830021_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLI NA
Department of Environmental Qua'

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 830021 Facility Status: ActiYe
Inssection Type: Compliance Inspection
Permit: AWS830021
Inactive Or Closed Date:
❑ Denied Access
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Scotland Region: Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 02J1312017 Entry Time: 03:00 pm Exit Time: 4:00 pm
Farm Name: Farm 7689
Owner Murphy -Brown LLC
Mlailing Address: PO Box 487
Physical Address:
Incident #
Owner F-maill
Phone: [phone]
Warsaw NC 28398
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34' 56' 12" Longitude: 79° 28' 18"
On he east side of SR 1331 approx. 1.5 miles north of its intersection with SR 1324, north of Laurinburg.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator:
James Brian McGugan
Operator Certification Number 986752
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representadve(s):
Name
Tide 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: AWS830021 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brawn LLC Facility Number. 830021
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 2,400
Total Design Capacity: 2,400
Total SSLW: 1,039,200
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
1
19.00
1 43.00
Lagoon
19
19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS830021 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 830021
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges S Stream Impacts
Yes No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
013
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
ON
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ M
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
M ❑
❑
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 (LeJ large
❑
❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
IN ❑
❑
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 NaNo
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
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 > 101Y6110 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: AWS830021 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830021
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yn No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Gilead
Soil Type 2
Lakeland
Soil Type 3
Wagram
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
0 ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
M ❑
❑
II& Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
E ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS830021 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 830021
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Y"
No W Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
M ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
Cl
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26, Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
M ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yea
No Na He
28, Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andlor document
❑
M ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Pen -nit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify .
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-complianoe of the Permit or
❑
❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
M ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
M ❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number.
830021 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS830021
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Scotland Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
03/16/2015 EntryTime: 11:00 am
Exit Time: 12:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Farm 7689
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 34" 56' 12" Longitude:
79" 28' 18"
On he east side of SR 1331 approx. 1.5 miles north of its intersection with SR 1324, north of Laurinburg
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: James Brian McGugan Operator Certification Number: 986752
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s)
24 hour contact name
On -site representative
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Name
Mike Cudd
Mike Cudd
Title
Phone
Phone
Phone
Robert Marble Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWS830021 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830021
inspection Date: 03/16/15 Inssection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine Farrow to Wean 2,400
Total Design Capacity: 2,400
Total SSLW: 1,039,200
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
1
19.00
30.00
Lagoon
19
19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS830021 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830021
Inspection Date: 03/16/15 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)
❑
❑ ■
❑
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 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
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
so
❑
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 No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS830021 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
Inspection Date: 03/16/15 inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
830021
Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Gilead
Soil Type 2
Lakeland
Soil Type 3
Wagram
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15_ Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
M ❑
❑
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
ME][]
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Me
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
M ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page:
4

Permit: AWS830021 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
830021
Inspection Date: 03/16/15 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?
❑
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27, Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
M ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
M ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 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

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
830021 Facility Status:
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Reason for visit:
Routine
Date of Visit:
0312412014 Entry Time: 09:00 am
Farm Name:
Farm 7689
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Physical Address:
Active
Permit: AWS830021 ❑ Denied Access
Inactive Or Closed Date:
County: Scotland Region: Fayetteville
Exit Time: 10:00 am
Incident #
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Warsaw NC 28398
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34" 56' 12" Longitude: 79' 28' 18"
On he east side of SR 1331 approx. 1.5 miles north of its intersection with SR 1324, north of Laurinburg.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Michael L Cudd Operator Certification Number: 25233
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s)
24 hour contact name
On -site representative
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Records reviewed 3/11/14,
Site visit 3124114.
Name
Mike Cudd
Mike Cudd
Title
Phone:
Phone
Phone
Robert Marble Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWS830021 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830021
Inspection Date: 03/24/14 Inppection type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
[] Swine - Farrow to Wean
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures Observed
Disignated
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00
Lagoon 19 i9.4D
page: 2

Permit: AWS830021 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 630021
Inspection Date: 03/24/14 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ M
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ M
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ M
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
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
�4.
Yes No Na Ne
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 (Led large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0110
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
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: AWS830021 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830021
Inspection Date: 03/24/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Gilead
Soil Type 2
Lakeland
Soil Type 3
Mgram
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
■ ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
M ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
S ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS830021 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830021
Inspection Date: 03/24/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Na
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?
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
■ ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
1101311
Other Issues
Yes No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
■ ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
(i.e.. discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number. 830021 Facility Status:
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection
Active
Permit: AWS830021 [] Denied Access
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Fa h II
+
Reason for Visit: Routne County: Scotland Region: ye ew e
Date of Visit: 02/25/2013 Entry Time: 01:00 pm Exit Time: 2:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name: Farm 7689
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Physical Address:
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Warsaw NC 28398
Facility Status: Compliant Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34° 56' 12" Longitude: 79' 28' 18"
On he east side of SR 1331 approx. 1.5 miles north of its intersection with SR 1324, north of Laurinburg.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other issues
Certified Operator: James Brian McGugan Operator Certification Number: 986752
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 214113
Site visit 2/25113
Name
Mike Cudd
Mike Cudd
Title
Phone
Phone
Phone
Robert Marble Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWS830021 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830021
Inspection Date: 02/25/13 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 2,400
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures Observed
Disignated
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
agoon 1 19.00
agoon 19 19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS830021 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830021
Inspection Date: 02/25/13 inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
DischaEges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 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)
❑
❑ 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 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.l large
❑
M ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑M
❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS830021 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
830021
Inspection Date: 02/25/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste ARplication
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Gilead
Soil Type 2
Lakeland
Soil Type 3
Wagram
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
0 ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS830021 Owner- Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830021
Inspection Date: 02/25/13 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yos
No Na Na
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
N ❑
❑
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 Cl
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon I Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

Type of Visit p Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit • Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
` /J4 Imo"
Date of Visit: I 71 L4II{ j 1 I Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: S'"' i'f`�`y-' Region:
g
Farm Name: b 2 ,_ I C _7? b Owner Email:
Owner Name:uc� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: >� �(�2 C �cd�- Title:
Onsite Representative:
t
Certified Operator:Ali�i
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = I = u Longitude: = ° = I Q "
Design Gurrentr, Design Current Design Current
Swtn_eY; Cap�ty Populate n* vWetPapltry Ca1.pacity Populaton Cattle $Capaclty Population
❑ Wean to Finish ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy Cow
lid ❑ Wean to Feeder JEJ Non -Layer I I ❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish El Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean Z m ❑ Dry Cow
�' ,Dry Poultry � `�'
Farrow to Feeder ❑ Non-DaiTy
VElFarrow to Finish ❑Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
rs ❑Beef Brood Covi
Turkeys hr
um er o ures:
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0P NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
FM NA
❑ NE
c- What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19 NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes "W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12/28/04
Condrrued

Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
1!�No
ElNA ElNE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
ElYes
❑ No
P NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
1
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(iel 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
EpNo
❑ 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
IM No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10, Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
IP No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
1. 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 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window vidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside
of Area
12_ Crop type(s)
13. Soil types),
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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
EP 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
.0 �§> y wa �'2d -+a'� hF '�-,r P i^4 r w
Knt
re
Ahs*
an A
`Used aw Ags ofactlity to better�eplain.s tvahuns ( e addthunal pages as ary);n,nr any other eatnments
�.,dnKr'�;_„3+,'PR.. ".. ,,+.r.iy _,. ,. :-:f.�. G, ,. : . .. ,�^ •'.Y'.,., ..'*? ., . 5
+Reco k (eLed 3117/iI
L S.: v
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: 71
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

r
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection i�rJ
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps [I 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 P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes P9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
to 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
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
Pd No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
ElNE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
bg No
❑ NA
❑ NE
z
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

i ype or visit: ® uompuance inspection v uperatton meview V Structure r.va►uanon v i ecnmcal Assistance
Reason for Visit: 4PRoutine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: 13/` Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: cSCp Region: -
Farm Name: jl� —� Owner Email:
Owner Name: Wl.�� N QC Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: AAt G-t
Onsite Representative:
4
Certified Operator: FAI�_ r—'i-e-ra
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator:�jtpc,�in
r^
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Desi
Desi
Swine C lc ty =Pop tit # Wet poultry Capag ty' C p nt Cattle Capacity C•uprrenIS
..-:.. .: op.
Wean to Finish Layer Da' Cow
Wean to Feeder Non -La er I Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish' DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean De§ign. Current D Cow
Farrow to Feeder D Poultry Ca aci ' P,a Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish Layers Beef Stocker
Gilts Non -La ers I Beef Feeder
Boars Pullets Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other _ T
urkey Poults -
�.
Other ' -
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes rp No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes []No
[:]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes CpNo
❑ Yes [5 No
® NA ❑ NE
�NA ❑NE
NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

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

Facili Number: - Date of inspection: y
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
IFNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
T No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
T No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[�rNo
❑ 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
P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
[)j 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
[a 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
[R No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer -to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any otli'&'comments.
lase drawings of•facility to better explain situations fuse additional Dates as necessary) - ; g:.:
_-
ReviewerAnspector Name:
Revieweranspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: �i� 33eo
Date:
21412011

i ype or visit: wo t-ompuance inspection %_J operation review Lj airucture r vaivation V t ecnmcai Assistance
Reason for Visit: ® Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: ��t1, Arrival Time: O! k Departure Time: +�, County: 5YZnA-7JD Region: �
-`
Farm Name: l 6 ?� - 1 Owner Email:
Owner Owner Name: - ('t u.�gi,� LU Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: `' " ' n"'o Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: 1 integrator: J" w h
Certified Operator: TF"V-I -C- RreL Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design
Swine Cap �ty�
Current Design @rent Design Cnrrent
-,Rap. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle Capacity P.
La er Dairy Cow
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
74CD
a
nt
Dr Paul Ca aci P,o
La ers
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Gilts
Non -La ers
Boars
Other
Other
jPullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turk e s
Turkex Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
I . 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 [4NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
Qg 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
[n NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
[:]Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
[:]Yes
r3kNo
0 NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
TT
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

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

Facility Number: X-5--24 Date of Inspection: )- P'S= 13
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [M No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes (4 No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
+?ec o,ifS Zl `1/ 3
�5,4 j1st� - �;tI D57//3
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ES No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No
[:]Yes [M No
❑ Yes Qg No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Phone: q I?-t-M-3960
Date:
21412011

Type of Visit ompliance inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: -Z iD Arrival Time: 7:(3QAIy Departure Time:
i; O County: 520Wafd Region: r2b
Farm Name: ze.760 9 1 f 01d �. 17 0 G� Owner Email:
Owner Name: %Li- Sko-'JAI LL C. _ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: i
Facility Contact: �lyt-� 6 d _ _ _ - _ _ Title: i-Al-44 - Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: Af- 45r�,nj/t% �f
Certified Operator: 'ol Operator Certification Number: / 7 /,P 3 /
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = I E--] 11 Longitude: = o = + = 11
DesignFuine
Capatyulation
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
10 Layer
Cat#le Capacity Popnlation
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
IIID Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Z D
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
ElNon-Dairy
El Farrow to Finish
El Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
El Non-LayNetsers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑Beef Brood Cowl
❑ rke s
Turkeys
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ 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?
❑ Yes 03 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
A
El NE
ElYes
ElNo
B NA
❑ NE
B A
El NE
❑ Yes
No
El Yes
,❑
EK
ElNA
[INE
❑ Yes
2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

w
Facility Number: 133 — QZ f
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
identifier: 7&13 9 /
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
Structure 4
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes 2< [I NA El NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 2"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 Ej< ❑ 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? El Yes B< ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes L7No ❑ 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 To ❑ 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? I f yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 2rNeo ❑ 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) CPa54 ,0 , 5A4 </1 Grg,',s rO, 5 . D
13. Soil type(s) (f,; /mod , kja frra,
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 andlor 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?
..omments (refer to. question ##): Explain any YES.answeirs ai
lse drawings of facility to better explain.situations. (use addi
recommendal
.s as necessar,
❑ Yes
lY No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[' Vo
El NA
El NE
&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Q to
❑ NA
❑ NE
04o
❑ NA
❑ NE
T
Reviewer/Inspector Name, Phone 9/D. St33. 33D�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: *i to) 0610
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — b7/ Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents �
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other �
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. El Yes B o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections E1 Weather Code
22- Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes L'1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ETNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
❑ Yes
2 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ETNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes <No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
Lf No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
EfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
BNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional C mmentsrapd/orDrawings:�¢;- -
a
Page 3 of 3 12128104

t
Division of Water Quality
Facitity,Number $',3 i 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
- - -- 0 Other Agency
Type of Visit (?"Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit t- routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 3- ,0 r07 Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Sjne{102/1�1 Region: 1 eO
Farm Name: 7cP g ,Q Owner Email:
Owner Name: /xvD�r.�, Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: _ Raa<Iy &*t gf!LNey"- Title: ��` �'"` 5Y• Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [:] o ❑ ' = « Longitude: 0 ° =' = u
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ 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 Currei
Cattle Capacity Populati
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifej
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Co
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures F/I ;, f
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
El NE
El Yes
El No
,[3'NA
VA
❑ NE
E NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[__1 No
❑ Yes
I --] NA❑
NE
❑ Yes
,._, o
LSNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: S3 — Z j
Date of Inspection 3-io-o9
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No [El NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: % 4Pa 9
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
rr
Observed Freeboard (in): Z
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ❑f4o ❑ 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 El'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes b Nvo ❑ 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 21Flo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes Bl�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11.
Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
,L vivo
❑ 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 Drifi ❑ Application Outside of Area
12.
j
Crop type(s) jge rj_ u c.. �� ra 1� t f k y, y�, G� G►ra; V �D it WS e ".a[. J
13.
Soil type(s) F10lNe,-_tjT4, j I[.aeL LG.1CQi4A.,r1
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes
[3"N"o
❑ NA ❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Ycs
ET'N.
❑ NA ❑ NE
16_
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[--] Yes
ElNA ElNE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
,ErNo
LJ NNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
E No
❑ NA ❑ NE
IComments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/InspectorName �e'VPhone: 9W, 033, 3,300
ReviewerAnspector Signature: 145�Date: 3 —j0 — ZQO
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: g, j —Z % Date of Inspection .3'/D `�.
Required Records & Documents ,�
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? El Yes EKD ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check ❑ Yes D No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ VVUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ p Other //
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. El Yes 9 o ❑ 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
IE3 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
ET,No
❑ NA
El NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
E o
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
l.31N4
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
LdNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
[R o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
L+J 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
lb 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
EI/No
❑ NA
ElNE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

Type of Visit S Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ® Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral 0 Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 7:G0 4a.. Departure Time: County: :5C0+ d9Ct
Farm Name: _ _S atJ d ki ( ( VNEWR _710 s q Owner Email:
0nor Nnma• M 411-h Ky 1316-owt4 phnnr-
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: P-&N Cl 8 uutrA a`Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Region: 2
M Phone No:
Integrator: ,'` aw6 era Lam
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ❑ o = , = N Longitude: = o ❑ ' ❑ u
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine C•apaci#y Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
110 Non La er
❑Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
pry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Dairy Heifer
29 Farrow to Wean 0
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ No ers
❑ Gilts
❑Beef Feeder
Pullets
❑ eLs.
❑ Boars
Outer
❑ Beef Brood CoyA
❑ Turkeys
Number of Structures:
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other ❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
(§No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man -trade?
❑ Yes
M No
[-INAEl
NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
M 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
J9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
[I Yes
V] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
PVNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: S3 — Z �
Date ofdnspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): j
Observed Freeboard (in): 3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes Q9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes P9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes [0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 0 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 ,+ ICt No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes VyNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ;A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 1 O Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window
w ❑ Evidence
of Wind Drift ElApplicationOutside of Area
12. Crop type(s) Bu•r..�w�. -- V �,. G / sfttrc1Z
13. Soil type(s) B l a.�Cs , G + t.dA W d.ci ►rc +✓�
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? El Yes [y No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes )29 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes P9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or: any other commentsVV
Use drawings otfacility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as.necessary):
�._
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone 10. 433 • 333�0
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Z—�
Page 2 of 3 I2128104 Continued

r�
It . .b
Facility Number: Date of Inspection R —0
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 CA WMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp D Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 14 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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 7 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
ElNA
ElNE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
ElYes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
El Yes
VNo
❑ 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
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
(P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

a Division of Water Quality
tFaciII =cmber g3 0 Division of Soi! and Water Conservation
— Other Agency
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ® Routine O Complaint O Follow up 0 Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: -Qf-p Arrival Time: Departure Time: Z %sS County: SG0f19.xr Region: , �ij�e
Farm Name: 2f 7&'99 Owner Email:
Owner Name:Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: .Lw 4- Or--e-V e- Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
A,Phone No:
Integrator: �uvpf .. geww
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ED o [--] ` = u Longitude: = ° = 4
Design ' Current Design 4TrCurrent Design Current
Swine `"
Capacity P p I heron
Wet Poultry
A
Capacity Po"ulation
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La er
❑Dai Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
� r=,
Dai Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Z 17
�.
_D , Poult o�
ry
❑ D Cow
El Farrow to Feeder
��""''"
' "'
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑Pullets
❑Beef Brood Co
- s
Other
,„a
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑ Other
NumberCofiStructures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1- Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
0�ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
['No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
[7No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
®, No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

R Facility Number: T3— Z 1 Date of inspection
t
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:
Spi l iway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
� I
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
[ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
El 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
[3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
S. 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 P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes P+No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
IL Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes P2 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) K f,,-L,, ti GZ a v.. f _ _'i,.wt t LI-6, -"{
13_ Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
DI No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
U No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
;Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or anyaother comments.
Use drawings of facilio,�to better explain situations.. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name i �/�j �e, jQe �@,�5., Phone: L910)
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: (o —Q j ZD-A �p
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: $3 — Z Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ W UP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design [I Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes MNo ❑ 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 [3No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 1P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
(N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
kyNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
IR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
[4No
❑ 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
[)ONo
❑ 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
[PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[�?No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:>:NIP
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit 4D Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of visit: Arrival Time: w Departure Time: County: 54c1VA1/d Region:
Farm Name: altly n C ,•�_,,,:�,nL__ 7� 0 Owner Email:
Owner Name: k44Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: plat144 R ��61. Ajce- Y­
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
F9_0
Phone No:
Integrator: .B� A��D/., za^1
Operator Certification Number: ,. 17,� 3�
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ❑ o ❑ 4 Longitude: = ° ❑ t ❑ G
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
i
❑Non -Layer
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Z 0
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ Lavers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Curr6t
Cattle Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dai Heifer
❑
Da Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑
Beef Stocker
❑
Beef Feeder
❑
Beef Brood Co
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 [N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Yes
(Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: K3 —Z Date of Inspection L1L
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes JK No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes Od No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Desig
n ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [VNo ❑ 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
b4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
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
Er No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
Dd No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
[)'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
®'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[)�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
AddltJonal Commen andlnr Drawings�r
12128104
12128104

Facility Number: $3 — 2.1
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes.. is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
❑ Yes r� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): r Z Of
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes C$ 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 [)D No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [5j 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 101bs ❑ 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. Croptype(s) jP_VM►%_I,—iAQ4AJYu ;C ) SiN91/ GrC.i.J �ayt�sse��
13.
Soil type(s) -L C� + Q4J G si N
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
D§ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination%❑
yes
EA No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
Q9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[,% No
❑ NA
❑ NE
�� k Y Qa l� / Tfl�o
Reviewer/inspector Name Phone. /0 /5�5d
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: .t.4� Date:
12128104 Continued

Type of Visit 0 Compliance inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ®Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facilinlumber2
Date )rvisit:
.`� Time:
!got O erational Belnw Threshold
M Permitted M Certified
0 Conditionally- Certified
© Registered
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold -
Farm ? 'ame: '
is
County: — E 8
Owner Name:
is 4
ITT G
Phone No: l k o Z L 6 34--
Mailing _address: P , a ,
e� ax fl's �
--_l� � r c-6� � � . a8 3 5 $
Facility Contact: r!�C r
Title:
Phone No:
Onsite Representative: 1\fkaA�
��� ��
-
Integrator:
Certified Operator:
e`+ c Fe.are Il
Operator Certification Number: _ 1 3Sly
Location of Farm:
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �' �� �' Longitude �' �•
Design Current
Swipe f'anarity Pnnnlatinn
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Xj4OD
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Soars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Ca achy Pa ulatiop Cattle Ca acity Population
Laver I I I JEI Da'
❑ Non -Laver I I JEJ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons �f I_ _ I ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oon Area ❑ Spmv Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps JEJ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharves S Stream Impacts
1. Is anv discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑Yes No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. ifdiscnarze 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) El Yes ❑ No
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in eaUmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon sysiem? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes W No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than froth a discharge? ❑ Yes ER No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes EP No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): g
05/0310.1 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection �3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes [ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? El Yes No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? Cl Yes] No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
9. Do any stuctures tack 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
No
11. Is there evidence of over application? El Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
ElO Yes
,a®,,,,
No
12. Crop type
13_ Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
[ja No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
"No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
0 No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
rV No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
W No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
No
20_
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®,No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes ] No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes [( No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments {refer +reommcee.n
ssda atroosfortat, y❑atbroomme_tqoueh©#} Eln anYES answeis'anaay
cueoeteeUedrawrngs oichtField Copy Final
NotestyBppages,as oe�
a<��o3
�� n i���`i `�'�`�J f- J L%
+
c rw� Ord S C
Reviewer/Inspector Name 1 -11
Reviewer/Iospector Signature:
"?. Date: _?a,3 C
O5103101 Continued

Facility Number: B 3 — 21 Date of Inspection �3 A
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 R 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 ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, mussing or
or broken fan bladc(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes Q No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes E,No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanentRemporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
O510310.1

V
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine ® Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
facility Number 83 21 Date of Visit: 07/30/2003 Time: 11:30am
Q Not O Lrational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: 7.7Q6.. • •. • .• • •. • •.. •• • •• • •• •-•-......... County: Smdaad --------------------------------- FRO ........
Owner Name: -------------------------- CarrQlLsReally_PartiuetsbiiR___-- Phone No: 91QrZ43343------------------------------
MailingAddress: I'.5�..5.oxj.59............................................................................................. I Q59..H0LXC......................................................... Z8.45A ..............
Facility Contact: .................... ----------------------- Title: ................ Phone No: .......... :...........................
Onsite Representative: -- --- - ----- - --- ------------------------------- Integrator: S�C9A'IEQQd�I----------------------
Certified Operator: SMAIK.11IkkeAc.................. Reruns ............................................ .. Operator Certification Number: 2.4X,39..............................
Location of Farm:
3n yhe east side of SR 1331 approx. 1.5 miles north of its intersection with SR 1324, north of Laurinburg. •
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Norse Latitude DTI• Sti 11 « Longitude F 79 • F 28 16G
Design Current' = . Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population . Poultry Ca Capacity Population . `Cattle --Capacity,Po ula6on'.,
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
2400
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer ❑Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other I I} Y
Total Design Capacity 2,400
Total SSLW 1,039,200
Number of Lagoons �': ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area r
Holding Ponds Solid Traps �, ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharses & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed fi-om 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 Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. 1f discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
d. Odes discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (Ifyes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ............. l ............. .
Freeboard ('inches): ........... .7.......... ..................._.._.._.._..
05/03/01 Cnnlinued

FacilityNumber: 11_3-21 Date of Inspection 07/30/2003
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? Yes ❑ No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑Yes El No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Ilydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ❑ No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20.
is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time ol-design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21,
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection.with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25_
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments refer to }.= ( giieshoa'#) Exp6in. any VES,answeTs3and/of ao} recommendahoirs or any other'commeats
• .0 _ _ ^_. . , . a Y +aG w_. ... •:' -''v a .. ,-.yl ,.Y..l�:.t_ j f ^-
Use'drawtngs of facthty W better explatn sttuattans. (use additional pagesFas necessary):,
4 t, tD Field Copy ❑ Fina] Notes
y�� .'51 l t �
`�. -K. �•
tx?.. -:e *' !w Y-S, , AS.. �'+'• ,-x � - ^"'T. *- ;. f'-•I:
Visited farm due to complaint that waste was being applied at night_ No waste wasbeing applied at time ofvisit. Lagoon level is at 27".
Inspection by Larry Baxley and Dean Morris
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:

r
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number a I Date of Visit: la J b Time: 1 4
Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: County: FILn
Owner Name: cc'r"' l 1 S C) Lr _ Phone No: t w a S G ,3 `il-
Mailing Address: _ 80, (AL -A A.5 fd - 1_Jd_rc &L - 13. C. �.Q3 18
Facility Contact: Title: L.tj rA Phone No: r'G vvti
Onsite Representative: ��0 � '� (� Integrator: C,w-'ra 1,U
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number: 4 1 2 5
Location of Farm:
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 00 4 " Longitude • 4
Design Current
lwme Un acity YO ulatton
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean a
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Boars
Design Current "Design Current
Poultry Ca acity Pp ulation Cattle Capacity Po ulstion
FA La er ❑ Dairy I
Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other I I I
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oon Area 10 Spry Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ILI No Liquid Waste Management System s
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):..
05103101
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes M No
❑ Yes P No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: f,3 — Date of Inspection S o
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? Yes � No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes go No
K Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes EA No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes [] No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes © No
12. Crop type OVe r-r ,u_etc -4- •St^.w G-,I-clE�---
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes [j No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15_ Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes B�No
16. is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes M No
Required Records, & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
O No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ic/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
[,No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ict irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
CR No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes]
No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
1�3 No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
No
0
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit
.gin.• --
Comments (refer to3gaestion . ): Eiplaut anv YES answers and/or any recommendattons or any,_other cowmen_ ts.
U e drswtngs ofafac'thty`to after ezplam sitna6oi>ks_(use„addittonal pages ss necessary} ❑Field Copy ❑Final Notes
-_
M"n-nJ4 J ' -aa Lot�_ �, 04
j Reviewer/Inspector Name i " j
IReviewer/Inspector Signature: V ,,,1 I A:I f% V fZ,_2Date T Q
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: Y3 — ;Aj Date of Inspection f!
Odor Issues
36_ Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or bclou
liquid Icvel 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 iocatcd near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems With the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts. missing or
or broken fan blade(s). inoperable shutters. etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
and/or
RYes ❑ No
❑ Yes [RNo
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes [� No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
Yes ❑ No
05103101

LZ
of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Q Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 83 21 Date of Visit: 09-25-20(F3 Time: 4:Wpm
Not Operational O Below Threshold
{� Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold_
Farm Name: 7.7Qb...................••••••.......................... .. County: Srnllvad --------------------------------- FRO---•--•---
Phone No: 41Q-243.3434------------------------------
MailingAddress: F.O.Rif;c.759.............................................................................................. R05g..W11-Ac ......................................................... 7.845.8 ..............
Facility Contact: DaWxk.W.illiamsaa...............................Title: ............................................... Phone No: ......................................
Onsite Representative: l►Jaras�altl-----------------------------_.---------- Integrator: ��rr9I1'� Evflds Iu�----------------------•
Certified Operator: Susatx.lYlkke.11c.................. I'ulsl ns............................................. Operator Certification Number: 2413-9 ............................
Location of Farm:
Da he east side of SR 1331 approx. 1.5 miles north of its intersection with SR 1324, north of Laurinburg.
w
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 34 • 56 11 Longitude F 79 • 28 ° 16 u
Swine a .Ca aci
❑ Wean to I eeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® barrow to Wean
2400
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Currents :Design , Curreu
=:Capacity. Poptilatioii = •Cattle t Capacity Population -,
" ❑ Layer 1. ❑ Dairy
`:.: ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total..Design Capacity- 2,400
r 'Total SSIL 1,039,200
Number of Lagoons ` 1 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Pondi / Sold`Traps 1 ` ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed f7om 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 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 ❑ No
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ® Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ® Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (frccboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
identifier: .......................
Freeboard (inches): •--•-••--.-••-••-••-••-••-• ..._. _...._.--• -- -•._..
05/03i01 Can inued

Facility Number: 8i-21
Date of Inspection 09-25-2003
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16_ Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. hail 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 ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this dsiL You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
-R�`Faa .�TLL`i'.i --. '. •' -.. � � q:�
Comments {refer taquation #} Explain arty YES answers and/or. any'recommeitdahous or any othet cammeistS
e
a c A
Ose drawings of facilitytoo better eivw situAons (use addahooal4pages as necessary)" ®Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
Farm visit in response to a spill reported to DWQ by Carroll"s employee Dawn Williamson. A recirculation pump had a line rupture and
continued to run undetected for an extended period of time. Company estimates for possibly three hours. The waste flowed from the
agoon area across the spray fields for approximately 400 yards to a head of woods between the fields. The flow continued through the
Dods for another approximate 150 yards and flushed into a thickly brush covered area which is a UT within the headwaters of
eaverdam Creek (Class C-SW ). Samples and photos were taken. The company had used heavy equipment to dike the waste flow in the
head of the woods. They were going to apply the collected wastewater onto their Bermuda fields.
er/Inspector Name °Larry Baxley Dale Lopez
E
er/Inspector Signature: Date:

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of visit:
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionaliy Certified 13 Registered
Farm Name:
Owner Name: -� / •J�r��S
Mailing Address: �or �
Facility Contact:
i Title:
Onsite Representative: -r u' <�-l�•s
Certified Operator: �i�.J✓
Location of Farm:
Time: =0�
10 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Date Last Operated or Above
%%Thresh
o d:
County: Ste` n
Phone No: __01 o
1[/G
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0' 06 " Longitude 0' 04 Du
D stgti Current Destgn h Current" D sign Current
Swtne Ca aci t=Po ulatton' Poultry. ,u Ca aci .s.,Po tilation Catttc Ca act EI'o ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
P=T ❑ La er
❑ Dairy
10 Non -Layer
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Dairy
® Farrow to Wean
06
a 5/a6
❑ Other
ElFarrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
r -" r Total D sign Capaciiy
❑ Gilts#
y Total SSLW
❑ Boars
LagoonsSubsurface
Drains Present ❑ La oon Area ❑ S ray Field APonds
rloldi�numberof
1 Solid Traps`
❑ No Li uid Waste Mana ement System
Discharges 8: Stream Impact
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste !Lollegtion & Treatment
4_ Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: q
Freeboard (inches): U s
41
05103101
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes C!3:No
❑ Yes WNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 09 No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: ,3 — 2
Date of Inspection 0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes 1f o
Cl Yes �JNo
❑ Yes IgNo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes ATNo
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes �:[No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes DO -No
12. Crop type 1/0
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes IRNo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes 7No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes �S No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes WNo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes tRNo
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Y No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
KNo
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WU chec lists, des ,mom, etc.) ✓ ✓
❑Yes
KNo
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
)RNo
20.
is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
§9 No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
%No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ® No
23. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes JS No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes 5 No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
=Umraents•'(riWrrto qiu hon #) Eirjilatn an YES4apsv►ets'andlar any reotienmendahans or any other co m 9� t
Use drawtn use addirioaal a es
f a to better ex tarn sitnatrgns ti ` " p g as necessary) ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
y
/..+off O.POt'✓�G "�c'L• .Crl/ �jjr�/��.� l3bS/�C!/��
r
Reviewer/Inspector Name p
a , *' ..'¢^.' q','. "R�h, .. h6 :
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: 3 — Date of Inspection DZ
Odor LsuLs
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ErNo
❑ Yes /!� No
El Yes O(No
❑ Yes -jvo
❑ Yes �RNo
❑ Yes NLNo
❑ Yes WNo
Additional;Comments�aidlor�i?rsw s::;,' • +
O5103101
O5103101

1.2 Routine Q Complaint Q Follow-up of DWQ ins ection Q Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection �w t
Time of Inspection I 124 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted © Certified [r Conditionally Certified 13 Registered 113 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm {dame: 1
......................7 ff_.............._................................................................. County:.......,. C6 f ......................................
Owner Name: al. -I -All �.................... Phone No:........ 2. G...'.. �0 Z65 ...... .....
Facility Contact: ........ ......................... Title:.. ............... Phone No: ..._........ .........................
Mailing Address:..... .6.... 1 .ti .r.........1-s'................................... ........ 1. 1V } f..... `!........... .....rZ�'�.0
Onsite Representative:.....-... ............. Integrator:....................
Certified Operator:......!•"S .................... .. !.)­.5 .............................. Operator Certification Number: ................................. .......
Location of Farm:
Latitudewine-
Design �' Current•-
❑ Wean to Feeder
;:._
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Z
s=
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
_.
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Longitude
. Design Current
Poultry Capitcity-:Populttton C
Design Current
tfle s r Ca act -rtPjiiiktion:._
Dairy
Non -Dairy
Number.ofLag000s ; ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area
Holdin , Ponds / Sohd Tra s ' _ x
g p ❑ No Liquid Waste Management SystemWE
DischarjZes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: 11
Freeboard (inches): ................
❑ Yes wo
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes 9j No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
[:]Yes
ONo
❑ Yes
9No
//` `"�`
Structure 6
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99
❑ Yes �No
Continued on Lack

.L— .,
Facility Number: — Z/ Date of Inspection d7
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes I�No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes j No
9.
Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
kNo
Waste Aoolication
10,
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? [IExcessive Pond OPAN
Yes
12.
�iing
Crop type MUOfGi SO4. a
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with tho a designa ed in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
4No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
1ANo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
j No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
( Yes
❑ No
16.
Is there'a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
Required
Records & Documents
IT.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
XNo
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
19,
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ YesgNo
No
20:
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes`
No
R -Y04000s or• 001400es •were h0t.00 dig Ns: vWt; • YOO 'will •te0viye do fiittW . .
i4lrespoxideitce: abot'k this visit . . . . . . : .:.......:.:::::.......:... .
&)ee
O 'eas (`w �rKk-4-
tleeds 'a
be--5pl-d
�
Afer�fJ/ -P rM I s
cCPV%I G cL10A_q Ida f/ �
r&_[�S
/��,e
are- Aellity yaa�
b15C u 55E4 �rM j l
j Reviewer/Inspector Name ��sAN
r a I
jj , Fes. _=, _ rem > __:_ n
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date: - 7 Q j) '

[ Facility Number: -- Z1 Date of Inspection I t,�-zr eV I
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes o
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
24. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes o
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or 0�
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes o
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes TNo
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
ALt

.[3Divisiori of Soil and Water Conservation - Operation Review .:
©:Division of Soil and Water Conservation -Compliance Inspection
Division of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
Othei lgency -Operation Review s'.
10Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number
Date offnspection r
I,,fi�ime of inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Expermitted ix Certified © Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered 13 Not Operational] Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ..................... ....�..rr...41.......l.../...�. ..... ............... County: ...... SC �`!f'iol...- C'... .....................
.................
Owner Name :...:.......... r ..�r.5....l-f `� �.f-.---- ...... Phone ;`o:............ 11 ..`.....Q!.� ..�-- ... ............ ,t.............. . .
Facility Contact: L�.x.�!..c„ title Phone No:
MailingAddress: ........... 1.s..D�.......... 1 ...... G...................................................... t r........N...�%%.................... a�...�.......
Onsite Represcntativc:.,-.,_.i M(�!�t!4r�'trh'� :,.,- Inh rator2�.,,",l�/•��' ................
......ter..... (...
Certified Operator: ................................................... ......•... Operator Certification Number: .................
Location of Farm:
........................... .................................... ........................................................ ............................. ................................................................................................. ...........
Latitude �•�� �' longitude �• ��°�
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
%Farrow to Wean
a .0o
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity a ��
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps f JEI No Liquid IVaste tManagement System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation (If yes, notify DWQ)?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Othcr
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-inadc'
b- It'discliarge is observed. did it reach: ❑ Surface Waters ❑ Waters of the Stale
e. If dischargc: is observed. what is the estimated floav in galhi in?
d. Docs 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 Seaters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm stora(=e) less than adequate'?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
[IYes �No
❑ Yes y No
El Yes //�� No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 0 No
Structure I Structure 2 Structur. 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: '
Freeboard{inches): ..... —aa.................. .......................................................................................................................
ix
1/6/99 Continued on back

Faci it3 Number: 9 — a r 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 No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement'? ❑ Yes No
8. Does any pact of the -waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required top of dike, maximum and minimum
liquid level elevation markings? ❑ Yes No
Waste ApOication
10. Are there any buffers that need ntaintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
11. is there evidence of over application? ❑ Ponding ❑ Nitrogen Yes �No
f r
l2. Crop type .............. ,)
............... + .... ....... .. .... ........................
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes [XNo
14. Does the facility lack wettable acreage for land application'? (footprint ❑ Yes )] No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? a �lte [Zes ❑ No
16. is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑Yes No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes (KNo
19. Does record keeping need improvement'? (ie,/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) [VYes ❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ElYes [(No
21. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes] No
23, Did ReviewerAnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'? ❑ Yes [ J No
24, Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes q(No
�: Nu.vitilatioits ar deficl' ncit's .were noted burin this: visit:. You vYi11're�ceive nog further
ederespbridehee' abotif this visit.:. .. ... ..... .. .. ... ..... .. .
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any. -recommendations or any other. comments 7
:-.. .
Use drawings, of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary)
A.
_7 11: .�
fp,
j
- C �p
i
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date. -3;0— 41 — V 11/6/99

Division of Soil and Water Conservation 0 Other Agency
Division of Water Quality
10 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWO inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other / I
Facility Number
Date of Inspection
Z
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm) .
D Registered JjCertified © Applied for Permit WPermitted 0 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
FarmName:......--- ................... .........—/,:..........................---..............
Owner Name: ........ i�.G? f.../. v lr_.. .. /�,. f .. .. r { e/3hj Phone No. z��...�' 3.7...��.......................................
Facility Contact: lr S.1f..C.... f �{.•......................... Title:..-6 r:- !....�. c/. ...........-----•• Phone No:...Z.7tP..'.�t?..7..�.........
Mailing Address:...7... �... / a c� c .. ..� ........Js....................................................................... s z�3
OnsiteRepresentative:......i.............................................................. Integrator :..................................................................... .................
Certified Operator:............................................................................. .............................. Operator Certification Number:.....................
Location of Farm:
Latitude
Des' Cni
Swute 'terCapacrtyPapu
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
z
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Longitude • ' "
iultry
❑ Non -Layer < [
❑ Other4,.;
Total Desigu'E
Non-D
tpacrty. Population
2 vao
(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
krNo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
((No
5_ Does any part of the waste management systern (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
No
maintenance/improvement?
C. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑Yes
No
7/25/97

Facility Number:
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons Holding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I
Identifier:
Freeboard (ft): ... ....17`..y.........
Structure 2 Structure 3
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
Structure 4 Structure 5
I I - is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes P�o
❑ Yes Xf No
Structure 6
❑ Yes 9No
❑ Yes P(No
❑ Yes )No
13. Do any of the structures Iack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? ❑ Yes KNO
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes ANo
(If in excess of WMP, or runof &1irr-Jv4.TkL enteriigwaters of the State, notify DWQ)y15. Crop type.. .........1.e.................................... I ...... I....... --................................................................................................................�..
16. Do the receiving crops differ wi those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes WNo
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ❑ Yes RLNo
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
No.violatio-nsor. deficiencies:were noted,dtirin� this.visit.- Yoit,will receiv`fio fdrth:er
cgrrespoddence abort this.visit: "
►->� 1 woks )r
Y -,A el/ IM41 y�
❑ Yes RR(No
❑ Yes �To
❑ Yes _ \\ 0
❑ Yes RFNo\
❑ Yes 1k, No
❑ Yes�No
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: <<.'A"/ Date: 49 -L /

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
RECENE lone 26, 1998
Carroll's Realty Partners JUL 2 3 1998
7706
P.O. Drawer 856 FAYETTEVILLE
Warsaw NC 28398 REG. OFFICE
Dear Carroll's Realty Partners:
1 11kT?W,A •
NCDENR
NORTH C.ARouNA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND N/;ruRAL. RESOURCES
Subject: Reissuance of Certificate of Coverage
No.AWS830021
7706
Swine Waste Collection, Treatment, Storage and
Application System
Scotland County
The Division of Water Quality modified the Swine Waste Operation General Permit originally issued to
this facility on July 28, 1997. In accordance with the issuance of the revised General Permit, we are
forwarding this Certificate of Coverage (COC) to Carroll's Realty Partners, authorizing the operation of
the subject animal waste collection, treatment, storage and land application system in accordance with
General Permit AWG100000. This approval shall consist of the operation of this system including, but
not limited to, the management of animal waste from the 7706, located in Scotland County, with an
animal capacity of no greater than 2400 Farrow to Wean and the application to land as specified in the
Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP).
The COC shall be effective from the date of issuance until April 30, 2003, and shall hereby void
COC No AWS830021 dated July 28, 1997. The COC shall hereby incorporate by reference any specific
conditions of the previous COC issued to this facility. The purpose of this COC is to allow coverage
under the revised General Permit. Please review the revised General Permit (enclosed) and pay
particular attention to Condition H.10 regarding tree removal from lagoon embankments, Condition III.I
regarding inspection frequency of the waste treatment, storage and collection system and Condition III.6
regarding notification requirements for system failures, spills and emergencies. Pursuant to this COC,
you are authorized and required to operate the system in conformity with the conditions and limitations
as specified in the General Permit, the facility's CAWMP, and this COC, with no discharge of wastes to
surface waters. An adequate system for collecting and maintaining the required monitoring data and
operational information must be established for this farm. Any increase in waste production greater than
the certified design capacity or increase in number of stocked animals above the number authorized by
this COC will require a modification to the CAWMP and this COC and shall be completed prior to
actual increase in either wastewater flow or number of animals.
Please be advised that any violation of the terms and conditions specified in this COC, the
General Permit or the CAWMP may result in the revocation of this COC, or penalties in accordance
with NCGS 143-215.6A through 143-215.6C including civil penalties, criminal penalties, and injunctive
relief.
P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Certificate of Coverage AWS830021
7706
Page 2
Upon notification by the Division of this COC's expiration, you shall apply for its renewal. This
request shall be made within 30 days of notification by the Division.
This COC is not automatically transferable. A name/ownership change application must be
submitted to the DWQ prior to a name change or change in ownership.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this COC are unacceptable, you have the
right to apply for an individual non -discharge permit by contacting the engineer listed below for
information on this process. Unless such a request is made within 30 days, this COC shall be final and
binding.
The subject farm is located in the Fayetteville Regional Office. The Regional Office Water
Quality Staff may be reached at [phone]. If you need additional information concerning this
COC or the General Permit, please contact Katharine Keaton at [phone] ext. 533.
S' erely,
for A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
cc: (Certificate of Coverage only for all cc's)
Scotland County Health Department
Fayetteville Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Scotland County Soil and Water Conservation District
Permit File

n ,.rr., _.. -- •—v6, r 't+r f .� ' �:+. R ,.y,: -9r-r33(., � 2 : � . .
[3 DSWC Aiiimal Feedlot Operatioa Review,"-:
,u, ,��, w�{.. -,. --.. �. Eck -. _^'a �'� •°s. ,, v� .� �,; t3.'�R�� r"�„Y';^� � so �>;� � "". � e� -_u f**� .
h �t DWQ` Animal Feedlot Operation Site Iuspechon*P s;
rA
.t
»
�.�,-��.
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DW2 inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility :Number
Farm Status ❑ Registered ❑ Applied for Permit
❑ Certified ).KCPermitted
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Date of Inspection �-
Time of Inspection© 24 hr. (hb:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
(ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
or Inspection includes travel andprocessing)
FarmName: .......7. 04--..—_-
Land Owner Name:..._.... •.....1r3L �.._%..�� Phone No:__...
Facility Contact. ... k Title: �. s... _...._ Phone No. Z7� D.. ....
Mailing Address: _ Q.. Ili !.r3er' ...�..._ .y _ -� - _ ..........S
Onsite Representative: ... c.. _ ........... Integrator:
Certified Operator: .'rhS&.'e y...................... Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
......... _ .... _ .... _ .. _ ... ...... ... . a
Latitude ° " Longitude + 1.
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
:,`.�,ce+--�.
��aaa'DeSEgna CeErrent a" ;q FDe51gn ' „Currentk ` leSln"zaCtlent
=rPoult...Catile�� :
� w ., Ca ae1 Po ulahon ...,,.ry h.F Ca acEtvt:�:Po elation " Ca aCi .,t Po ulation
r ❑Wean to Feeder La ❑ Da'
❑ Feeder to Finish Non La er a ❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow t0 Wean 00xaP „ ,ms, r:w4 xa: ' a
Farrow to Feeder Tt)ta1 DeSlgn~Capat:a[y
s
Farrow to Finishell
jk
❑ Other Ss 4� k� Yw G ;� I r m
'°`` §ds 3'�. * g f x' �:.
Namberof I:agoons=/Holding Ponds ❑Subsurface Drams Present
y Lagoon Area Spray Field Area
on
w,`�
General
1. Are there any butlers 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 gaUrnin?
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
4/30197 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes �ZNoo
Yes
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes JRVo
❑ Yes RfNo
Continued on back

Nseility Number:....._ -� ....
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures [Laffoons and/or holding P nd
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
Structure 4
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(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 Iack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes*o
❑ YesKNo
❑ Yes '�No
❑ Yes AND
Structure 5 Structure 6
Waste Application
14. is there physical evidence of over application?
(if in excess of W(jMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type /hose
16. Do the receiving crops differ with designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21_ Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
For CetUfisd Facilities Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes *No
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes TO
❑ Yes'KNo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes J9,No
❑ Yes �ZO
❑ Yeso
❑ Yes 9No
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes 4No
❑ Yes X[No
Comments (refer to question i } Eiplain-any YES answers`and/or any recommendations or any"6
Use'ajrawings of facility to better explain situations. (use addihonal'pages a`s necessary): r'
FQr' /✓1 t S i n Q� S�I��C f- t.�7B �� jIl/tq,� ri"�`0.i R � Q
J i
�QcM fs �n �i�4fjJ:akce
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: E 7(,o `q 7
cc: Division of Water Qualityj�,(Vater Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

Site Requires Immediate Attention: Na
Facility No. 83 -- a
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: Sui! i 4 _ , 1995
Time: 15. 30
Farm Name/Owner: Ca rY0 I � 3 4'� _ `7 7 0 C0 / _Ca.k-ro // "s Fo o d o .
`Mailing Address: 70 Saox 1767 Gacrr;Nbuvq NC z s3-53
County: 1-1
Integrator: Phone:
'On Site Representative: Phone:_ C91oJ 27 - Z 015-
Physical Address/Location: 5R 133 / nfca v s"A;1 s C-o we_ La..at
Type of Operation: Swine �f Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: ?,*oo f a-- WraN Number of Animals on Site: _ z-j 4+-00 — --
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: 34 ° S& ' !1 " Longitude: _* 29'
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately I Foot + 7 inches) Yes or No Actual Freeboard: 3 Ft. 0 Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes or No Was any erosion observed? Yes or No
Is adequate land available for spray? Yes or No Is the cover crop adequate? Yes or No
Crop(s) being utilized: Ca asi Qcl / .S 7 4G
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings? Yes or No
100 Feet from Wells? Yes or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or No
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line: Yes or No
Is animal waste discharged into water of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes or No If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? Yes or No
Additional Comments: #-.K C-,Awed
e,-Gky r�is /Q 9'4 -b
Inspector Name Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.

101 00 100 00:00 021 P02
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGMI NT
November 4, 1994
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
County
F?.}Tw
IS "30
On , , an inspection of your animal operation was performed
by
the
Fayetteville Regional Office (FAO). Please find enclosed
a copy
of
our
Compliance Inspection Report for your information. It is the
opinion
of
this
office that this facility is in compliance with 15A NCAC 2H,
Part .0217,
and
that Animal Waste Management is being properly performed.
should you have any questions regarding this matter, feel
free to
contact
me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Enclosure
cc. Facility Compliance Group

W
LAU S
.90. WM
Mi
FO
LM LM
IM
tom. J 13-
12H 1777 UVA
A
IM177r LZ
LNr
ltn
G� -P
IM Lai
im
ay T 140NO LM
Ap WE
Sn
U-4 Sd.9 LL"
UD LM ti:M
EM
1W
Liu lu tie TL
Lull LAU
L^WNNWRG lift
Akp.r
LEM
-CALSCW bw
o—
IA AU
Cn
LO
1W_
Lt.-,
LM W1
LIM
wiry 2
Scotland County' ZVY.
This southern border county was 1W
estabished in 1899. Laurinburg is the
county seat of Scotland County, named
so for Scotland in the British Isles from
which many of the early settlers of the
region came. -4X

101 00 100 00:00 021 P03
r
WORTH CAROLZRA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH & NATURAL RSSOURM
DIVISION Of ENVIRMMERTAL HANAMUNr
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal operation Compliance Inspection Form
,a�, �,: � ,�,�rc .
':.'S: � �fiwau:+�its`uk�xw�« ��r� �saon•��asr:;c,�;� «s:r.��s�f: _ M�ae�.tie<:xKov�o,..re,..R.w..ntro....,.>.:.M,...,�V.
y
v��..•r ra..;�r,•�o
� a.aww,h . aV�
,e,��.... �i� .�.�+F�} .�,.�..oj�s�'"° '"k'"'�.��,±+�Y���v.,.,«a;.
t' •,+r.o-.. '� � .n.•, n.< .,.�ee••«..�e.o-»«<.»..a:�.. "r :°
we.,nsw.•,e«.a�«�
°°° ;,�y, .'^.'., ,nU�„ »a"'�"oa.»r:.e^ae .....,..,,,......-. •.w -M
� �w/y-tt,.xr.� .. � �1tr�..n.�.�w,...,,
.aw.avn asM....rs'�rwr«°e'°����..�.
�,�e,�'i+:$.,�.ro °°u:.c
. ,� .�r.•.s
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
SECTION I
Animas. QR2ra'i.� Tyne;
Horses, cattle, swine, poultry, or sheep
1. Does the number and type of animal meet or exceed
the (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal Operation REGISTRATION?
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12-month period?
4. Does this facility have a CffitTIFIED ANIMAL
MASTH MANAGEPUM_ELM?
5_ Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
6. Does this facility meet the 5C5 minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc?
EA© .•r i�
9oD

r L 514 71% �
ARMOR III
rield._4ite Management
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction Within 100 ft. of a USGS
Map Blue Line Stream?
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a OSGS Hap
Blue Line Stream?
3. Does this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
d. Does the land application site have a
cover crop in accordance with the
5. Is animal waste discharged into Waters of
the state by man-made ditch, flushing system,
or other similar man-made devices? ..
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Hest Management Practices
(MM) of the approved .CWTMCATIOM?
7. Does animal Waste lagoon have -sufficient
freeboard? How much? {Approximately .2 - _)
8. Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
Ni:-
Cgmmentrs
a•;,