820106_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NUH I H UAHULINA
Department of Environmental Qual

Facility Number: 820106
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Data of visit: 03/22/2017 Entry Time: 02:30 pm
Farm Name: Kerr Farm
Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS820106 ❑ Denied Access
Inactive Or Closed Dale:
County: Sampson Region: Fayetteville
Exit Time, 3:00 pm Incident 9
Owner Email-
Owner. Murphy -Brown LLC Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28348
Physical Address: 618 G Shaw Rd Ivanhoe NC 28447
Facility Staters: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34° 38'02" Longitude: 78° 13'11'
At the end of SR 1163 approx..8 miles from its intersection with SR 1100, north of Ivanhoe, NC.
Question Areas:
0 Dischrge & stream Impacts
M Records and Documents
M Waste Gol, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
M Other Issues
Certfied Operator: Afton Eugene Mobley Operator Certification Number: 25259
Secondary OIC(s):
Onsite Representadve(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: AWS820106 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 826106
Inspection Date: 03/22117 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Wean to Finish 5,747
Total Design Capacity: 5,747
Total SSLW: 660,905
Waste Structures
Dislgnated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
agoon 1 20.50 37.00
Jet Stack 001
page: 2

Permit: AWS820106 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 820106
Inspection Date: 03/22/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes Na Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
❑
Excessive Ponding?
Structure
❑
❑
❑
Application Field
❑
❑
PAN?
Other
❑
M ❑
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ M
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
❑
M ❑
❑
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
11011
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
01111
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection Storage & Treatment
Yes Na Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
M ❑
❑
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
❑
❑
❑
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
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
01111
Application outside of application area?
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
❑
01111
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
res 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?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS820106 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 820106
Inspection Date: 03/22/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Wash Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
0 ❑ ❑
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
WUP?
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
❑
Soil Type 1
Autryville loamy sand, 0 to
❑
6% slopes
Soil Type 2
Leon sand, 0 to 2% slopes
Soil Type 3
Lynn Haven sand
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
❑
Soil Type 6
If Other, please specify
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
❑
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ M ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
determination?
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ M ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ala
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather rode?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS820106 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 820106
Inspection Date: 03/22/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
No Na No
Stocking?
❑
❑
E ❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
❑
0 ❑
Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
❑
E ❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
N ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
N ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Other
❑
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:
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
❑
E ❑
26. Did the facility fail to provide'documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
N ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
110110
Other Issues
Yee
No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andfor document
❑
E ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
E ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface file drains exist at the facility?
❑
E ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
❑
E ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
E ❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
820106
Facility Status: Active permit: AWS820106
Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Sampson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
07/29/2015 Entry Time: 04:00 Pm Exit Time: 5:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Kerr Farm
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
618 G Shaw Rd
Ivanhoe NC 28447
Facility Status:
0 Compliant ❑
Not Compliant Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: ' 34' 38'02' Longitude:
78' 13'11"
At the end of SR 1163 approx..8 miles from its
intersection with SR 1100, north of Ivanhoe, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge 8 Stream Impacts
Waste Col, Stor, 8 Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other Issues
Certified Operator: Wayne O 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: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS820106
Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC
Facility Number:
820106
Inspection Date: 07/29/15
Inpsection Type: Compliance inspection
Reason for Visit:
Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Wean to Finish
5,747
Total Design Capacity:
5,747
Total SSLW:
660.905
Waste Structures
Disignated
Observed
Type Identifier
Closed Date Start Date
Freeboard
Freeboard
Lagoon 1 20.50 34.00
Wet Stack 001
page: 2

Permit: AWS820106 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820106
Inspection Date: 07/29/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na No
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Structure
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Application Field
❑
PAN?
❑
Other
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
El
❑ 0
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ N
❑
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
❑
■ ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e.l large
❑
❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
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 manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS820106 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820106
Inspection Date: 07/29/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
(Hay)
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
Leon
Soil Type 3
Lynn Haven sand
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 and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
[❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
[]
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS820106 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820106
Inspection Date: 07/29/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
NQ Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
Crop yields?
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
120 Minute inspections?
❑
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
Sludge Survey
❑
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
M ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
M ❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
M ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous foss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
M ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No N8 No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field ❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond ❑
Other ❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
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

0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number.
820106 Facility Status:
Attie Permit: AWS820106
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Sampson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
10/2312014 Entry Time: 03:00 pm
Exit Time: 4:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Kerr Farm
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
618 G Shaw Rd
Ivanhoe NC 28447
Facility Status:
0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 34° 38'02" Longitude:
78° 13'11'
At the end of SR 1163 approx..8 miles from its intersection with SR 1100, north of Ivanhoe, NC
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Other Issues
Certified Operator: Wayne O Sanderson Operator Certification Number: 17903
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Name
24 hour contact name
Mike Ammons
On-site representative
Mike Ammons
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Title
Phone
Phone
Phone
Robert Marble Phone:
Date:
page: 1

r
Permit: AWS820106
Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC
Facility Number:
820106
Inspection Date: 10/23/14
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit:
Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current promotions
Swine
❑ Swine - Wean to Finish
5,747
Total Design Capacity:
5,747
Total SSLW:
660,905
Waste Structures
Disignated
Observed
Type Identifier
Closed Date Start Date
Freeboard
Freeboard
Lagoon 1 20.50 54.00
Wet Stack 001
page: 2

Permit: AWS820106 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820106
Inspection Date: 10/23/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na He
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
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)
❑
❑ 0
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
[❑
E ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na Na
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
N ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
E ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on-site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
E ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
■ ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ N ❑ ❑
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: AWS820106 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820106
Inspection Date: 10/23/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
res
No Na No
❑
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
Maps?
(Hay)
Lease Agreements?
❑
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Crop Type 4
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Crop Type 5
❑
page: 4
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Autryville
Soil Type 2
Leon
Soil Type 3
Lynn Haven sand
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
M ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
M ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na 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?
[] 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: AWS820106 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820106
Inspection Date: 10123114 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
Crop yields?
❑
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
E ❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
D
E ❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑ ❑
(NPDES only)?
E ❑
❑
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
❑
Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
E ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
E ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
E ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field ❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond ❑
Other ❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or ❑ ❑ ❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on-site representative? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ N ❑ ❑
page: 5

0 Division of Water Resources
El Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
FacilityNumber: 820106 Active
Facility Status: Permit: AUVS820106
[] Denied Access
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit: Routine County. Sampson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 12J17/2013 Entry Time: 12:00 pm Exit Time: 1:00 pm Incident #
Fane Name: Kerr Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 618 G Shaw Rd Ivanhoe NC 28447
Facility Status: Compliant Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34' 38'02' Longitude:
78° 13' 11"
At the end of SR 1163 approx..8 miles from its intersection with SR 1100, north of Ivanhoe, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Alton Eugene Mobley Operator Certification Number:
25259
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Ammons Phone
Onsite representative Mike Ammons Phone:
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Robert Marble
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWS820106 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820106
Inspection Date: 12/17/13 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Wean to Finish
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
agoon 1 20.50
Vet Stack 001
page: 2

Permit: AWS820106 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820106
Inspection Date: 12/17/13 Inssection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Imyacts
Yes No Na No
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
Excessive Ponding?
Structure
❑
❑
0 ❑
Application Field
❑
❑
PAN?
Other
❑
❑
0 ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ M
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
d_ Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
[❑ M
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
01111
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yg}
No Na No
❑ ❑ ❑
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 ([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
❑
0 ❑
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
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: AWS820106 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
Inspection Date: 12/17/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
820106
Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Autryville loamy sand, U to
6% slopes
Soil Type 2
Leon sand, 0 to 2% slopes
Soil Type 3
Lynn Haven sand
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ ❑ ❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ E ❑ ❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ M ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ 0 [] ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ 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?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS820106 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820106
Inspection Date: 12/17/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Stocking?
❑
E ❑
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
E ❑
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
E ❑
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
E ❑
[]
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. 1s the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
E ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
❑
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
■ ❑
❑
Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
❑
E ❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na Ne
26. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
E ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
E ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
E ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
E ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
■ ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on-site representative?
❑
E ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■ ❑
❑
page: 5

r ype ui v isa: jr, t.ompuance inspection v vperanon meveew tJ Ntructure Lvatuanon V i ecnmeat Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: A-1 Vrrival Time: f I; Departure Time: Z;p£] County SOd
Farm Name: �7 ?j Y-eyy— Fqw- vl Owner Email:
Owner Name: (,I�`i'yiOWvll u� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: I r-__0 in Title:
Onsite Representative: 0
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Region: lr_o_n
Phone:
Integrator:MC) L-1
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Dischar es and Stream Impacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes F[ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes
Desig n'
Currenm „�,�.�,.- Design
Curren#
Design Current
Swine �"
Capacity
Pap.S Wet'Poultry _- Capacity
Pop.
Cattle ..-. Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
0 Layer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
-- -V Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Dr �P>oul S-EFacit5mPioP.
INon-Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turke Poults
Other
Other
Dischar es and Stream Impacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes F[ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes
❑No
❑ Yes
EANo
❑ Yes
[)§ No
® NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
NA
❑ NE
[DNA
C] NE
E] NA
E3 NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection:
'Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [29 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No [D NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:_
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): rf
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[�j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
C9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
`P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
b No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes n No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. [] Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Eviden
ce
ofWindd DriftJ�❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): ws4t ' (* G- S gi'l'l. Gi k,_ A .4
13. Soil Type(s): AALe
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 �9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ YesNo C—]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 [Fj No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes fo No Q NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes O�j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [P No
❑ 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 M No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes Qg No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/2011 Continued

Facili Number: jDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes EP No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes EpNo [DNA ❑ NE
the appropriate boxes) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [:]Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes 1� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? 0 Yes `tom No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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 the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes
["pj No
❑ NA
0 NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? 0 Yes [P No ❑ NA 0 NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative? ❑ Yes 1P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes IV No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #t): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments !;
Use drawings of facility to better ex iain.sitnations use additional pages as necessary).".,..�'"
S reg �-,re 7/kip,
c; 'cr+ Iz,
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date: �!
2/4/2011

type of visit: W Compliance inspection U Operation Review U structure Evaluation UJ echnical Assistance
Reason for Visit: * Routine O Complaint O Follow-up 0 Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit:
mg �;. .
Current
,.WetiP:.oultry =_-Capacity Pop.
,- -
Arrival Time: bir
Departure Time: pS• pp wl County: tq0S,91JRegion: ZIC/940
Farm Name:
&JP r
yn
_ Owner Email:
airy Heifer
_
Owner Name:
&uw_41
_—,6 f'py,/
Phone:
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �i Xz A110.10A-37Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Integrator:�,,y
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design CurrentDesig
Swine ;Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
mg �;. .
Current
,.WetiP:.oultry =_-Capacity Pop.
,- -
Design Current
Cattle _ C -E a—eity Pap.
airy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
airy Calf
Feeder to Finish
❑ NE
airy Heifer
Farrow to WeanDesx
77
i 11-
�ga, Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D P,oult .. aci _ P,o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
TurkeyPoults
Otherlot
Other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
cP NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes ❑No ® NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes CP
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yesffn LU
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 214120II Continued

Facility Number: Date of inspection: /
W11ste Collection & Treatment '
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes No Kn NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): AT
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes [ffNo ❑ NA 0 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 R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �TNo ❑ 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 0 Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? f
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need [:]Yes �No ❑ NA [1 NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ YesNo [:]NA [:]NE
❑ Excessive Ponding [:]Hydraulic Overload [:]Frozen Ground [:]Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, et )
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable
'Crop Window ❑/�Ev_idencee of WindDrift❑/A'pplication Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): Oaz.,; 4 &-fi ek (!; 4i5Z4J J� sjy 6}
13. Soil Type(s): �10
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ( No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Tr No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes P No [] NA ❑ NE
❑WUP ❑Checklists [—]Design ❑Maps ❑Lease Agreements _]Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes fANo
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes [9 No
23_ If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:]Yes ® No
Page 2 of 3
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
21412011 Continued

[Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
24'Did the facility fail to calibrate waste'application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [;4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey [:]Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ 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
[Ig No
[] NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? if yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �r� Date: Zq //
— r
Page 3 of 3 21412012
7

Date of Visit: Q ArrivaFav-
l,T�im�e: tl X04 Y� Departure Time: /; �i County: 5#4�� W Region:
Farm Name: Wr 1 ay VV1 Owner Email:
Owner Name: { ' t 'r1�� W r'1. . _ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: W. U ' c ,r t o Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: u integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 0 n E__1 ' I--] " Longitude: ="=' = u
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Gapty Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Non -Layer
ElDai Cow
El Wean to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish 1 4 Aclvi± (071
Day Poultry
❑ Layers
El Dairy Heifer
❑ D Cow
El Non -Dairy
El Beef Stocker
Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder
El Farrow to Finish
Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Pullets
ElBeef Brood Co
❑ Turke s
El Turkey Points
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: El Structure El Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Boars
Other
❑ Other
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 to
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No P NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No [PNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No 1P NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
1:1 Yes �No El NA El NE
Page I of 3 I228/0
4 Continued

Facility Number: = Date of Inspection 7 0
❑ Yes
[19 No
Waste Collection & Treatment
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ NoNA ElNE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 tructure 6
Identifier:
❑-Yes
[ No
Spillway?:
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Designed Freeboard (in):
�j No
❑ NA
Observed Freeboard (in): r�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
[P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
W 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 EINE
(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
�5No ❑ 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?
1
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
P9 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 Wind Drift [:]Application Outside
of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
` 1
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[19 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16_ Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑-Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
�j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
5* Vt
, (:OKL,,W 1
'-eecbv-dS rruie,� tO —2-1—j0
ReviewertInspector Name!T 'Tf ; i*,'." Phone: C�7
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Q 2 p
Page 2 of 3 12128/04 ' Continued

Facility Number: L70— Date of Inspection f 10f
Re wired 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 CA WMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No El NA [_1 NE
El Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis El Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers I❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge'?
❑ Yes
P§No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
V1 NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
P] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[p No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal'?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
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? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
`#' No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12/28/04

Type of Visit & 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 Accesses
Date of Visit: t1 0 Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: �;4wqrad Region: .
Farm Name: f""`-" r t7aw 21, Owner Email:
Owner Name: ," L t 6 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
4
Facility Contact: r 'Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:. jgk 1'b�JvtUC
57
Certified Operator:. -- Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [=]' [—] ' [_] " Longitude: [_—] e =
Design Current
❑ Yes
Design G�urrent
Design Current
Swine Capacity .Population
Wet Poultry Capaty Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ No
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ No
Feeder to Finish
❑ NE
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Day poultt-y
E]Dry Cow
❑ Yes
❑ Farrow to Feeder
NA
❑ La ers
El Non -Dai
❑ Yes
El Farrow to Finish
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
pp]
No
❑Non -La ers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
❑ Turkeys
12128104
Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[V No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® NA
EINE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
§0 NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
EINE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
pp]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: ,7-- /0461 Date of Inspection
❑ Yes
VDNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
F No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
❑ No
P NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
Spillway?:
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Designed Freeboard (in):
❑ NA
❑ NE
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes(�]
No
❑ NA C1 NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
r
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
MNo
[INA E-1NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes�No
[:1 NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes
)!] No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window Evidence of Wind Drift ❑/7Application off Area
`Outside
[�I _
12. Crop type(s) _CLQf4I JQ c,-.ct: 4L r 7/M txGt/N "O!/`�SC�'
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
VDNo
El NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
V2 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
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refe'r'to.question #): 'Explain a"nvk�YES answers trndlor any recommendations o11 any other comments,
Use drawtings of facility to Ibetter espla�n.setuattons (use additional pages as necessary)"
Reviewer/inspector Name I , ;i'� Phone: - y73'3Q�
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: t1 f
12/28/04 Continued

1
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:�} Arrival Time: C�� ,� Departure Time. ��f County: --gry�PSWJ _ Region: E-140}/
Farm Name: f�oe_rr_ � Owner Email:
Owner Name: _ /" [lid ht/ " Qr�) �C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: , ' { c fir' Title:
4
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:. Adon e, t • 6
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator• �C
Operator Certification Number:. $-9
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: E] o [=1 ' E__1 " Longitude: = ° = I E__1 W
Design Current
Swinetty>"Population
Wean to Finish
F
WeE Poultry
❑ La er
Dew' gn�XCurrent
CapactSPopulation
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
n -La er
❑ Dairy Calf
19 Feeder to Finish'
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
_
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to WeanD
, Poult
ry
...
❑ D Cow
El Farrow to Feeder'"
MNA
... "' "
El Non -Dairy
El Farrow to Finish
❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
❑ No
10 Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Yes
10 Beef Brood Co
❑ NA
❑ Turkeys.
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
Other '"` �� "-' �'
. ;-
❑ TurkeyPoults
ElNE
other than from a discharge?
. ,
❑ Other
❑ Other
Nurnber of Structures:
Page I of 3
12/28/04
Continued
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
1� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
09 NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
MNA
❑ 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
'0 NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
f9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
o
k�`N
ElNA
ElNE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12/28/04
Continued

Faciiity Number: — rQb Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
Reviewer/inspector Name T Phone: 910 - �3fS0
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
El Yes
El No pNA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?-
pillway?:Designed
DesignedFreeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 0��
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ElNE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
��ccil
N 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
4 N [:INA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
IpNo ❑ 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
V No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
U9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) Cws-1 ( &rm uda C15 5 6L) , 5m, 6y uk. 0
i
13. Soil type(s) -A" LP_Ov► --1.P n,tom -1
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes 'R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes FP No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes bg No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes 19No El NA E] NE
��t �_. -. _: �z 4� � .• �, �_ rte+ ate: ,,.�.:
Com e nom; (refer to..q iestEany#) ExplavnnYES answers and/orfanyrrecommendateonsor any other comments.
Use drawing facility#o better explain situations. (use adder alspages as mess ry)d
Reviewer/inspector Name T Phone: 910 - �3fS0
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128/04 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 appropirate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield [:1120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 'B No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes Lri No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[]�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
® 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
F] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
AdditionALGomments:andlor Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12/28/04
Page 3 of 3 12/28/04

Facilify Number: Q9— Date of Inspection
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes q,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other 1
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
1� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fait to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
![P
[—]NA
[__1 NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
[:1 Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes1�No
[INA
ElNE
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
1p 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
❑ Yes1�No
ElNA
[INE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, frceboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewerlinspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
Q] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional:Comiihents.and/or-Drawings:.."`-
12/28104
12/28104

Division of Water Quality
=acilityumber ! 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
_ _._..... 0 Other Agency
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason far Visit *Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 23 Drl Arrival Time:_P7_W_ t+ Departure Time: Aa.'Yt n] County: —524 'INA) Region: 1 e-0
Farm Name: _X"V' _ Q Owner Email:
Owner Name: _. �� ` f.JYD.Q 161 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: L' 46W� 5; T" Title:
r�
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: lovi ,e l
Back-up Operator: 1rz►'rJ[ S1'V►tiA
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phone No:
Integrator: r
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
a�s�d
Latitude: = o [� i 0 N Longitude: =0=6 =C6 e=6❑«
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ 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?
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑
Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures:
E:.
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
qQNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
E$VA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No VNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
12/28/04 Continued

Facility'Number: 0 U7 Date of Inspection 0'7
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity structural plus storm storage plus heavy [:INA ❑ NE
g p y( p g p vy rainfall) less than adequate? El o
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes No t NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
e/
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes �Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Docs any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes §allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste ARDlication
10.
Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:SLA Date: a i' 0`�
11.
Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifi [:1 Application Outside of Area
12.
Crop type(s) �m 44sM t n
13.
Soil type(s)
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes
FNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes
[F No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
[;&No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
$ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
r ALI
Reviewer/Inspector Name 1244AVruk ,1 t` Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:SLA Date: a i' 0`�
11/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: f Date of Inspection Z r%
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 10 No ❑ NA ElNE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 191 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps E] Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes JA No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes C& No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
C5 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMF?
❑ Yes
�] No
❑ NA ❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
'J"' No
El NA ❑ NE
12/28104

Type of Visit 0 Compliance inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: Opl=_{SQ County: Sb Region:
Farm Name: r Owner Email:
Owner Name: Qw AA RW(V S _ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: �I �►""�
Certified Operator: 4GV OL(WY)
Back-up Operator: '. `_l drl
Phone No:
Integrator• AWO V
Operator Certification Number: --
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: =1 0 = I = 11 Longitude: = ° = I
ElLa ers
❑Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
El Turke s
❑Turke Poults
El
❑ Yes M
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure El Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c_ What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge'?
Page 1 of 3
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ®NA EINE
❑ Yes ❑ No � NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No E& NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ®No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ;R
12/18/04 Continued
Designer Currerit ''
Design Current r Design Current
Swine
Capacity Population
, . Wet Poultry
Capacity Populahotih Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er '," El DaiCow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La er
El Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
❑ Da' Heifer
El Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
El Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
k ❑ Non -Dairy
`° ,: E] Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
El Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
;` ❑ Beef Brood Co
Other
❑Other
_
`,
��
� 'NumSer of Structures:
ElLa ers
❑Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
El Turke s
❑Turke Poults
El
❑ Yes M
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure El Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c_ What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge'?
Page 1 of 3
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ®NA EINE
❑ Yes ❑ No � NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No E& NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ®No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ;R
12/18/04 Continued
No
❑ NA
❑ NE

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes El No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No PNA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA EINE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes FIA 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 stealth or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes C5No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes P9 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 t&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA EINE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 'l No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload . ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[]PAN [--IPAN > 10% or ] O lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window El Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12. Croptype(s) _ ✓!J much & t .,5YK&AI gral!'t Qt
13. Soil type(s)
i
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
1P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
1P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
IP No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Gotnments (refer to ques——__ti!@_'#Ei--plain 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 r; { -� * 1 i P one:
. :amu �. 11.. ID 33'
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: O f 6�
Page 2 of 3
22/28/04 Continued

w
i -
Facility Number: per. Ob I Date of Inspection l0
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [ 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists❑ Design ❑ Maps El other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes E4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes UNo ❑ NA EINE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment'? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
W 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
f.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
J�d No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
Q&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
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or. Drawings: ax * y
T
Paige 3 of 3 12/28104