820028_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

t ilk
Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 820028 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS820028 ❑ Denied Access
In action Type• Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
Date of Vlslt:
0312212017 Entry Time: 02:00 pm Exit Tli
Farm Name:
Harrells Farm
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Physical Address:
1663 Mine Naylor Rd
County: Sampson Region:
2:30 pm Incident d
Owner Email:
Phone:
Warsaw NC 28398
Harrells NC 28444
Fayetteville
910-296-1800
Facility Status: Compliant 13 Not Compliant Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34° 44' 52" Longitude: 78° 13' 53"
On the west side of SR 1127 approx..2 miles south of its intersection with SR 1128, near Harrell's.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream impacts Waste Cot, Stor, $ Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other issues
Certified Operator: Julia Tatum Operator Certification Number: 22989
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representadve(a): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Ammons Phone
On-site representative Mike Ammons Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(si:
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

A
Permit: AWS820028 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820028
Inspection Date: 03/22/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current promotions
Swine
❑ Swine - Wean to Finish 7,184
Total Design Capacity: 7,184
Total SSLW: 826,160
Waste Structures
Dlsignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
1
32.00
Lagoon
2
43.00
Lagoon
3
25,00
Lagoon
4
26.00
Lagoon
5
19.00 72.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS820028 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820028
Inspection Date: 03/22/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharnes $ Stream Impacts
Yea
No Na No
Cl M ❑ ❑
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
❑
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Structure
❑
E ❑
❑
Application Field
[]
PAN?
❑
Other
❑
M ❑
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
1:10
❑
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)?
❑
M ❑
❑
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
❑
M ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage _& Treatment
Yoe
No No No
Cl M ❑ ❑
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
Excessive Ponding?
❑
5, Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le] large
❑
E ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
❑
PAN?
❑
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
[]
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
E ❑
❑
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
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste ARRI19gtion
Yee No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
Cl M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
[]
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

z
Permit: AWS820028 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820028
Inspection Date: 03/22/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
W 11to Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
(Hay, Pastwa)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
❑
Crop Type 4
❑
Crop Type 5
❑
Crop Type 6
❑
Soil Type 1
Autryville loamy sand, a to
❑
8% slopes
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
M ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
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
❑
■ ❑
❑
determination?
Design?
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
M ❑
❑
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
M ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below,
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

in
Permit: AWS820028 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820028
Inspection Date: 03/22/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Stocking?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
N ❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
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 ❑
❑
Otherls8ue8
Yes
No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
■ ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
N ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by 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 I Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
❑
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 820028 Facility Status: Active Permit: AVVS820028
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit: Routine County: Sampson Region:
Date of Visit: 07/2912015 Entry Time: 02:00 pm Exit Time: 3:00 pm
Farm Name: Harrells Farm
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Incident #
Owner Email:
Phone;
❑ Denied Access
Fayetteville
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 1663 Mirie Naylor Rd Harrells NC 28444
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34° 44'52" Longitude: 78° 13' 53"
On the west side of SR 1127 approx..2 miles south of its intersection with SR 1128, near Harrell's.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste CDI, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Wayne 0 Sanderson Operator Certification Number: 17903
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Reprosentative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Ammons Phone:
On-site representative Mike Ammons Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

x
Permit: AWS820028 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820028
Inspection Date: 07/29/15 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
[] Swine - Wean to Finish 7,184
Total Design Capacity: 7,184
Total SSLW: 826.160
Waste §tructur2a
Disignated Observed
Type Idenlitier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
1
30.00
Lagoon
2
48.00
Lagoon
3
27.00
Lagoon
4
35.00
Lagoon
5
19.00 68.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS820028 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820028
Inspection Date: 07/29/15 1nssection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream impacts
Yes
No No No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 111:1
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
Discharge originated at:
Excessive Ponding?
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (i.e./ large
Structure
❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
Application Field
❑
PAN?
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
Other
❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
a. Was conveyance man-made?
[]
11011
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
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)?
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ E
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
M ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storane & Treatment
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
Excessive Ponding?
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (i.e./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
■ ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
8, Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
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?
❑ 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: AWS820028 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
820028
Checklists?
Inspection Date: 07/29/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
❑
Waste ApRlication
yes No Na No
Lease Agreements?
Crop Type 1
Coastai Bermuda Grass
❑
(Hey, Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Oversaed
Crop Type 3
Waste Application?
Crop Type 4
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Crop Type 5
❑
Soil analysis?
Crop Type 6
Waste Transfers?
❑
Soil Type 1
Autryville
Rainfall?
Soil Type 2
Stocking?
❑
Soil Type 3
page: 4
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ M ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ 0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ M ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
[] 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 all components of the CAWMP readily available?
[] 0 ❑
[]
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Wt1P?
❑
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: AWS820028 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820028
Inspection Date: 07/29/15 1npsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
No Na Ne
Crop yields?
❑
❑
■ ❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
❑
M ❑
Sludge Survey
[]
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
■ ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Lagoon I Storage Pond
❑
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
❑
M ❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
CA WM P?
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
M ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous foss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yos
No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
■ ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rales?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
M ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
[]
Lagoon I Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
M ❑
❑
CA WM P?
33. Did the Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
❑
M ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

Question Areas:
Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Waste Application
Facility Number:
820028
Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS820028
[] Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Title Phone
Reason for visit:
Routine
County: Sampson Region:
Fayetteville
Dale of Visit:
1012312014 Entry Time: 04:00 pm Exit Time: 5:00 pm Incident #
Inspector Signature:
Farm flame:
Harrells Farm
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910.296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
1663 Mirie Naylor Rd
Harrells NC 28444
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑
Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 34° 44'52" Longitude:
78° 13' 53"
On the west side of SR
1127 approx..2 miles south
of its intersection with SR 1128, near Harrell's.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Wayne 0 Sanderson
Operator Certification Number: 17903
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Ammons
Phone:
On-site representative Mike Ammons
Phone :
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Dale:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS820028 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820028
Inspection Date: 10/23/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
❑ Swine - Wean to Finish 7,164
Total Design Capacity: 7,184
Total SSLW: 826,150
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifler Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
1
35.00
Lagoon
2
43.00
Lagoon
3
22.00
Lagoon
4
24.00
Lagoon
5
19,00 64.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS820028 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820028
Inspection Date: 10/23/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Dischames & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na No
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
Excessive Ponding?
Structure
❑
❑
0 ❑
Application Field
❑
❑
PAN?
Other
❑
❑
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ N
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ ■
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
■ ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, 5torane & Treatment
Yea
No Na No
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
Excessive Ponding?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
❑
PAN?
❑
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
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)
g, Does any pari of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Up No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN a 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: AWS820028 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820028
Inspection Date: 10/23/14 Inppeclion Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
(hey, Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
❑
Crop Type 4
❑
Crop Type 5
❑
Crop Type 6
❑
Soil Type 1
Autryville
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
❑
Soil Type 4
❑
Soil Type 5
❑
Soil Type 6
❑
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
0 ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
❑
0 ❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crop andlor land application site need improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■ ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
E ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Na
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.
WU P?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
0
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS820028 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820028
Inspection Date: 10/23/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yee No Nit No
Crop yields?
❑
❑
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
❑
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑
❑
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
[]
M ❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
01:11:1
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
❑
M ❑
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
M ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yee No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility?
[]
M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application f=ield
❑
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?
❑
■ ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
M ❑
❑
page: 5

.1 %
M Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 820028 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS820028
Inpsection Type: Compliance inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Sampson Region:
Date of Visit: 1211712013 Entry Time: 09:00 am Exit Time: 10:00 am Incident #
Farm Name: Harrells Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC Phone:
Malling Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 1663 Mirie Naylor Rd Narrells NC 28444
Facility Status: ■ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34° 44'52"
On the west side of SR 1127 approx..2 miles south of Its intersection with SR 1128, near Harrell's.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
❑ Denied Access
Fayetteville
910-296-1800
Longitude: 78° 13'53"
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Other Issues
Certified Operator: Mark Munoz Operator Certification Number: 990007
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Rep rosentative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Ammons Phone :
On-site representative Mike Ammons Phone:
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS820028 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820028
Inspection Date: 12/17/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Swine
Design Capacity
Current promotions
❑ Swine - Wean to Finish
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Pate Start Date Froeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1
Lagoon 2
Lagoon 3
Lagoon 4
Lagoon 5 18.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS820026 Owner- Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820028
Inspection Date: 12/17/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
Structure
❑
❑
Frozen Ground?
Application Field
❑
❑
PAN?
Other
❑
❑
Total Phosphorus?
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ ■
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
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
Yea No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
M ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
■ ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
B. 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
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yea No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/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: AWS820028 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brawn LLC Facility Number: 820028
Inspection Date: 12/17/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
Soil Type 3
(Hay, Pasture)
Chop Type 2
Small Grain Ovensead
Crop Type 3
■ []
Crop Type 4
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
WUP?
Soil Type 1
Autryville loamy sand, O to
6% slopes
Soil Type 2
Yes Ng Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
Soil Type 3
0 ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
Soil Type 4
■ []
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Soil Type 5
WUP?
Soil Type 6
Checklists?
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
M ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
Maps?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
M ❑
❑
determination?
If Other, please specify
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
M ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes Ng 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?
❑
■ []
❑
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?
11
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

4 i
Permit: AWS820028 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC f=acility Number:
820028
Inspection Date: 12/17/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yee No Na Ne
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and i" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
E ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
■ ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■ ❑
j]
Other Issues
Yea No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
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
❑
N ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number ®- ® 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency 7
Type of Visit: 49 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: ArrivalTime.-I 62. • Departure Time: <<D County: jollRegion; tw
Farm Name: �Z 3 �- Opw-re_(k Fa,,r W1 Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address;
Phone:
Facility Contact: / 1 t (te- �rhp,y, S Title:
T
Onsite Representative: 61
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: b4cw —&0 W
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
Dry Poultry
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Design Current
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Bcef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
❑No
NA
❑ NE
[-]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
NA
❑ NE
❑NA
❑NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page .1 of 3 2/412011 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection: IZ
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes OpNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? [a Yes' ❑ No NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 3 ,j
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): _
Observed Freeboard {in}: �J
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA D 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? `j
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 [nNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8, Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA [—]NE
maintenance or improvement? T
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 ER 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 ofAcceptable
_Crop Window ( [] Evidence of Wind
Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): L.D(. sQ �Y7VI.1,t�1R Oaw Tus'�Y.( �s Sm. Cw a • 00k-fSe4 _
1 -
13. Soil Type(s):
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 [:]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination? TT��
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application`?
❑ YesNo
F]NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Tra sfers
❑ Rainfall [:]Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and l" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes � No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes M No
❑NA 0 N
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/2011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:) -,7-
24.
Z
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 9No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes T� No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification'?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
�`-
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
09 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
0 Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ YesNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit'? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
73 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ YesNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/[nspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative'?
❑ YestNo
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency'?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
omme ( q. ) p YF answers'ttnd/ar an addttinna rceammendatmns nr�ttn other comrraents �;' x �,
nts refer to pestioni# Ex lain a111'Mk
lUsedra'wincs'offacilitvtobett��r�'exnlainisituations:fuse adiiitinniil naees t s.necessary}.. - J. <... ,k k M 'h
'S4
Reviewer/[nspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
gf30[fZ_
Phone:
Date: 3B
2/4/2011

Rlnl5 1 /3olll �
tIA Division of Water Quality
Facility Number ®- d2g O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
D Other Agency
type of Visit: 0 Compliance inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up O Referral Q Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:Vr
Arrival Time: Departure Time:; County: ,��pd Region: 14;(20Farm Name:✓n�t Owner Email:
Owner Name: n Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:/N0yf Title: Phone:
,.„,..
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Soars
Other
Other
Certification Number:
Latitude:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity, Pop.
Layer
]Non -Layer
Layers
Non -Lr
Pullets
Other
Poults
Design Current
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge'?
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dai Heifer
Dry Cow
,Non -Dairy
Reef Stocker
Reef Feeder
Reef Brood Cow
❑ Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 10
No
❑ Yes 1p No
NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 2/4/2011 Continued

Facility Number: jq,2- Date of Inspection:
❑ Yes M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Waste Collection & Treatment
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
Cp No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures
❑ Yes
❑ No NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: r 2 3
Waste Application
Spillway?:
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes W No
❑ NA
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 0 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 ❑ YesNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures
require ❑ YesNo
1P
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [] Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding 0 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): 0-05
/❑
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes R] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
I& Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes U No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
[]Yes $j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ER No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [ ] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [:]Yes ® No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes T No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes tp No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
[] NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/2011 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
V
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? [:]Yes FM No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes Q9 No
the appropriate box(es) below. T
❑ 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?
❑ Yes C� No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes PQ No
❑ Yes 1� No
[] NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 1� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ YesNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any. dther,comments ..;;
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
400vj 5 t �f b/" .
5' yCe.. V, s�� q�z9 1r
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature
Page 3 of 3
Phone: &7 -3?m
Date: gki I n
2/4/2011

r. 0 Division of Water Quality
Facility Number`�� 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ® Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 8 O Arrival Time: o1s Departure Time:r,Z� / County: Region:
Farm Name: =LL1e=[.(S f—ar W — -.-
Owner Name: Wlrt_ . ac,
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Mr,rf S Title:
u
Onsite Representative: n
Certified Operator: hr� Sivr�
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
❑ Wean to Finish
I❑ Wean to Feeder
04 Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feede
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Owner Email:
Phone:
Phone No:
Integrator:
I I
Operator Certification Number: .45-d
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =0
=4
Longitude: =0=1
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Laver
❑ Non -La er
Other
❑ Other I I
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Pou Its
❑ Other
Discharees & Stream impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Caw
Number of Structures: M1
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 PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
❑ No A NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
[�9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
r° No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection /0
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?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: ) rim 3
❑ Yes ❑ No 1P NA ❑ NE
Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
4t/ .2 i25 -it
Observed Freeboard (in): 3J� _.-VOti
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
S. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit`? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes 09 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?
It. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below, ❑ Yes ,E No [INA ❑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) V All $ M . G: ouw_�Ca
..•. .., : �. '' anSWeCQn1��� �,�,�h�+lie+r^.ri,� `�c�l�l-.r.�?�`'k.�'•oN
Comments (refer to question t#) Explain any YES w s,andlor aHyl ret ommendations or any�athe'r, came encs �+ Y g s
y . �i.'� fl 511 4 i.� V �' ': wa 'i� d wi i Gr'�iti J � '- � .�,. rr
Use diraw:ngs of faculty to better explant situations: (rise addltianal(pages astnecessary) tk x ,:I t w ;
1 :tW'resA �k,°>.,�.-,.r' A.
AL
13. Soil type(s) All
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
tS No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
[I 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
E] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
..•. .., : �. '' anSWeCQn1��� �,�,�h�+lie+r^.ri,� `�c�l�l-.r.�?�`'k.�'•oN
Comments (refer to question t#) Explain any YES w s,andlor aHyl ret ommendations or any�athe'r, came encs �+ Y g s
y . �i.'� fl 511 4 i.� V �' ': wa 'i� d wi i Gr'�iti J � '- � .�,. rr
Use diraw:ngs of faculty to better explant situations: (rise addltianal(pages astnecessary) tk x ,:I t w ;
1 :tW'resA �k,°>.,�.-,.r' A.
AL
Reviewer/Inspector NamefD
Phone: 3 330
.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: lobgLQ
Page 2 of 3 1 12/18104 Continued

Facility Dumber: �Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 1P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check []Yes EANo [:INA ❑NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists
❑ Design [I Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement'? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes %No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
4 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
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
P 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
10 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
[INo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Addifibnal,,Comment9 and/or Drawin ,s:
Page 3 of 3 12/28/04

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number 2_�J_ O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit it Routine 0 Complaint 0 f=ollow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: It Arrival Time: t.L�. Departure Time: County:f+sbr�
1 f r 6—
Farm Name: i� et( s kwwx Owner Email:
Owner Name: J�44:n - io Lo C')t^-W Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: y
Certified Operator:.._.. 91t-
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine -
El Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Region: PAO
Phone No:
Integrator: a -&'j h,,,LA
Operator Certification Number: 5U
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =0
=I
= Longitude: =,,=, 0
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
I� ❑ Non. La er
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑
Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Daia Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Ca
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of 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?
AI
❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
(PNA
El NE
❑ Yes
El No
5 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[:]No
[PNA
EINE
❑ YesNo
[__1NA
[INE
❑ Yes
No
[INA
❑NE
12/28/04 Continued

+ 1
❑ Yes
0 No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Facility Number:
Date of Inspection Lr{J
jj No ❑ NA
[:1 NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
Waste Collection & Treatment
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for ]and application?
❑ Yes
P No ❑ NA
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
[:INA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA [:1NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structur
tructure 6
Identifier: • Z _...
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
r—
Observed Freeboard (in): 46
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�?No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
ll
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
[:INA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
fpNo
❑ 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
[:INA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste AU12lication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
1P 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.)
L
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ EvidenceofWind Drift �❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
0 No ❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
jj No ❑ NA
[:1 NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
PA No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for ]and application?
❑ Yes
P No ❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to guesttan##). Explain any YESanswers and/or any recommendations or any other comments r .
Ilse drawings or facility to better explain. situations.! (use. additional pages as necessary):
:T
Reviewer/Inspector Name V Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: YDate:
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number:gEn Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes (PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0 No [INA ❑ 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 M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23, if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes o No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
[:1 Yes
P] 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
1P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
X 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
q9 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
[�PNo
❑ 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
(7 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
§j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128/04

Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: rS01.�
Farm Name: L redll Ftv"` Owner Email:
Owner Name: u v -p" - AA t'f ij ri aLLC Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: ((��� ,.� II
Facility Contact: e�fN�'lrri-s Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
U Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Region: r-90
Phone No:
Integrator: T— hi'Dwil t La,
Operator Certification Number: 9-t196
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =0
= = Longitude: =o=,
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑
Turkeys
❑
Turkey Poults
❑Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑
Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [#No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
45NA
❑NE
[I Yes
0 N
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
$ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 1212$/04 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? []Yes �] No [INA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes MNo L ONA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Struct Structure 4 St ture Structure 6
Identifier: 1 3
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):Lf
o
�nN
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structu bserved? tt33 ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7, Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes 1 JNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes F0 No ❑ NA ElNE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) 1�
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 Cl Yes ENo [INA ElNE
maintenance/improvement? ll
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 6 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs []Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop
��Window
/�%❑ Evidence of /V�'Windd Drif [:Appll�ication Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)&,4-m aa 6. o CI`► 1, Y�Ige)I ` lr CJW
EOJ
13. Soil type(s) d_ 4yyd s.
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[:] Yes
Eallo
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
1�j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name �.. -- l Phone:�D ` 3j' jib
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12/28/04 Continued

I
Facility Number: Date of Inspection ,
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes Po ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes EgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ wuP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design g El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes P9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes (No ElNA [:3NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes [15No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
E,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26, Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge'?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Addit
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
[:]Yes
RgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
5No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
n No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
V!i 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
[5No
❑ 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
m No
❑ NA
❑ NE
s, in r Drawings
.... T a _fig,
Page 3 of 3 12/28/04
Page 3 of 3 12/28/04

I Division of Water Quality
Facility Number D :' ' Q, iivision of Soil and Water Conservation
'06.
Other Agency
Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:Lpj�-,� j.�\J Arrival Time: Departure Time: qX35-1 County. Vl Region :U -b
Farm Name: � ivy ^_ Owner Email:
Owner Name: ► r L V Y Gun Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
e
Facility Contact:
Onsite Represents
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feede
Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Ur rt i 'Citle: Phone No:
*-9. 1� [�.J
Integrator:
i Operator Certification Number: SLOlO_
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: e =i
= Longitude: = o "
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Nan -La ei
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated ac ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a, Was the conveyance man-made`?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Daia Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy hleifej
E]Dry Cow
❑ Nan -Dai
❑ Beef Stockei
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
,637NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
4NA
❑ NE
-WNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes Ebo
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes 45No
[INA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number:
Date of Inspection oZ
Waste Collection & Treatment ,I
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? El yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes �RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 St cture 2 Structure
C ure 3 Sru ture 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
��S#e
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? []Yes N No [INA ❑NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes [XbNo [--INA ❑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 ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ANo ❑ 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 -A.—No [INA El NE
maintenance/improvement'?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 1� No [INA ❑ 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 Drih ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) OIL
13. Soil type(s) u
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes rtNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes -214o ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes fiallo ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ;RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? [:]Yes N�Vo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
�
Reviewer/Inspector Name AQJU Phone: Trr1
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 2 3 2dDT-
1 12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: -- Date of Inspection .
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the apprapirate box. ❑ WUPEI Checklists
❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 0 N ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes [--]No [PNA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[�&Vo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
$a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
0FNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes ❑ No
'2!3�VA
❑ 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
[:1 NA
E] 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 P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
1,$1 , 0,7DL t �° $�_
+reS�C."►rel��. ��S+t �� � ValL1104ee-fterJ1 1thcSs C UYr C_4 4Qa1mejj
12/18104

gion: Date of Visit: 01 / / 1{f( Arrival Time: s Departure Time: = County: '� h P `'d N Re
f_ r e, 11144;
Farm Name: 4at —t�r
wm Owner Email: _...._
Owner Name: 1 "1 U.v-OYW Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: 'SM;
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: -4 `0
Back-up Operator: Back -tip Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = = = Longitude: =0=4
o=4
Design Current
❑ Yes
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer I
I❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
10 Non -Layer I
I Dairy Calf
ErFeeder to Finish
❑ NE
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ D Cow
El Farrow to Feeder
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
❑ Non -Dairy
El Farrow to Finish
❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts❑
❑Non La ers
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
Pullets
❑ Beef' Brood Cow
❑ Yes
❑ Turkeys
❑ NA
Other
❑ Turkey Poults
y
❑ Other
❑ OtherNumiser
of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
i. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
50No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[ZTNA
❑ 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
P NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
*No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12/28/04
Continued

facility Number: a; a
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes t�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? []Yes ❑No [NA EINE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 St cture 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: �- 3
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 2 ZC7
Observed Freeboard (in): qq N
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
S. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes kNo ❑ 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 o❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) s� -Gl - --- �7�— S_ -
13. Soil type(s) A U ))
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes IP No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes �3 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes �R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments.(refer:to question-#): >Explain any VES answers and/or. any recommendations or any other comments
Use -drawings offacility to better explain situations..(use ;add Won ul pages as necessary):
IReviewer/Inspector Name LALiS f Wi ,1% ZP1 PhoneU/U
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: s V ,1AI/V_ yj n Date: 0 hl 106
Page 2 of 3 L 12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 0
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes �O No [INA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 15No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes PNo ❑ 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
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
R3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit`!
❑ Yes
�D No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
ED No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge'!
❑ Yes
2D No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification'?
❑ Yes
;V No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
IoNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
XfNo
❑ 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
El 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
W 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
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
keetp CT� SJUC/� P® fi % n ALA' m re Cord1 S
A,
Page 3 of 3 12/28/04

Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection O Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation O Technlcal Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint 0 Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ffArrival Time: Departure Time: ; 3d County: �q� s� � Region:
Farm Name: nA vIe lel s t"0.V Owner Email:
Owner Name: , `_ Phone:
Mailing Address: !fid 05C S-1�Q r r G7, �� lV (f a
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: R' e, Lot �Title:
la
Onsite Representative: ,� /� tea( S!, 4 �
Certified Operator: e�,G Lam( 54,
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: a (o .t✓ l
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =0
=i
=46 Longitude: = o = t =
il
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population I Cattle, Capacity Population
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La ei
Dry Poultry,
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharses & 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
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stockee
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
i
Number of Structures: �I
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
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?
1 Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [] NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
INE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[2(NE
❑ NA
EdNE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
ENE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
E�NE
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: 32 — 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:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
❑ Yes BNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'? ❑ Yes UNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes LE�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 ONE
$. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ONE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) ,ter
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes El No [:1IJ NA NE
maintenance or improvement'?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 3'�E
maintenance/intprovement?
H. . Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [I"NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > l0% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
31NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
ENE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination%❑
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
ONE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
LBINE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[3 NE
�Pa,v wa t !ao 1_,& 27 ' �G•�'�'`�+ �/`dp r. r �� ' � Gtr b G f
Reviewer/inspector Name ; „ s "y`' S'I w Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 6-r, 65 —dl
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: —a dr Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ONE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [ZNE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists
❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement'? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No [INA Z3NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
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 it sludge survey as required by the pert -nit?
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 of ice of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, Freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/inspector tail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
Q'NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
dNE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑''NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑'NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑'NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [],I< E
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA C rNE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 2 N E
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [1 E
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 2-fSIE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
ZNE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
El"NE
Addltionul Comments, and/or Urawhigs:
f,
L?...: 4 . ..h: a�IFui i
12/28/04

Type of Visit • Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 2 Z Date of Visit: �G Time: : d
Q =Not Operational Q Below Threshold
aXermitted 11 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified Cj Registered Date Last OperatedorAbove Threshold: .........................
FarmName: ..................8.4,s r:AA S.......5:oL.r................................ ........... I... County:..........,r�7 !^4 .S.Q.''�.....................................
OwnerName: .............. . . .4� ,� .Y.r .... rtQ.JrN.!!1....................................... Phone NO:......... %. .......,r2 ..�.. .� 1�.........................
MailingAddress: ............p : O :.._..ztf??5..... �s.......................... ....I........................... ..lzo Se.. .1.� ....�...... . L............................ �+�
Facility Contact: ...........`...... s.tl!�.! !.�... Title:................................................................ Phone No:...��......Z
s - �„ ,,�� II rr
Onsite Representative: � ���............. r':`..'............................................... Irttegrator:...........lYl.u..f �.lr�.� =..... C�..ti1.:?.1�......
........................ .
Certified Operator: .......... cn r,.k&r ....................... ............................. Operator Certification Number: ... 1.0...5"781 ......... .
Location of Farm:
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 4 rte" Longitude • ° «
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes gNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? Cl 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 INNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes (g No
Waste CoIllection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes $No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ................ I................. .................... ..... . ?lar..... ......... .
Freeboard (inches): 7i 5
12112103 _ Continued

Facility Number:
Datg of Inspection 2 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 maintenancelimprovement?
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 AaRlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
❑ Yes Z No
❑ Yes [;RNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [9 No
❑ Yes JO No
12. Crop type g �� S wta�� 4 ttk.►� ,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes [KNo
14, a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes [KNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Odor Issues
17. 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?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional
Air Quality representative immediately.
❑ Yes [8 No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes C9 No
❑ Yes 93 No
❑ Yes nNo
...3;.a..E:.a;i?,33 i.:l ;95,6,.r „„?i4�ii:I1iF16 ,• •"' ,"•F}sFE1 1.F•i91.3�ia:..•,,.,-�,.'.;thiir.9-as-.s>.?8z3 t.30.};Ssl,..,..s1E.s.ISs.'Sf,i*I,iSrli3L..3 i. 2&+",[viii•-i1fi...,;l.,a. ...--'ti-' t j"Fk:7
lCom1 ments[[�{t{refer to uest�on# : E�cy�ltain an YIi;S'fanswers and/or snJ% recomtnenciations;oclan ,'other cntnrttents", };� 7[gjj}}`'li E } 1'{fig§$j i!33:1l;ry1
'f1.r.4{Fi1jk"�3.`Y'3 €ISS.iiilEFIIJiF91 �;lldi}j91i�d},11,'Sh 9r a�I F.0N. ia. rl{1�i; 1 3i df111111 Fht:]�i 9'1.i�lf1:'i 4fx FvFi};..E.K '..ii:4i�i i• -.i.>>1>= �U:...�,�u1. �ttAii5 Iv411i;Ed 'iFE
;Use•drawrngs;of faWr3]tty toEbetter;expiarn,situations" (ase a dditidnal'pages aslneaessary)' �i Field Copy Final Notes r 4
liff,lt .F : i5.Y,3. ! • 9 sFl• 3 1 1 ,Y } i..41 . f _ 1 = 1 ..{ftrr ❑
1
i'y , s
t �s.3vi�..l� i
5--�+eelV IDJ 4'0 4�'Ot "4jr-as a'rou'a te,,1000�s 0'e7t-� We. -_.k .
dIL
W&e-V-
• �3Qr�ee Duet �t,e.4 o-r� 60,rr. spo�S cLrctr+.A (a%oer+,,. +o r e,a' ,•
Vf_ C*V're r
HV
(.[ 1 s r y �[
J i•1{��di< -1 1 } i `31 F:Sn 54 } 11 �91F•1 �1 .1.' .`. ��l:i _t ii,5,r .. iF i; _ J 4 {(, £YZI 1 rr.l' �� 'S 1i'�
tr 1 F�
yy, F tl i y
Reviewer/Inspector Name i}�a��� I L7 '.t. zll3;..1.11..
!'I�fI..Y,..t6; ' ji�t f '
,!
iL,aa . E •E�'ih,t. ,.,.... r;�.•: .,_s.,.: ��,ll.. ..0
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: "4. Z_
12/12/03 ` Continued

Facility Number: 8Z _ -' 1 Date of Inspection
1e ! S .It I,' ':1 •' I � ii�r-"1 4: F. P� •.!�' f< � f.j %.!, � iN. E4Y --i�F. ! i&�yF. .p;,.
�EI I Iil`i tf's '! it l� `' .1� i 1� h� 5' (:T 3 I '13th£ 1i
l i f a r. -� i � LI" f..:t 1 li i . �'{p. i ! '7 }� `.li y fi' ES' !�y {y [I li .cif'. 3:� -;;:g . 3! 1's
:itjt3 ldl7'•'[ ['lf: ilk lfiilu:i:Ft;F:.:R3IfFP .k"i:c_.;rs:a ...iNFi'C'lfii'.'::L.. ,f,Jl.{,,,.15 }p .fl I. �uri3:.Ste...t,....t ' �.t .si.iiit �i.:rll� x�&:',:Slli .. [ki�u.r :Fi.l.. it �!<.#Tri.��.�u.is1": ., 'i3il141_i«. 4 irs� fii. f7' 1�71.i. �:� �z..., ....�?i .:.7., ,: . v�..arw
Required Records & Documenb;
�S/
W to
21.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
OkNo
22.
Does the�fa�cility fail to have all com onents of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
Yes
(ie/ WUF!checklisi�desi�!ma ,etc.)
❑
XLNo
23.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
W No
❑ Waste Applicati4K ❑ Freeboard-"[] Waste AnalysV[:] Soil Sampling
24.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
USNo
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
KNo
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
CR No
27.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
❑ Yes
ER No
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
MNo
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
E,Yes
❑ No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
JBNo
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
® No
33.
Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
MINo
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes &No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ]d No
❑ Stocking Forza ❑ Crop Yield Forlri""❑ Rainf*1--n Inspection After 1" Rahr'—
❑ 120 Minute Inspectiom"o Annual Certification Fordo—
No
orm
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
1e ! S .It I,' ':1 •' I � ii�r-"1 4: F. P� •.!�' f< � f.j %.!, � iN. E4Y --i�F. ! i&�yF. .p;,.
�EI I Iil`i tf's '! it l� `' .1� i 1� h� 5' (:T 3 I '13th£ 1i
l i f a r. -� i � LI" f..:t 1 li i . �'{p. i ! '7 }� `.li y fi' ES' !�y {y [I li .cif'. 3:� -;;:g . 3! 1's
:itjt3 ldl7'•'[ ['lf: ilk lfiilu:i:Ft;F:.:R3IfFP .k"i:c_.;rs:a ...iNFi'C'lfii'.'::L.. ,f,Jl.{,,,.15 }p .fl I. �uri3:.Ste...t,....t ' �.t .si.iiit �i.:rll� x�&:',:Slli .. [ki�u.r :Fi.l.. it �!<.#Tri.��.�u.is1": ., 'i3il141_i«. 4 irs� fii. f7' 1�71.i. �:� �z..., ....�?i .:.7., ,: . v�..arw
�S/
W to
12112103

F
=� �.
err s 7 c.. k �:�livtsion ofWsrterQ�talityw t -s �,S F ti jxb,Ci,ah�rn< x nam 5� uz .y;
,�'' ' S,:t � ����' F.�';�+1J;�� d�G}¢„ s'�' �- fr :•: � i{� ' �`�.'� . r �3.�r - �.M1Y, � r�i^' �^, n} � r�c.; "J '!d x�iY�>� t �v r �� � �> ��"
� t� "t 7 �, ;r �.,' � �� �e ✓ , ' � s.4 �t `^:« ^x >p�5,��'ra. ew s r� , a � � l` �.1 x
,+ r ¢ C'; t nSS '�:��'"�t b.L t a,t s 7 a � !✓�. � '- �,v ry a '.r�,.?.K 1 -„� fy�.A�, b r` ,3�'� 1 _ ,.r'�'k`
.x ,, F= '� � , z � �; _ �� Q,Other rlgencv , � :� 4 - �,� #�� • .� �,�,. � . � �� � � ' ; v ti c
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
I acuity Number 82 28 date of Visit: 412l2(?04 Time: I 1:35
O Not Operational 0 imow'rhreshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold : .........................
Farm Name: Harr IIs-Earim.............................................................................................. .. County: S.ampson........................................... ERO.............
OwnerName:. .................................................. 1.!'tturphy.t+ arms ....................................... Phone No: 9.1.Q -S32 -Z521 ......... .....................,............................
MailingAddress: V.Q.l3jlX..7.59............................................................................................ Row.HillAC ......................................................... 2#MQ,.............
Facility Contact:........................................................... ......Title:....................... ... Phone No:
Onsite Representative: ......................................................................... . Integrator: M.ulphy..1,:AutUy..l'.aA'ailS.................................
Certified Operator:jWja........................................atmixt............................. ......... Operator Certification Nuinher: 229.89..
......... ...........................
Location of Farm:
)n the west side of SR 1127 approx..2 miles south of its intersection with SR 1128, near Harrell's.
.119
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 34 '44 T 48 N l..ongitude 78 l3 48 ”
Design =, Current Desigm Current Design . , .Current
Swine Catte
.
Capacity. M. a"acit Poulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish fi 120
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Darrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I)airy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 6,120
Total SSLW 826,200
Dischart<es & Stream ImD'aets
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, slid it reach Water ofthe State'? (It'yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. if discharge is observed, wilai is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. I)oes discharge bypass a hipoon system? Ol'yes, notify I)WQ) ❑ 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 6
Identifier: .................1................... 2................, .,...........,.......
Freeboard (inches): ................ 1.�........... .... ... ,........... 3.1............ .36,.....
12112103 Continued

r�
' Facility Number: 82-28 Date. of Inspection 4/2/2004
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ❑ No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-5 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
❑ Yes
❑ No
elevation markings?
Waste Applicalion
Reviewer/[nspector Signature: Date:
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
II. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
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 fir 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
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation`?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours'?
❑ Yes
❑ No
19. 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)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? Il'yes, contact a regional
❑ Yes
❑ No
Air Quality representative immediately.
'Comments (refer to yucshon'#) Ezplam any YES answers and/o"r any recommendations ar,anv other comments`
�. t _.Y.. • i - r' .or • . s n - a- , �.s:cra �, s �'..ra- Y ,�.. '.
Ose drawingsaof facility to better explain situations fuu .ttid rtrnnal pagesAas nectissary) } ®Field Copy ❑ Final Notes °<
y j N 3# C. y. f S �,..R e .Y -J•, - J
{.+W.. * �, tt � JI � e� !, sjnif y_].�: .4 2 . .4-3'. ; i
Farm visit was part of Paul Shermans evaluation of innovative designs, Looked at lagoon aeration system and blower.
Reviewer/Inspector Name harry Bailey �, Pau[ Shetman �
Reviewer/[nspector Signature: Date:

Site Requires Immediate Attention: No
Facility No. , S Z - 2'9
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: !1 , 1995
Time: t Z ; z-7
Farm Name/Owner: Nove44Fr'-L% / Aar/++• S
Mailing Address: � Z faw F/ A /-/ a.vrc lls C i S i�54 y-__
County: Sa.w/� SoN
Integrator• Phone:
On Site Representative: Ra /4 h Ezz e - l/ Phone: 010) 5'32 - 2572
Physical Address/Location: _ SR it 7-7 o hl y.&, Led )
Type of Operation: Swine ✓ Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: --6,-A120-- . Number of Animals on Site: Cor I ZO
DEM Certification Number:. ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude• Longitude• ° "
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of I Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) (ic�or No Actual Freeboard: 2 Ft. —L --Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes or(193)Was any erosion observed? Yes o>?
Is adequate land available for spray? 60 or No Is the cover crop adequate? JS)or No
Crop(s) being utilized: Coast C
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellin or No
100 Feet from Wells? or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or<N�)
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line: Yes 06D
Is animal waste discharged into water of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes otg If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? J�Por No
Additional Comments:
Inspector Name Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.

❑ DSW AniinaljF�eedlot Ope6fibn Reviews
„w' DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection p_ a�
toutine O Cam taint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number Date of inspection
12 M1
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours -�
Farm Status:
M/Registered El Applied for Permit (ext.l.25 for I hr 15 min)) Spent on Review r -
❑Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection includes travel andprocessing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated :............ .......................................................... ..............................................................
FarmName: ..... li W711�9� U.....t ,e f,�r................................ ............ County:... _... ^ ..............................
LandOwner Name:..J.. , ..... . . _ ..�................. � �� Ch�on�e No: ........... ...........................-....... ......... ......... ......... .............
Facility Conctact Y r..idaY..`.. ... ... Title:Akt.Vj.A..:>tA. ............ Phone No:..........................................................
Mailing Address: ........ . .
ddress:...........- ..... ......... ............................................................�...............................�,...........................
Onsite Representative ..�I!.`....„ ........................ Integrator: .... l.....I:..... _.... Lr{!�? 5........_.
Certified Operator:. ...................../.,(��.... rx .?................ ........................ Operator Certification Number:.... 4.22-3..
1117
Location of Farm. 410kA 1.S bVt S%a�P.AIC.S I, //a(7 !_ D. 2 A, .'/. s,1,. -A( V A165Z //2f�,r1��
Latitude ' C ' 94 Longitude • 6 11
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
�f�, ""`ixAS*a+'� �"�, ,S"S ,+°Y � � „� � �,.; � -.._ a �. �.: .�..- ,w sic
�� Designrrent� E1?esign „� Cai�rent� '�` is k'
Current:
Swine' fi bPoultr Cattle
Capacity�Po ul'ation, Y` a aci � Po ulation =,.C" aci po ulatlon�
❑ can to Feeder `I❑ La er ' [I Dairy
Feeder to Finish ❑Non La er ❑ Non -Dai
El Farrow to Wean
< Farrow to Feeder 'A
otal Design; aelty k
w.
arrow to Finish ....
` s, .oto SSL W
Other Ss� .f ;t, y 0.4 �k
fp
...
amberg of agaons ZjHolding Ponds ❑ Subsurface Drains Present
�.
10 Lagoon Area :`� (] Spray Field Area �A k
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? I
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field Er6t—her
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?
S. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes 1;Ko
Yes M&o
❑ Yes P.No
❑ Yes [R.No
MYes
0 No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
�Q' :1'o
L�d'No
Continued on back

Facility r:... ... --...Q.
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
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (fl): . Struc7e 1 fScPi;t' re 2 M Stricture 3.ry Structure.4 „Structure 5
A/Zk)10. Is seepage observed from any of the structur
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(if any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
Immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waajg Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of W P: or runof ente ' aters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .........................................................................................................................................
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?
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 <0
,P
❑ Yes [0410
❑ Yes 6140
❑ Yes e'No
Structure 6
❑ Yes Ivo
❑ Yes M40
❑ Yes ►a'No
❑ Yes [2Io
❑ Yes (1io
❑ Yes
❑ No/,#
❑ Yes
a
1•'`1�0-�
❑ Yes
,,�o
111KO
❑ Yes
LIN.;o
❑ Yes
M4,
❑ Yes
EPO
❑ Yes ❑ No AJlh—
❑ Yes ❑ No /7�~
❑ Yes No
Comments'(refer. to `questidn #) Explatn"any YES answers''and/or` any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to tistter explain situations .(use additional pages as necessary), i ;,.
W a-ze, M. ►�/ J tt! �o wLc a.�eJ'-5 ��ec��c.CS S�,c_� -
+. Ju- k l c std e d® Ue c AO'1)s
Q
a
1•'`1�0-�
/A) s . - s�O&d 01 X11 p"")
Reviewer/Inspector Name% _ `' x , ^.�RE
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: %p 9 %
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97