830022_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NOHTH CAHOLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
830022 Facility Status:
Active Permit AWS830022
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit
Routine
County: Scotland Region:
Fayetteville
Date of visit:
0211312017 Entry Time: 02:00 pm
Exit Time: 3:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Farm 7688
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude. 34' 55' 44" Longitude: 79' 28' 23"
On the east side of SR 1331 approx. 1.5 miles north of its intersection with SR 1324, north of Laurinburg, NC.
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): Name Title Phone -
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone
Primary Inspector. Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number: 830022 Facility Status: Active permit AWS830022
Inpsection Type. Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit Routine County: Scotland Region:
Date of Visit; 02/1312017 Entry Time: 02:00 pm Exit Time: 3:00 pm Incident 9
Farm Name: Farm 7688 Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC Phone:
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
❑ Denied Access
Fayetteville
910-296-1800
Facility Status: Compliant Not Compliant Integrator Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34` 55' 44" Longitude: 79° 28' 23"
On the east side of SR 1331 approx. 1.5 miles north of its intersection with SR 1324, north of Laurinburg, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: .lames Brian McGugan Operator Certification Number: 986752
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Sits Representative(s): Name Title Phone -
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone
Ors -site representative Mike Cudd Phone
Primary Inspector. Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspectors):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS830022 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830022
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
❑ Swine - Farrow to Wean 2,400
Total Design Capacity: 2,400
Total SSLW: 1,039,200
Waste Structures
Dislgnated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Data Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon i 19.00 52.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS830022 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830022
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yea
No Na Na
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)
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
01111
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage S Treatment
Yes
No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property addressed and/or managed through a
❑0
❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑M
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicabte
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN n 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS830022 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830022
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
WastB 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
Rains
Soil Type 3
Wagrarn
Soil Type 4
Sal Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
E ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
N ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
E ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■ ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of 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?
❑
E ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
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: AWS830022 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 830022
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 inpsection Type: Complianoe Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Ka No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑0
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
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-oompliance:
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?
❑
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Ne No
28. bid the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29_ At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
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 file drains exist at the facility?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
M ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33, Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑0
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
M ❑
❑
page: 5

0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
El
Other Agency
Facility Number: 83DO22 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS830022
❑ Denied Access
tnpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Scotland Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 03/16/2015 EntryTime: 10:00 am Exit Time: 11:00 am Incident #
Farm Name: Farm 7688 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' 55' 44" Longitude:
79° 28' 23"
On the east side of SR 1331 approx. 1.5 miles north of its intersection with SR 1324, north of Laurinburg, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, 8 Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues Wells
Certified Operator: James Brian McGugan Operator Certification Number:
986752
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone:
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Robert Marble
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWS830022 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830022
Inspection Hate: 03/16/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 2,400
Total Design Capacity: 2,400
Total SSLW: 1,039,200
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00 25.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS830022 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830022
Inspection Date: 03/16/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No No No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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)
❑
❑ 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?
❑
■ ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
■ ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection Storage & Treatment
Yes No No Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No No Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
[]
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS830022 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830022
Inspection pate: 03/16/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Gress
(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
Rains
Soil Type 3
Wagram
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 5
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
❑
M ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
M ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No No 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?
❑
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: AWS830022 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830022
Inspection Date: 03/16/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Ns Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
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
❑
E ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
E ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■ ❑
❑
der 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,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
E ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewf+nspection with on -site representative?
❑
■ ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■ ❑
❑
page: 5

Facility Number: 830022
Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Date of Visit: 03/2412014 Entry Time: 10:00 am
Farm Name: Farm 7688
MDivision of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
El Other Agency
Active Permit: AWS830022
Inactive Or Closed Date:
County: Scotland Region:
Exit Time: 11:00 am Incident #
Owner ]`mail:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC Phone:
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: -34' 55' 44"
On the east side of SR 1331 approx. 1.5 miles north of its intersection with SR 1324, north of Laurinburg, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge S Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Facility Status:
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Other Issues
❑ Denied Access
Fayetteville
910-296-1800
Longitude: 79' 28' 23"
Waste Application
Certified Operator: Michael L Cudd Operator Certification Number: 25233
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Situ Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Records reviewed 3/13/14.
Site visit 3124114,
page: 1

Permit: AWS830022 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830022
Inspection Date: 03/24/14 Inpsection 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
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19,00
page: 2

Permit: AWS830022 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830022
Inspection Date: 03/24/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ M
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ M
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
No
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le.! large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na 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: AWS830022 Owner- Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830022
Inspection Date: 03/24/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Applicabon
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
Rains
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16, Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
N ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes_ No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
E ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have ail components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
El
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
E ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS830022 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
830022
Inspection Date: 03/24/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Me
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
❑
M ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
01111
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
M ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
M ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
M ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■ ❑
❑
page: 5

■ Division of Water Resources
❑
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Outer Agency
Facility Number.
830022 Facility Status:
Active Permit AWS830022]
Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit:
Routine
County: Scotland Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 02/25/2013 Entry Time: 12:00 pm Exit Time: 1:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name: Farm 7688 Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC Phone:
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34' 55' 44" Longitude: 79` 28' 23"
On the east side of SR 1331 approx. 1.5 miles north of its intersection with SR 1324, north of Laurinburg, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge 8 Stream impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
910-296-1800
Certified Operator: James Brian McGugan Operator Certification Number: 986752
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Records reviewed 214113
Site visit 2125/13
page: 1

Permit: AWS830022 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830022
Inspection Date: 02/25/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 2,400
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS830022 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830022
Inspection Date: 02/25/13 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ ■
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ ■
❑
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
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.1 large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ E ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0130
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: AWS830022 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830022
Inspection Date: 02/25/13 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na Me
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
Rains
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?
❑
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?
❑
E ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
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: AWS830022 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830022
Inspection Date: 02/25/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
E ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑E
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
Ell
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a PDA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
N ❑
❑
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 DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
E ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
■ ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
E ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■ ❑
❑
page: 5

Type of Visit: 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation p Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: G Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency O Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: I Arrival Time: Departure Time: C7 l�t County t Region: F(�
Farm Name: ��q_ Owner Email:
Owner Name: u_;ULC Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: W`t V_e,0_L JJ Title:
Onsite Representative: 11
Certified Operator: Nfie, Ce_a Q_� `
Phone:
Integrator: Nulroha exotoc�
Certification Number: I & -3L
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Design Cnrrent
_.. , :,
Design
Current
: Design Current
Swine
Capacity Pap.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
Non -Layer
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
=
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
Design
Curren#
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D . Poalt
Ca aci
P.o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turke s
Other
Turkey Polets
Other
Other
Discharees 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 Uf No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [:]No
[:]Yes [:]No
[:]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes [P No
[:]Yes Vq No
(� NA ❑ NE
® NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

EacWty Number: - .- Date of Inspection: c,)_5-
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No ja NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
•i
Observed Freeboard (in): ;3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
�U 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
E8 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
93 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
[)n No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [j 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): &ZStal 6e(M UJ6_ � (Q S5jl Ia.S u iG� �fYkl I ao r f1 `�1''C_
13. Soil Type(s): _ L� t j Qct a � LA *
am
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
07V No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design [:]Maps [:]Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [:]Yes [;P No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? [:]Yes ® No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

•acili umber: - Date of inspection: - cP - /
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
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)
❑ Yes
[)g No
0 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
0 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes [�g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [] Yes
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes
Dd No
❑ NA
❑ NE
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
XW No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or: any additional recommendations or any otber comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
�Coirc�S t�L.1;�1•EcJE� 21ti�(�,
�t t
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3of3
Phone: q 10- ` '33-3-300
Date: 3-
21412011

t ype of visit: W Uomptiance Inspection U Operation Review U structure Evaluation U Fechnical Assistance
Reason for Visit: A Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral p Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: n (']. Arrival Time: Departure Time: /.On County:,SCXr6-tj-PJD Region:FFO
Farm Name: ! Owner Email:
Owner Name: L..t*C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: rM LG1) - _ Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
SDesrgn
Curren#
ign Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity
. Pap.
Wet PMD:e,
apac�ty� Pop.
Cattle
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
Dai Cow
Da' Calf
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Feeder to Finish
;: =r;"`
Dai Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design�4C Tent
Multrm.
Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D . �Ptap a—C-1 Po
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Nan -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
an, nPr
wM&
Turkeys
Other ,, .,..
..:
Turkey Pouets
Other
Other
Discharees 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 99 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No [� NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Ins p ection:
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:
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
le
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
T
Application
_Waste
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
1� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals
(Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 tbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate
Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
Q12. Crop Type(s): Sim, � �72 V��C. l r � cicd
_
13. Soil Type(s):,n
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated i the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
T� 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
I S. Is there a tack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19_ Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
f�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
R9 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 qP No
❑ Waste Application El Weekly Freeboard [:]Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste T sfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crap Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? [-]Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 1K
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes PpNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
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?
e�e C'8'_J_5 Vt"Pa --2 /�
me, m r� 3l5l I Z-
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
F
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes `-t' No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes M No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Phone:
Date:
21412011

Type of Visit 8 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit *Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 3 'Z Arrival Time: Q( Departure Time- • P'1 County: Region:
Farm Name: ©S Owner Email:
Owner Name: [-fir Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ml'I Title:
Onsite Representative: N
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phhone No:
Integrator:-
Operator Certification Number: 174
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [—] 0 0 ' E:] u Longitude: E::] ° 0' E:] "
,-.
D£ity� p T erent
Swine Ga aci Po ulahon
Wet Poul �
.,. DP ign Pow alahan
Current
Ca acityLp _
Dest Current
ty Population
Cattle ,..Cap �
to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dai Cow
to Feeder
❑Non -La er
❑ Dai Calf
r to Finish
❑ Dai Heifer
to Wean
to Feeder
FFarrow
to Finish
ft
Dry Pouly❑
ers
❑ Non -La ersPullets❑
s
❑ Turke Poults ❑Other
-`X'"=La
D Gow
Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co-Turke
Number o€ Structures:
Discharges & Stream Facts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
IQ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
[�LNA
❑ 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
ONA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
P] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
INo
ElNA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
1228104
Continued

t
Facility Number: Date of Inspection l 31
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?
Stru ture 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
[]Yes QgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NINA ❑ NE
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
R1 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA El NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
`P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
Waste ARplication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
IpNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
F 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 Elidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of
Area
12. Crop Dplp-,�
type(s) [moo
13. Soil type(s)LJ,p�C
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑
Yes
[�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[R No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA ❑ NE
�r� .
Comments (refer to questtoni#) Eg}5laut any YES answers and/or any amm- eennd�attons or any outer comments.
Use dra . Zof'facthty�to'better expEatn_ situations. (nse addttiunal,pages as,ueeessary,):
���',�
,fit Jly�-� eo►dz..."� r.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
y°, Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
Page 2 of 3 12178104 Conffnued

1
V
w !r
Facility Dumber: —p:;P_ Date of Inspection�1�2JI� I
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 El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement`! If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 50 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
[:]Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
JR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27_
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
JR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ffl No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29_
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
JANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
�1 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
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
Jp No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings: - `}
Page 3 of- 3 12128104

w
Type of Visit (3Tompli nee Inspection Q.Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑Denied Access
Date of Visit: '247d Arrival Time: Departure Time.- %;00 m County: Sca�daiJd
Farm Name: 76991 Cad ��OsJ _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: 'Brr"lAl Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: fm d J Title: L /yWN Mop n Q5.COY _ Phone No: _
Onsite Representative: Integrator: M''QryW.-V
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Operator Certification Number: I7 6 3r
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ❑ o [= , =As Longitude: ❑ e =1 =1 "
WIDesignCurrent Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish ❑ Layer I
Design CurrenPopulation
Cattle Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
I
I
QDairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
[]Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
I
Z'100
I
Dry Poultry
El La ers
El Non -Layers ers
Pullets
—Turkeys Turkey
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
ElBeef Stocker
❑
FED Boars
ElBeef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Poults
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: El Structure ❑ Application Field El 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 CI'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No IVA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No [B<A
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No �]A
N ❑ NA
❑ Yes VNo
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 I2/18/04 Continued

Facility Number: S — O Z
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 _ No ❑ NA El NE
❑ YesLTivo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): .3 O ,/ �
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes B 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 to ❑ 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 [3 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) '
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes B<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste AnntlCation
10_ Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes L7No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenancelimprovemenYl 11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ElB
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 Area
12. Crop type(s) L3i_*-^4u �ct. �j��S+-e_ �iu.�l� Grk�,✓ �O�S
13. Soit types) l9i l e a c , RQ,r vS , 1 -
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
LTNo El NA ❑NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
;��No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
io ❑ NA ❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name ��7K.Rj �-V," I =Phone: 9/0 - y33-3300
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: '< " 70/0
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 6' —QZZ Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents �
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 2 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.
❑ Yes
2 o ❑ 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
hlo ❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
,--,[
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
,M<oo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
,l��,'N�o
L��+�, oo ❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
�l
8 No ❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
2 ❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
,.,/Noo 0 NA
El NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
�B
Lt ❑ 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
9 o ❑ 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
,�
B'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
Page 3 of 3 12128104

a �T RMS ( elloslzO09
ivision of Water Quality
Facility Number �Z Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit
Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
,Com�pliance
(3 Routine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: /D- Q 9 Arrival Time: 3'.20 Departure Time: ,�: �o H., County: _d d' `r-'yd Region: lc/w
Farm Name: 7&3T .. Owner Email:
Owner Name:Y !�PZMJ A.1 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: &&" 4 riv c.✓ Title: /te r= Phone No:
Onsite Representative: _ gu�sa�-�✓w Integrator: WAr!A/ Be&LJ^J
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = 0 =' = Longitude: = ° =' =
Design Current Design Current Design Curren#
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity," Pop.ul
—atiion , x
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean 2400
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Fa er
on -La ei
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
E]Dry Cow
❑ Non-Dairyi
i
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
!
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 2<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
E NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
BINA
❑ NE
E NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
ET'N_oo
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes
21 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

r . _V
Facility Number: S3—z Z Date of Inspection 3 •-/O-0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
El Yes
,�,�
L' No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No G1A ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: 76 97
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
_
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
ElYes
L7 No ❑ NA El NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
,��,��
L<o ❑ 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
Rgo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
D<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9_ Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
�
D- o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
8'�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
l . Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
D<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu,
Zn, etc_)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside
of Area
12. Crop type(s) 43 e_k-r't'L& d 9X_ (oa g,. a C' Ya i,
ll
13. Soil typc(s) RC, LAJ C.LE
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
NNo
ElNA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
�O
L] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16_ Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[:] Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
ElE Yes
E<o
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
E o
❑ 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/Inspector Name Phone: g��•�33. 33 o O
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 3 /- 7-0 a 7
fL/LO/Ulf 4f/.19 NCfe

Facility Number: '73 — 2 Z Date of Inspection 3 /O —O
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ,E NNo El NA ❑ NE
L
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes _f No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropiate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
EKo
❑ 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 D Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
B No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
B<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
D<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes 'NoL�,,!![I NA El NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ElE Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues ��/
28. Were anv additional nroblems noted which cause non-comnliance of the nermit or CAWMP? [I Yes B7 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
5No
❑ 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
_ _,
9<0
❑ 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
ET o
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
[I[3 Yes
--,,��
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
B o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

o
0 Division of Water Quality
F=1==F5cit1fiitymber D ZZ _ O Division of Soil and V4'ater Conser.Vation
-- - .Other Agency
Type of Visit sD-Co—mpliance inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 3-25-Arrival Tinie: Departure Time: County: .
Farm Name: 7� Owner Email:
Owner Name: "'[� i��W� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Region: �W
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Ea If j ti "Title:. �++-s /°7�/� Phone No:
Onsite Representative: integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: =0 0' [_] Longitude: =o =, = «
urrent
Design Current Design Current DesiW.'
Swine Capacity Papula#ion et P UItry Capacity 1opulation Cattle C►apaopulation
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La er
❑Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
r -
k
i
El Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
z
Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
El Gilts
Discharges
& Stream Impacts
5;rOWA14d
. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
& Stream Impacts
5;rOWA14d
. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
❑Yes
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: El Structure ❑Application Field ❑Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
[]Yes
4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
El Yes
14 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters ofthc State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes,, nobly DWQ)
[I Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑Yes
[ja No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12/28/04
Continued

Facility Number: ?3— Z Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes Vf No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a_ If yes; is waste level into the structural freeboard? ElYes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 9"
Observed Freeboard (in): Z9
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes 91 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [25 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes M 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 ElEvidence of Wind Drift ElApplication Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) ge-%lNKdlek— [ / 6/6/'�I C— 6f4. `n/ �..s
13. Soil type(s) R, 0 s ,
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAW MP?
❑ Yes
R1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[9 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
8 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
r
Comments refer to . uestion.#•.. Explain an • YES answers and/or any reeommefidations or any other comments'
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional hsr pages as necessary):` ,
Reviewer/Inspector Name ���tG � t..n/ t-1—� ��--� Phone: •33 U 0
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 3 '-2 .5'-- ZOO p
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: gj- ZZ Date of Inspection 3-ZS D
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 [rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists El Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �5No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application Cl 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?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
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
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? (iel 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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
18 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
V No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
FNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[FNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes P4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
PrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
RINo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

B_rMS eIV Ac.YC,d s'/VZII g
Type of Visit 0,CIInee Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 3'ZS-OQj Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: s`�`' "' Region:
Farm Name: 4 7 Owner Email:
Owner Name: � � gird fa
Phone:
Mailing Address:
Phvsical Address:
Facility Contact: RI-4 J 23u "Title: � _ Y' Phone No:
Onsite Representative: ��^� Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [� o ❑ j ❑ tj Longitude: 0 0 01 0 {1
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La cr
❑Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La er
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean '7iOQ
❑ Farrow to Feeder
El Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
:,_. ,
tj
Other Oft❑
❑ Other i Al❑
=
Dry Poultry
-
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Lavers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
Turke v Poults
Other
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
Discharzes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
❑ Yes
EffNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
59 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State`? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
51 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
V] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
ERNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
-0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge`?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection 3'ZS-p
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
V1 No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier: l
Spillway?,
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
[--]Yes
M No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Oe/ 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
F No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8.
Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
1�1 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
�RNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10.
Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
99No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11.
Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
[R No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12.
Crop type(s) ��li�Aat��t �r / 4L/ ��i/�✓ C�, 5 .�
13_
Soil type(s) '9/4"ki Z4
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes
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
w3
Comments (refer to question #);. Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.,-,
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):.
y
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone: 91,9•33. 33d�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: S73 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [FNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �H 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
[4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
IM No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�B No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
�RNo
❑ 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
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal'?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Re viewerA nspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33_
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

4 X 03f la.1O7 Uv1
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ® Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: %;004iv1 Departure Time: SOD yet County: SCdf l
Farm Name: S 0 N � h F � 4 .5 # 77051 Owner Email:
Owner Name: I r! U rQ �L. S i-O W N PhanP-
Mailing Address:
Region: )/40
Physical Address: nn � 11
Facility Contact: TNQNd. a L�u/ieaGsNcY' Title: /Y%s Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: E__1 V ET E::] u Longitude:[--] ° 0 u
DesignF.Crre��rrenapaciulahoit1.-
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
10 Layer 1
1 10 Non -Layer I 1
Cattle, Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ an to Finish
❑ an to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Z o �
:-wry Pointry � '�
El D Cow
El Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
❑El
❑ Layers
Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
Non -La ers
El❑Beef
Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beet Brood Co
Other''
i-7 ❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey PoultsS'
❑ Other
�..
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
Q1No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
CA No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does 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
[PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
V1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of
12128104
Continued

Date of Inspection
Facility Number: g' j — 2'2—
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
Q9 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
t9 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 19
Observed Freeboard (in): ZI
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
q 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
��yy
ILA No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or i0 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) Bur-u_ , I— _ 4."_` G R-Zz C_ G
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
C9No
❑ 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
P9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Cotnments (refer to. question #) Explain any YES answers and/or any.eecommendahons or any other comments
.Use drawings�of facility to better'explim situations. (use additional pages is necessary):.
Reviewer/inspector Name 1 G C.AI�.S # Phone: CNO `f 33. 333 0
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

y• f
Facility Number: S3 —ZZ Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes EgNo ❑ 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 El Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ElNA ElNE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
R No
[:]'NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
(9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
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
(A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
PfNo
.❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

- e Division of Water Quality
]Facility Nurriber 3 ��Z Q Divisii&US-oilaM.61ernConservation
Type of Visit B Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ®Routine O Complaint O Follow up Q Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: -QS-O Arrival Time: Z: f Departure Time: L j p County: s 0'//1/d Region: F2Q
Farm Name: _ -__ 24 9g Owner Email:
Owner Name: "ems.. - Bs�x.Jn� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: r < <- �r Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator: _Zt-,t, e4EATT-J
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [� o [=] , [� Longitude: = ° =
Design C*urrentIliDesign
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Fopulation WetP-o�ul n .Capacity
Populati©n
., Cat#le Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑Layer
❑
DairyCow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Non -Layer
❑
DairyCalf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
DryPoteltry .
�
❑ D Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
` ❑Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
a El Beef Brood Cowl
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turkeys
❑ Tur ey Pouets
❑Other
Number of fructures.111111
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I . 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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
21 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: F3 — ZZ Date of Inspection
j Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [YNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
M
Observed Freeboard (in): yg
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
WNo
❑ 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
WNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
S. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
7 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
EyNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
q No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
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 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) !J f-VA4 q nL (grw 3 e .r,
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[)0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
7No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
19 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
IT Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[;&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or.any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: (p —V-5 2-Do �P
14 C i VJ !L/L 0/V'/ 4U"Corl"C"

• Facility Number: — Z Date of Inspection G d
R Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes jNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes �5No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [51No ❑ 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
rgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
VjNo
❑ 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
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
99 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
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
Ep No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewhrispection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 16 Routine O Complaint O Follow up Q Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
pule of Visit: O Time:
Facilitt lumber Z2.
hot O eratitmnai Below Threshold
❑ Permitted ® Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or above Threshold:
Farm Name: r) Countv:�
Owner Name: �r�r rb i ��S-GJ'r�n # f?, Phone No: a
Mailing Address: � C���SL
Facility Contact: _ _ j'� M e, Vak e.., 6c, CL_el' Title:
Phone No:
OnsiteRepresentative: . V.V A 1AeAk.Q,A_b6,ek0_ Integrator: Carf;5IVC
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0' �� k Longitude 0•
Design Current
Swine C9narift Panulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
t �
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boats
Design Current Design Current
Poaltry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Po ubtiou
Laver ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Laver JE3 Non-Dain,
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
I Number of Lagoons I l I JL1 Subsurface Drains Present JjL1 Laeooa_ .area JU Spray Field Area
LHolding Ponds / Solid Traps ILI No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharses g Stream Impacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any pan of the operation?
Discharge oriOnated at: ❑ Lasoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Rater of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in eat/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 ColIggtioSI & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
ldentifier:
Freeboard (inches): .Z2
0510310.7
:)-8
❑ Yes Ej No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
5R No
❑ Yes
ED No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: 3 — a date of Inspection 1 3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes [ANo
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? ❑ Yes No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes W 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 3e-i'V n is J-_- 'f— t` " i.
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
Reauired 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 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/hsspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes ® No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes]' No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes [] No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
�,4 �00� t cu�O1 �l y 03, Ok- S� Ace iL
l` VAI exce c �eJ &L— t "a �R61, 1E �,� [ /a tj ezc'j4 &C
"S 4,►,r .: , % 2 s o �„� acre � a rr � � � � p,(-�J
Reviewer/Inspector Name I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: V
Date:
O5103101
Continued

Facility Number: 83 Date of Inspection �3 0
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanentltemporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes Q No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes ❑ No
05103101

IType of Visit ® Compliance inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Fallow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility_ Number Date of Visit: r O 3 Time: a O
rO Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted Q Certified Q Conditionally Certified [3Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: CGrr„l�tS 7?"006Q SnC . County: r..-k&,& (��g
Owner Name: It 4-n_jz Phone No: t Cp�_' 2 7-6. -Sto 3 -A-
Mailing Address: n D, dnX $5G ri. C , 19
Facility Contact: 12c.4-4 r. S Title: _ LN. m Phone No: SA n'a
Onsite Representative: Integrator: _ e ,0--',
Certified Operator: _.� &rA, i,..a Operator Certification Number: X4 13 q
Location of Farm:
W Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 �Du Longitude a 4
Design Current
awrne Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean Oc7
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer Eo
Dai❑ Non -La er Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Subsurface Drains Present
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?
Area JLJ Spray Field Area
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: p
Freeboard (inches): 1
05103101
❑ Yes [K�No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 1� No
❑ Yes t� No
❑ Yes [!� No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection S o
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?
❑ Yes '91 No
❑ Yes ❑allo
❑ Yes W No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes EO 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 hype Be rrrg a- 9", 6rC.; n
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes fit' No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
Reauired 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, fi-eeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
[A No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
No
21,
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
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
b�] No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
q No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
p'tComments {refer t"o.question # Explain y YES.answers andlor;any recommendations o&any�other comments:.
jUse'drawings of facility to better eiplatn'situath) use additional pages as necessary) ❑Field Copy ❑Final Notes
h i� 11 a ) C4A—( 60 ire. A o
cd : A' �av
Reviewer/Inspector Name;4 ki
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: O
05103101 Continued

Facility Dumber: 9,3 — Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lad=oon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
7. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. is there anv 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.)
l _ Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submersed fill pipe or a permanentitemporary cover?
Comments and/or
NYes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
❑Yes No
❑ Yes EN No
❑ )'es ® No
4 Yes ❑ No
05103101

(Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: !� Time: FFacilih• Number 83 22
Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified [] Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold_
Farm Name: Q41:r.Qll.A 7.7.QS......................... County: Smilmd --------------------------------- ERf?--•--•---
Owner Name:._--- --------_---_-- __---CajxjAUFoadsLle--------------- Phone No: 91Q293.3431-----------------------------
,Mailing Address: Jr.2.B.9.0.59............................ ,1 oSICJlJU..i\[C............................ . 2845.8 ..............
Facility Contact: .......... .........Title ................................... Phone No: ......................................
Onsite Representative:._---------------------------------------------____-- Integrator: �arr�A' Eas?sL�it----------------------•
Certified Operator: .................. jrgXkins............................................. Operator Certification Number: 2.413.9 ............................
Location of Farm:
J'n the east side of SR 1331 approx. 1.5 miles north of its intersection with SR 1324, north of Laurinburg, NC.
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 34 • 55 00 G Longitude 79 • 2$ 38 K
n
Design Current _. _ _ Design Current Design Current -
Swine Ca acity Po uladon Poultry Ca acitf Po ulation Cattle '_: Ca aci Po' t lation
❑ 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
Total Design Capaeiifyj" E: 2,400
Total SSLw ; 1,039,200
Number.of Lagoons 1 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holtifiitig Ponds:/ Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System _
Discharges & Stream impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes ❑ 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 (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure G
Identifier: 7.7Q�.......... ......... z7.Qk.........
Freeboard(inches): ............ 19............ ..... ......1.4-._-._.._.. .......................... _...._. _.._. _. _.._I... ........................... .......................
05/03/01 Continued

Facilixy Number: 83-22 Date of Inspection 0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes El 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 ❑ 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
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 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
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question '#) Ezplatn any XES answee5 and/or any recommendations or any other, comments
. j 5� .:
Use drawings oifaahty t6.beiter explain situations? (use addttdonai pages es;necessary): k '
..: Field Co pY Final Notes
�; � ;..;r- � .;. w.- s ��, - a -
•,��t5. ,�
Visited farm on 7-10-03 in response to reported high freeboard resulting from TS Bill. Walked the lagoon banks and found no problems.
Spoke with farm OIC Eric Ferrall about farm operation and maintenance. Asked him about apparent erosion repairs from diversion water
ff the houses_ This is near the lagoon bank, but poses no apparent threat at this time.
Reviewer/Inspector Name harry Baxley
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

Facility Number ,? Z Z Date of Visit: Time:
�`ot O erational Belor�• Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [] Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: �/ �+- / 7d County: �e��/i�s✓�
Owner Name: St.--, �` /6 z Phone No: ICTIdJ -� YJ
Mailing Address: 0� f !=7 3� ltC C
Facility Contact: Title- Phone No:/� %
Onsite Representative: aol`�s Integrator:—r%+1�/�/�
Certified Operator: 473G ����f Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • 6 " Longitude 0' 0` O K
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacitv Population Cattle Ca acity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer I I I Da'
El Feeder to Finish ❑Non -Layer ❑Non-Dai
® Farrow to Wean
Ga
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons'- .. ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oon Area ❑ S rav Redd Area
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps: ILI No Liquid Waste Management Svstem
r
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 B& Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillwav
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Structure 5
❑ Yes J{ No
❑ Yes JR No
❑ Yes &No
❑ Yes & No
❑ Yes 9No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ,® No
Structure 6
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: — ZZ
Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel 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
❑ Yes E� No
❑ Yes CjNo
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes r�!] No
❑ Yes ® No
10. Are there tiny buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
IL Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic 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 KNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes 7No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes [RNo
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
4 No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
JR No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
RNo
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
WU design,
❑ Yes
No
(ie/ �ecklists, maps, etc.) / ✓
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample ports)
❑ Yes
;N 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 fait to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
El 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 IN No
25, Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes 0 No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Eomments (refer to question #i7: Explain any YES Lndlor any recommendations or any older comments.
Use drawings of facility #o better exphtin situations. (use addidonal pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy El Final Notes
AAdk
zi/ 4d/�� ,mow-��i.� ,
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: % dZ
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: — u 1 Date of Inspection O
Qd-01 Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor 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 XNo
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes �KNo
❑ Yes PNo
❑ Yes (No
❑ Yes :QNo
05103101

Division of Water.Quality -
-:
0-Division of Soil and --Water Cimseirvat�on_
66itier Agency,
Type of Visit IQ Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number a Date of Visit: 5`o?r-OI Timc: E== Printed on: 7/2l/2000
Q Not O erational O Below- Threshold
Permitted ❑ Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Thres old: ...............•
11,11c)
S /
FarmName IU S .... County:.............r-dl.........................................................
Owner Name:...... .�� S Pods ' T� C_ ............. ........ Phone No:
_......................_.................�.........................
Facility Contact: ' .... Cca l�� r1 ... Title:......... U. Z%1. .... Phone No: ...................................................
MailingAddress: ...................................................................................................................... .............--................................................_.............._...... ..........................
Onsite Representative:
Integrator:
Certified Operator ! .. . 1<r,G�
P ............... .............................1{�,c............................... Operator Certification Number:
Location 'of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude a t 66 Longitude • 4 64
-Desip Current Design Current Design Cnrreut
Swi�te
Cailmcity<Po elation Poultry Ca aci ' . Population Cattle - Njiullation
Wean to Feeder ❑Layer ❑Dairy
Feeder to Finish 10 Non -Layer 10 Non -Dairy
r ; Farrow to Wean yoD
ti4 Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
Farrow to Finish Total D ca 2/0 d
Y= Gilts �51go pSClty p?
Boars Total: SSL W
Number of i;lsFO Subsurface Drains Present Lagww Area 10 Spray Field Area
' Hol4d'wg Potrids /Solid Ttraps < ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System -
z
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes A
No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes o
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑Yes o
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 KNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes lfo
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure
Identifier: ...............................
Freeboard (inches): IjA
5100 U Continued on back

Facility Number: 83 — as Date of Inspection —OEPrinted on: 7/21/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes 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 4No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
[XNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
0 No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
KNo
1 L Is there evidence ofover application?? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
[� No
12. Crop type lief ! Grrc; u Q%35ee(
y
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
9(No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
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?
•vioiatigris :or deficiencies mere .. during this:visit: • Yoa 'Wdl i-e. . . . t.. #... .
eorresponc�eike' ah6ik this visit. .. _
Comments (refer to ques6ob #) Expiain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or an3
ty . xp , .' (use"adchboinal pages as n lJse drawtngsAof faeiii to:bettere `imt► stttiations
n [� ecessary)
r �od+ tr.trh �t fYIG;n�une
❑ Yes V No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [(No
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes 1r No
❑ Yes �-No
1W
Reviewer/Inspector Name } -
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Ci
5100

Facility Number: - a bate of Ietspection ?9 0 Printed on: 7/21/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below 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 O(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, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes [XrNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes [(No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? P(Ycs
❑ No
Additional Comments :an orDrawings:._
J
5/00

J0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follo=;2Z o DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number 2 Z Date of Inspection
Time of inspection EM 24 hr. (hh:mm}
JU Permitted 0 Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered 0 Not O erational Date Lalst Operated:
rT '11U 7205 County: s.�C:> (. ...
Farm Name: ....... .......... ... �........ ......
Owner Name. Car i`fa..� �... ���5 -�..... Phone No. 2 76 ` 06'7`...........................
t f...............f...' _...I.. .....................--•-•-----..
Facility Contact:.....L..........%lC�................ Title: 41................. Phone No: -..... ..............
Mailing Address:......v..._Q,......D..PA_L�.�4J....... .... C 1. � .C? `s�2r..... ........ 2
.......
OnsiteRepresentative: ................ . ......................................................................................... Integrator: ......................................................... ............ ....- ...... .....
Certified Operator -.... :SS .o_ k e t Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
ALI
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................--.. ...........
..... .. .......... ......................................................................................... ... ........................ .... ......... j'W j
Latitude ' A « Longitude • d �«
1 x Design Current Design Current
ne
:Ca" acY .; `Po ulat,on Poultry Ca aci ' Pi "utahon Cattle
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
7 Farrow to Wean
Z
OE] Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer ❑ :airy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non-D
❑ Other
- Total Desigq Capaci
WSW
0!
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
<= _�❑ No Liquid Waste
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 ycs, 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):.......2q ...............................
[]Yes gNo
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes KNO
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes VING
[]Yes VkNo
Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3123/99
❑ Yes [ANo
Continued on back

Facility Number: Date of Inspection L
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 maintenancermprovement?
❑ Yes
No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
9 No
\\
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need main tenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
0No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessi a PPonding ❑ PAN
gYesVow
12, Crop type&On4lke)CL (`a!_' -ZJam. aroa;A_
13. Do the receiving crops differ with signat0fin the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
ONo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[ONo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
14 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?
[j Yes
P No
Required Records & Documents
IT. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes §kNo
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 P�No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes EkNo
20: Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes RNo
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes EqNo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ONo
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes BjNo
?1o•yioiaiioris of Oorjdeindes were pote(l dur'ifiig �bis'visit, You wi#ixeeeiye rip futtbgr
6rresj),�denke_' abo6f this :visit: .:...::..:..::...::...:....:::::.. .
6-efNe Ve(ekly SPOs ;Pt see k,-U; meteJ work, % / 1 n
!lf 5So n e 6vGr ck lie f arm ®cc-ur-re� - D4 //S 1!d � R ,t
`SC KSSed Pe,,4,4 Repar 7 "' �c�rc.nBw]�3.
#/Z -7sc 0013 -S s6 JVlG -8s., -� r� 'd 7 s'sc ply - se 46-6sG w
Reviewer/Inspector Name
4-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: L(b4 Date: V/ -- 7 7 6?0

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

HIGH FREEBOARD NOTIFICATION
DATFJiIf" S 2 00
ZWO Go�tacr i
Name of Person /
contacting Dwa e- 5 S -f Telephone No.(_
FARM Name 7305
Gosmty SC o c}•►tiQ
Ft ilriy No. :r `6 2-2 ._
u
Freeboard level of the Lagoon - -
Conditions of the sproy feids: _ W t- -
NA22A7iVB: (include any instructions given to the former at the time of the calo
(A copy of each notifitotion should t>e forwarded to the 'CAFO BO)C in John Hastys office
CS soon as possibe)

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Carroll's Foods Inc
7705
P.O. Drawer 856
Warsaw NC 28398
Dear Carroll's Foods Inc:
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT ANo NATURAL RESOURCES
December 30, 1999 RECEIVED
SAYE T F L E
Subject: Fertilizer Application Recordkeeping
Animal Waste Management System
Facility Number 83-22
Scotland County
This letter is being sent to clarify the recordkeeping requirement for Plant Available Nitrogen (PAN)
application on fields that are part of your Certified Animal Waste Management Plan.
In order to show that the agronomic loading rates for the crops being grown are not being exceeded, you
most keep records of all sources of nitrogen that are being added to these sites. This would include nitrogen
from all types of animal waste as well as municipal and industrial sludges/residuals, and commercial fertilizers.
Beginning January 1, 2000, all nitrogen sources applied to land receiving animal waste are required to
be kept on the appropriate recordkeeping forms (i.e. IRRI, IRR2, DRYI, DRY2, DRYS, SLURI, SLUR2,
SLD1, and SLD2) and maintained in the facility records for review. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
compliance inspectors and Division of Soil and Water operation reviewers will review all recordkeeping during
routine inspections. Facilities not documenting all sources of nitrogen application will be subject to an
appropriate enforcement action.
Please be advised that nothing in this letter should be taken as removing from you the responsibility or
liability for failure to comply with any State Rule, State Statute, Local County Ordinance, or permitting
requirement.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Sonya Avant of the
DWQ staff at [phone] ext. 571.
Sincere) ,
r�
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office
Scotland County Soil and Water Conservation District
Facility File
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled110% post -consumer paper

- = D.Division of Soil and.Water Conservation -Operation Review' ='
D Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Compliance Inspection
Division of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
Other Agency - Operation Review _ _-
Loutine _0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DNVQ inspection 0 Follo.r-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number Date of inspection
"Mime of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted Certified 13ConditionallyCertified 0 Registered 10 Not Oper.,tionaij Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: 6.rn...3........... 1905 Count%:............ ' ...
................................................... ....-. .
leAve
Owner Name: ....................t��Sj_......-T/tr-..................-................. I hone No:.......... 9fD.. �.�>�..-...3X-. ...............
Facility Contact, ............ �°,s ........ i� Title ...... Phone No:
.....-. �..a.....-.-... .
Mailing Address: ........................D............ -'...e............................-............ ................[N�"� ,cr�l� .... Ne .................
Onsite Representative: -� t %i"1m... ( �h"...... lnte<�rator .....17t llS......
...............................:.:.:.'.s........ .. .......... ..... n ........
Certified Operator: ..............,•... I--- Operator Certification Number:
.................................................................................... . -.
Location of Farm:
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
....................... ............................-....................................................
Latitude �' �� Longitude -
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Laycr
❑ Non-Laycr
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
E 1-0 her
'total Design Capacity avoeD
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons 1E1Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lafioon Area 1E1 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps JE1 No Lirjuid Waste Management System
Discharp- & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation (If yes, notify DWQ)?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance inan-made•,
h. If discharge is observcxl, dicl it reach: ❑ Surface Waters []Waters of the State
c. lfdischar,!e is observed. what is the esiimatcd flow in gal min'?
c1, Does discharge hypass a lagoon system?
2. Is there evidence of past discharge front any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than froin a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
at f
Freeboard.....................0..••--.-.....••---��-....-.....-............................................---...- .............----...
❑ Yes A
No
❑ Yes V No
❑ Yes O(No
❑ Yes k No
❑ Yes 1 No
El Yes No
❑ Yes 0 No
Structure 6
1/6199 Continued an back

Faftliity Nbmber: 3.3 — a al Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the intebrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes rol No
seepage, ete.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste tnanat=cment 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?l'es [-]No
8. Does any pact of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? V Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required top of dike, maximum and minimum
liquid level elevation rnarkings? ❑ Yes No
Waste Application l�
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes Jam! No
1 I. Is there evidence of over applic Lion? ❑ Ponding ❑ Nitrogen El Yes WO12. Crop type ................. .... r )11"111111*11111111.�.....`. ...... .......:..........................................
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?" ❑ Yes j No
14. Does the facility lack wettable acreage for land application? (footprint) /fl,°°''f /(� �-P ❑ Yes No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?rPW 1XYes ❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? Yes] No
Required Records & Documents a
17. Fail to have Certificate of Covera,,e & General Perm • it readily available? Yes No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ,❑Q�Yes PQ No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) es YfNo
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 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)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24_ Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El - Na.violations or. deficiencies .were noted. di tiring Ais: visii:. You wrii1.rereive nip ttirtlier.
:: eorresporidenke: about: this :visit....... ; - : - : :.: • : • : • : • : • : • : • ; • :....:. .
.........................................................
❑ Yes PO' No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes n,�i'No
Conirinents (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any. recommendationsor any other comments:- t
Use drawings'of:facility to better explain -situations. (use additional pages as necessary);r
f�
7 "u Sane 41c,04., /a"
�s
00V s
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: -5— -5'_ - 11/6/99

❑ ivision of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency
Division of Water Quality
Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DW2 inspection O Fntlow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number Z Date of Inspection O-
21—,50
Time of Inspection II 24 hr. (hh:mm)
13 Registered Acertified. 0 Applied for Permit Oermitted 113 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name:... .....77.4.� County:......���..................................
..........y ....................• (/
Owner Name- --- G! V ..CLQ....... ... > - C + 2 �' /, 23.3...................................
�[ i 5............. ....5 Phone No:................c?.. 3 3i`J�
................... ...... ...................... ns /
Facility Contact: LfdZ.c 6.*. Title:... �� � / (. ............ Phone No:..... ........
Mailing Address Q �� A.)ca r-f a J t. A.C— .................. z 3
Tt
�.....!1. .r................... �........................................
Onsite Representative•.. �J
�.. �5....._J�I .....,5......................................................... Integrator:.........................
Certified Operator: ................................................... ..................................... .......... I ............ Operator Certification Number:..----.------........
Location of Farm:
Latitude •1 41
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
arrow to Wean
QQ
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Longitude �• ram` o«
�c Deslgii Y"-` ,Cunt,.
Poultry rrCapacPopuiatori Cattle
ID Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I0 Non-Dair
'~
j❑Other I I
` k Toiai D""' " Capacity
.:7 Ttifa"SSLW::
General
1.
Are there any buffers that need main tenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
qNo
2.
Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
qNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (if yes. notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
3.
Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
4.
Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
o
5.
Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
No
tnai ntenance/improvement?
5.
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
&A -No
7/25/97

Facility Number: - 2 Z
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 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
❑ Yes ANO
❑ Yes )I(NO
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft): ...........�,�................ ......................-.._... --._............_.............._............. .................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. 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)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff ent ringtern of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop typet..1'�.a-� ..4!....................... ................. ...... ......................................................
,
I& Do the receiving crops differ with those 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?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
No.violations_or deficiencies:were.utited;during this:visit - Yo'44H receive,no:furiher;.:
. correspondence about this'. VW , : ; .
Alz�� IdVA
01
❑ Yes " No
❑ Yes CkNo
❑ Yes Vl-�o
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes ER'No
......................................
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
l
❑ Yes
PkNo
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
PfNo
❑ Yes
o❑
Yes
rNo
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/tns ector Si(11`7i� Date:
,Q `z / --?

NA
El _jjSW....C_"_Animal. F`dl
's, 's-",�Z'
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWR inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection Time of Inspection 24 hr. (bb:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: [I Registered gApplied for Permit (ex:t.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
❑ Certified F9 Permitted or InEpection (includes (Tavel and processing�
ONotOperational Date Last Operated -
Farm Name: _2ZQ_� ---- — --- County:
I-ra �s
Land Owner Name: Ca(Phone No: . . ....
FacilyContact: ..... Title: 9ny-14....._ Phoneo: Mailin- Address: PO 1)f-42 r &-j'* ryrz -0.
...... _A Lau,.
Onsite Representative: ..... Integrator: •. .....
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:_...____
Location of Farm:
40
....... . .. . ...... P45 .. .0-1p LCLIa C . . .... . ..... . ..... =­*�...­_.____..'.._...:7_
Latitude Longitude
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
. ... ......
Designg
xg-n- o
M,�Destgn
-111��'W--­"" -
at#
g
'Pdb ktio
w
iiiiie 'A �"'.
4,,,C, apacity,populatibh..�% c I UUtlSA*--- "N CabicitfA ulitio,
0 Wean to Feeder er 2"Z ❑ Da'
Finish Non-lary
Feeder to Fj a, TE
ver [] Non-Dairyl
g
-z' �7"'V
.4
:4
Farrow to t % Farrow to FeederCapacity 2gao
AE] Farrow to Finish
k'
Votars
er
I .❑I I I
I... V., 7_77777=777- Z'4
NumberoldinPonds
10 Subsurface Drains Present
k�'
M
'77,7
10,
Area JE] Spray Field Area
X . . . . . . . . . . . . .
JE1 Lagoon Ar:a
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: 0 Lagoon 0 Spray field 0 Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenancelimprovement?
0 Yes jNo
U Yes No
El Yes ;E6,No
0 yes [I No
El Yes E] No
El Yes ANo
❑ Yes $NO
❑ Yes XNo
Continued on back

#i lity Number:._ - 3 . z-
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?
S ru t ur s (Laa ons a /or HoEdina P ds
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (R): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
2.2
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
Structure 4
I I. 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 lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes kNo
❑ Yes �(No
Structure 5 Structure 6
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type _ ..... r. nCl s A�!?. .... ...................... _.... _.... _ ......_ ...�...._
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those 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?
Facilities
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 )KNo
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes P(No
❑ Yes C(No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes �*o
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes [MrNo
Comments refer to question Ex' lain an _,YES.. wers`and/or..an recommendataoiis'or 'any other comments: °
( q # F Y y. y
Use diavnngs. 0f facility to better explain situations use additional pages as necessary) "
we- ;.'1 md hafe • r
Farm i S ; n
C.o� 1 i4/1 [CU
Reviewer/Inspector NameLx
Reviewer/Inspector Signature- Date: sf-14 7_
cc: Division of Water Oualin% 440ater Ouality Section. Facilitv Assessment Unit 4/30/97