
(If in excess of WMP, or ruEwith
erYv?:U.....
15.
Crap type ...... . ......
�'........................................................_...........---............................................................
16.
Do the receiving crops differose designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
UNo
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
,KNo
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
V(No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
5�No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
KNo
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
�(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
244.
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
ONo
No.violationsor deftciencies:were-itoted-during this: visit'- Yoa:will receive•ito•ftirif er,
: coerespundehce d out this:visit::: ::::.........
ro��I �fld / -- ;s r ►rt w�f� �[ be /re/5�r1 yyed i.%_ :V -;wj e�C- /'i 99 c
V
lu�v retove��rces �i s�eJe d� �aj66� 7� P S
;n1r 4
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: A4)C..ti ( f
Date: �Q^Z�-

DSWC Animal-
Feedlot 4pelratton Review x
�r
;i.` A } # f3h".E C, $
S '• d '^w k!: �;'k :` <^` i 'aLaP St-` C"EaFY�3 5r:R. i^
�Y ".,.ydl,a3" ma- ^.ER kAwRr M 'x `h, 4 3• SK✓4s q,`?^:C�k pe�.�s,.3.,
�,;;� �� �-_ �
D,WQ��Anlmal�Feedlot Operation Site�Inspectlon� ��� _ �W �
,�
Routine O Complaint
O Follow-ue of DWQ inspection Q Follow-u of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection -227 Q
Facility Number
�
Time of Inspection !1 t�u 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: ❑ Registered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for I hr .15 min)) Spent on Review 0
gCertifled ❑ Permitted I or Inspection includes travel and rocessin
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated: _. W ... _.......... _ .. _ .1� .�. _./ _- _ ..._ .. _.... _...
Farm Name: ........ 1-71- ----- __...._ _.... ._.-. __. � . _ ._ County: �Cd�l4 0`QL_ . _._.... _. . �.... _
Land Owner Name:........-._........_.. _ .�,..� .��.-. ----- Phone No:
Facility Conctact:..neS.....�--.._�..._, ._._ ._ .. Title:--A'e., ...._ Phone No. s� _ .. ........
Mailing Address:
Oasite Representative:._.Integrator: _ ...-_ .
Certified Operator:..... ....__ .... ........................ ..... __..... -....._...... ......., Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude ' 1 OK Longitude �• �f,
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
fD�eSi n Cruw5ra<r*tr;e, nt esE nmP'FCnrent �5_aon- C� fin. auC' DesE_gEEE'"tauP� to
oCxEiurmraenEat
on �Pf_a?�
❑Wean to Feeder E
La erFeeder to Finish g Non -Laver ❑Non -Da
Farrow t0 Wean�3 �a A;
'q"s5"aFg.
Farrow to Feeder " NTa&1_� "CapaCity
e ' M om;
d00
Farrow to Finish � f
x �&
�NumberoCLagoot<sf/,Holdmg�Ponds ' x ❑Subsurface Drams PresentY r
g ❑ Lagoon Area Spray Field Area-�
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/47 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
�(No
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ Yes
A No
Continued on back

Facility Number:.
6.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes XNo
7.
Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes ANo
S.
Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes XNo
Structures
(Las n. and/or Holding
9.
Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes ANo
Freeboard (R): Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
10.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes XNo
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes o
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes INo
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of aver application?
❑ Yes KNo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
Qgr_ t..
15.
Crop type.. 3p _....— .............. .... _.....
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes gNo
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes *0
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes O�No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes �No
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes t(No
For
22.
CedfiedlAdMies Only
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes No
23.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes No
24.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes No
Cornments'(refer to questtoa'#): Eiplaih any YES answers and/orany recommendations �or any other epmments
Use drawings of facility to better ex}ilarn situations (use addrtronai pages.'tas necessary) ' :E•
" 'Ow' yy---- !! +
Lu a Mai n 4cu of t � n Co-1 It 4u< e
Reviewer/Inspector Name

rr
Facility Number Date of Inspection - -g%
Time of Inspection : Op 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted Certified ' [j Conditionally Certified [3 Registered 0 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: r......... County ..................... �4r?,FL...L �4rI ...............
............... m.................71-7.1....... S
Owner Name. � �' Ev -. Phone No: / — g3 ..........i�3
l �c�ra ...............•./.............��r.1�......-....................................... ..a.......a........-....- ..............
Facility Contact: ........LP�S �1.>�... S-S Title:
]hailing Address: fa ........ trst�t�' $���
........................... .................
Onsite Representative:
CertifiedOperator:........................................................:......................................
Location of Farm:
......................................... Phone No:...................................................
.....c.................�839
Integrator:..,: A/..It.........................�
.............
Operator Certification Number :..........................................
Latitude '9 44 Longitude a 4 99
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
000
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I I[] Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity % WQ
Total SSLW
AL
Number of Lagoons 1E3 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation (If yes, notify DWQ)? ❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-inadc?
h. If discharge is observed. did it reach: ❑ Surface Waters ❑ Waters of the State
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system?
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge'?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
ao
❑ Yes 9 No
❑ Yes IV No
Al11T
❑ Yes [(No
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes k No
❑ Yes 9fNo
Structure 6
116/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: T — 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 pact of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required top of dike, maximum and minimum
liquid level elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Ponding to Nitrogen
12. Crop type .................. .4P`'........................ ....,.......f.................................' ............... F....._._..............
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. Does the facility lack wettable acreage for land application'? (footprint)
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes WNo
[� Yes ❑ No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ofNo
❑ Yes No
[Yes N
[]Yes (XNo
❑ Yes Q'No
Yes ❑ No
- ❑ Yes No
Reuuired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & general Permit readily available? - ❑ Yes No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) WYes ❑ No
20. is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes O�No
21. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes OrNo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) s 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 a-cricy-? ❑ Yes No
E. No.vialations_oe deficiena"es .were noted du'rin Ais:visit:. V-6 *ll.r' Ave rlt7r further
• : • eofresb6 idei ee: abb" this visit.'-'- ; .. :.:....
........
.
Comments (refei to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any,recommendations'or any,.other comiments ;_ '
Use drawings" of: facility,to,better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary)
f
,�-- s
a 1U wl.per. 7%..-e
k t:N� - s
e / sue Uo,-,> AO- L—�,
Reviewer/Inspector Name A�Pt
7.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: azzmQ 7 ' _ Date: 11/6/99

Facility Number: — Date oflnspc�c tior�
Add�honal CaunsnEs andlor Drawangs: F w w W
a M. ,.
• ,.
IW . _, 4�3
ii&-6- all
,Z 3, r.J.9.J "v" 1�2� -A-� 0 L", -
AjAP794-j
F
i
7/25/97

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Carroll's Foods, Inc.
116 James Street
Laurinburg, NC 28352
Dear Sir:
F?W'A
[:3EHNR
DMSION OF WATER QUALITY
July 25, 1996
SUBJECT:
Compliance Inspection
Swine Farms
Hoke, Scotland and Richmond Counties
On July 2, 1996, an inspection of several animal operations 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 these facilities are in compliance
with 15A NCAC 2H, Part .0217, and that Animal Waste Management is being properly performed.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact me at (910) 486-
1541 ext. 325.
Sincerely,
Ricky Revels
Environmental Technician IV
RR/bs
Enclosure
cc: Facility Compliance Group
Wochovia Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville N%q�C FAX [phone]
North Carolina 28301-5043 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 910-486-1541 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

Facility Number: 83 - 141
Division of Environmental Management
Animal Feedlot Operations Site Visitation Record
Date: "1-Z - 9
Time: 1 `f 15
neral Information:
Farm Name: -# 7/ 7 County: S��Id ••• d
Owner Name: C"rva it's SM c.. Phone No: (ote) z93-3r435F
On Site Representative:, a 1 __ Lam c- _ Integrator. CxYv,, 1lts F.,,-i s
Mailing Address: PD Dv-91--j"', gs(._
LJar5nw NC- ZS 39g
Physical Address&ocadon: r"rn�. 6uY3 ±n_ 4-01 sd.�u
t.15 qrro 14. d 6 4 _ peoc_0-+a11 cro:� S c:a.. 4-tA
Latitude: I 1 Longitude: I 1
Operation Description: (based on design characteristics)
Type of Swine No. of Animals Type of Poultry No. of Animals Type of Cattle No. of Animals
0 Sow 1 Do92_�;aN ❑ Layer O Dairy
0 Nursery ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Beef
© der
OtherType of livestock: Number of Animals:
Number of Lagoons:_ (include in the Drawings and Observations the f=board of each lagoon)
acility inspection:
Lagoon - /
Is lagoon(s) freeboard less than 1 foot + 25 year 24 hour storm storage?: --T Yes ❑ No �9
Is seepage observed from the. lagoon?: Yes ❑ No 3
Is erosion observed?: Yes ❑ No
Is any discharge observed? Yes ❑ No C�
❑ Man-made ❑ Not Man-made
Cover Crop
Does the facility need more acreage for spraying?: Yes ❑ No
Does the cover crop need improvement?: Yes ❑ No ['
( list the crops which need improvement)
Crop type: _e ram, . L �-- 1., 1, J Acreage:
Setback Criteria
Is a dwelling located within 200 feet of waste application? Yes ❑ No L�
Is a well located within 100 feet of waste application? Yes ❑ �No 1
Is animal waste stockpiled within 100 feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes ❑ No W'
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 feet of Blue Line Stream? Yes ❑ No ur-01,
AOI - January 17,19% 7 . - _ . • -'

Maintenance
Does the facility maintenance need improvement? Yes ❑ No M"
Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? Yes ❑ No tr
Does record keeping need improvement? Yes ❑ No B-11,
Did the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan on site? Yes ❑ No C'
Explain any Yes answers:
Signature: Date: 7/oz/9 6
cc: Facitiry Assessment Unit Use Anachmenu if Needed
Drawings _or Observations:
r.n:•tr't. --- -"- tam cu4a' r�.s�..Tr r,�. .tin. �:.-. y -� - -
AOI -- January 17,19%