820126_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NUH I H UAHULINA
Department of Environmental Qual

type or visit: tq compliance inspection V Vperatton Keview U structure Evaluation U Iecnmcal Assistance
Reason for Visit: 01koutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time:f! County: Region:
Farm Name:�� T Ql/�7.5 / �� Owner Email:
Owner Name:j Fir/,rXrlG• Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Wit e.— _ Phone: I
Onsite Representative: Integrator: i 1/d
Certified Operator:
—Q
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
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 DWR)
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 DWR)
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
[:]Yes [] No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
[-]Yes
Design Current
[DNA
Design
Current
Design Csurren#
Swine
Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
I ILayer
I
Cow
Wean to Feeder
jNon-La er
I
Calf
Feeder to Finish
airy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
C7
Design
CurrentDry
Cow
Farrow to Feeder
"' .. D . P,oul
ACa aci
Po
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
-
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turke Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWR)
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 DWR)
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
[:]Yes [] No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
[-]Yes
❑No
[DNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Na
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

-IFacility Number: - / Date of Inspection: / F l
Waste Collection &Treatment
i, 4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑Yes No [] NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure l 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 ffNo ❑ 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 3-<o
[] NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check
❑ Yes
O No
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental threat,
notify DW R
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes EE j o
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes (Ej�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
[a -<o
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes [2 Foo
❑ NA
D NE
maintenance or improvement?
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes []"1Vo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes E31 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
M 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): e�}nu,.[ ni / pV,,,j,C n( >/ i r,Ls
13. Soil Type(s): Qp
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes E!fNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? 0 Yes Cj_N'o ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes [frNo ❑ 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?
Required Records & Documents
❑ Yes [TNo
❑ Yes Efr`&o
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[f] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check
❑ Yes
O 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
[a -<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes0;
10
❑ NA
[:]NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/2015 Continued

j Facifi Number:- Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [3"No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes 0'40
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 0lo
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes E3 -No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i -e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑NA 0 N
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [ETNo ❑ NA ONE
❑ Yes [7T"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes L_J 1`'o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [2'<To ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E211�o
❑ Yes C3 No
❑ Yes io
❑ NA ❑ NE
0 N 0 N
0 N 0 N
ReviewerAnspector Name: �� � Phone: // D3— DIJ—I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: `�-/ 9
Page 3 of 3 21412015

//_ G _1__i!9 /�
Type of Visit: Cc Mompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: Dunne O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency Q Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: �L / Arrival Time: Departure Time: /Ui3O County: f . A --Region:
Farm Name: _T/-"ig� A P" zeen S �-� Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: D� vL� Title: C�,q �'r� Phone:
Onsite Representative: jam_ Integrator:
Certified Operator: S�� Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
ice:.
Design ,Current '1
Swine Capacity Pop:
Epp
Wet Poultry ;,
Des n Cnrren#�
Capacity Pop.
Des n Current
Eal#le' Capacity Pap.
[:]Yes
Finish
❑ NA
La er
Dai Cow
Feeder
Non -La er
Dai Calf
o Finish Cp�jj
Dai Heifer
to WeanD
En
Cow
to Feeder
D , P,ou
Ca a i P, . P;o':.
Non-Daito
Finish
Ia ers
Beef Stocker
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
,111 Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkevs
Other— �,
j,
,
TurkeyPoults
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 DWR)
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 DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes [3 -No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
❑No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes f].No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
21412015 Continued

Faciljy Number: - jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & 'Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
[:]Yes
[a -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
[TNo
❑ 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 DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
[&Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes allo ❑ 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 Drill ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): �2r/iyi tr c c _ /FJy —, %
13. Soil Type(s): _ l/" a J Ajp a-
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes H,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?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes jaNo ❑ NA D NE
❑ Yes Eg-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes RNo ❑ 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 ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21 . Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes tg[No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking p Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes C&No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:]Yes E4No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/2015 Continued

F'acili Number: - , 1 ction: — / 7
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check [—]Yes [3 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? D Yes R 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
[S 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
[gNo
❑ 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
ENo
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
j24 -No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatui
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
21412015

i
hype of Visit: U Com nee Inspection U Operation Review U Structure ;valuation (> Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: jT 17(7 Departure Time: , County: Region:
Farm Name: l / /aZnf r1 --ms %��,� Owner Email:
Owner Name: 7 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: r �� l Title: A U,) ti -r-- Phone:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: , �1 < -j—
Back-up
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Integrator:
v
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Ins
Wean to Finish
DegnCurrcat
Capacrty`Pop.
Wet Poultry
La er
Design
Capaci
Current
Design Current
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
pD
Non -La er
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
T ` i" `
"` "'
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
WNDpn
Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D . P,oulti
Pop.
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Tur e s
Other __':
.:-
TurkeyPoults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
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 DWR)
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 ta.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
❑No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [3 -No
❑ Yes ELNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Wacility Number: - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Spillway?: q
Designed Freeboard (in): /I::;—, /
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
Jallo
❑ NA
ONE
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 DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
JANo
❑ 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
[2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
Ig No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [g 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 Wind/ow ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): (J4 0 r -/-S r`a� Y:'e
13. Soil Type(s): " X 7/ AL
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes allo ❑ 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 JL 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 MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes JRNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes EA No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes J�LNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design p Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes MNo
❑ 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 allo
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ES -No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA []NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

acili Number: Date of inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
' 25. is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes 1allo ❑ 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 allo ❑ 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 EINo ❑ 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 fj�j 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
[3 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
r.7,1,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
Jallo
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
JEYNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers -and/or any additional recon mendations or.any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better esnlain situations (use additional uaaes as necessarv).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
21412015

gr Ly 10-lj'
Type of Visit: 0"Compli nce Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: outine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: — /5 Arrival Time: / . 3 Departure Time: /7 ! 3 v County:
Farm Name: jd�Gz/rye s >� Owner Email:
Owner Name: �� -� Q f >�n ,� ntS -47�17G. , Phone:
Mailing Address:
Region: rX
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 11 �w ���/!t- Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
r�
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design
Current
Design CurrenM.t
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to finish
Layer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
on -Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
=. ! ='I'
'-
" w..
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean 7,7,tp
t
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
h . Poultr
Ca aci
Po
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Gilts
Boars
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
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 DWR)
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?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes ; No ❑ NA 0 NE
[:]Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA 0 N
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
2/4/2014 Continued

Facility Number: - L pate of Inspection: /S
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Designed Freeboard (in):
❑ Yes
R] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Observed Freeboard (in): ,13
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.)
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
- 9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need [] Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Dg -No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s). cza-
13. Soil Type(s): k( )a L3 Z.)29) is
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes [0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
R] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
(D 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 E:1120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? [—]Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:]Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/2011 Continued

Facility Number: - 1A I Date of Ins ection: -- /
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes allo
,* 25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes L�j 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 fust survey indicating non -compliance -
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes �Z No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [0 No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
DNA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ONE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ja No [] NA 0 NE
❑ Yes allo
❑ Yes 54 -No
❑ Yes [a No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to hetter explain situations (use additional panes as necessarv).
Reviewer/Inspector Name: �_ Phone:
s
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: '--/lv — /9�
Page 3 of 3 2/4/2011

Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ; dip Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: 17i 7 ac r m y J d-,2
Owner Name: Fa � gh
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Facility Contact: S Title: �c�h �✓
Onsite Representative:
Phone:
�
Integrator: /mss +��' ��G`'�•
Certified Operator: ��r- Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: Longitude:
Dischar es and Stream Impact
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: p 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 6�_No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Design- Current
DestgnCurrent
M
Design Current
Swine
Capacity - Pop.
Wet Poultry*CapacIty Pop:
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
Dairy Cow
can to Feeder
Non -Layer
i
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
arrow to Wean
` Design Curieiit
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D , Poul Ca aciPo ._
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Dischar es and Stream Impact
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: p 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 6�_No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 2/4/2011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Insection:
— O!
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Waste Collection & Treatment
❑ Yes
2 No
[] NA
❑ NE
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
❑ NA
Identifier:
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
[:]Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and l" Rainfall Inspections
Spillway?:
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
yR No
❑ NA
Designed Freeboard (in): / g'
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
[—]Yes
CKNo
❑ NA
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
[Z 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
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
[:]Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes D4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift [] Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): Zi- sy
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes 5� 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 E&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?
Required Records & Documents
❑ Yes [gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Q�.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
2 No
[] NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ATP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
[SNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
[:]Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and l" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
yR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
[—]Yes
CKNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/2011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of ins ection: l3
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
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
f3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[g No
[] NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ®,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes to No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes RNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary). -
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
�Tr✓ C�-�y� _ Phone: g/D-�y33-330
Date: J�r�D/ 3
2/4/2011

Type of Visit: tMompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: O'go—utine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral O Emergenev O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit:%d Arrival Time: ' [7 Departure Time: a County Region: f=lz
Farm Name: �� Owner Email:
Owner Name: 7-rLa"p,( fir e,;kn Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 7,0_4 z4zz0 Title: ,VbUn t✓/-"
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
`
Desegn Current
i``Des�gnMDesign
E] NE
Current
Swine
Capacitj Pop.
Wet PoWtry
Capacity; Pop'
Cat#te Capacity Pop.
....
Wean to Finish
ILayer
I
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
O o D
Non -La er
"_"
; �
Dai Calf
-Feeder to Finish
t7
m
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
OQ
Design"Curient
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D . P,oul t Hv
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
�i
Other
Other
Discharges 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 ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes ❑No
❑ Yes [] No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes EZ No
E] NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
E) NA
E] NE
E) NA
❑NE
Page I of 3 2/4/2011 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Ins ection: &:Z/
0 Yes
[Z No
❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
Waste Collection & Treatment
E, No
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
14. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
oNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
[:]Yes
❑No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
❑ Weather Code
Identifier:
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
0 No
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): /2
Observed Freeboard (in): --;2 JE�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
[:]Yes
allo
❑ 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
[0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
W 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
ELNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
Z[No
❑ NA.
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application'? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes JZ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application' Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):_41 A& r
13. Soil Type(s): W,_T 1 jC o, 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes fjj.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes E, No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable [] Yes 2. 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?
Required Records & Documents
❑ Yes [ff No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 10 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
0 Yes
[Z No
❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
E, No
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists 0 Design [:]Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
54 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1 " Rainfall inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/2011 Continued

Facili Number: 113ate of Inspection: 4—;Z
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
X25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes FNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA [ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes 1� 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 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 ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes allo ❑ NA [] NE
❑ Yes [gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes (,No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes C�J-No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ONE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better exolain situations (use additional owes as necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: p— 5 op
Date: -':An rj
2/4/2011

ype oe visit. lJ %.ompttance inspection v uperaaon nevrew l.J structure r vaiunnon V i ecnntcal Assistance
Reason for Visit: CDIAoutine O Complaint Q Follow-up O Referral Q Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: L Arrival Time: : J J Departure Time: '[ia County:
Farm Name _ 72%`i ml > arznS a Owner Email:
Owner Name: ZT2 ,a J Qr —7-::-/7 G. Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 1�97vt~ �<Q //" 0 %.— Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: S'c�. Integrator: /l�,ir�
Certified Operator: _ _�'- Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
[legion: D
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
[:]Yes [&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes [:]No
[:]Yes [ No
[:]Yes ® No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 2/412011 Continued
t n Cprrent
Design Current
Swine
ED�i3gnCCqrrV11
WetPou1try Capac Pio
ty p
CattleV Capacity Pop.
_ ..
14x"6 , _ :.n :..
Wean to Finish
Layer
Da' Cow
?(, Wean to Feeder
O
Non -La er
Da' Calf
Feeder to Finish
pD O
-"
Da' Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Q
9 a Design Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
- Dr, =PoWtr, Ga aci P,o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers I
113eef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
10ther
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
[:]Yes [&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes [:]No
[:]Yes [ No
[:]Yes ® No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 2/412011 Continued

Facifity Number: - .;Lb j Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ES No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:ir! t
Spillway?:
❑ Yes
[allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Designed Freeboard (in):
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any 'immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
El No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
❑ Yes
2,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
LN No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental
threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
ElYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
(a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
[—]Yes
[&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
_Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
I 1 _ Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): "beyM4061-
13. Soil Type(s): .5 Z /Up,.
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?
IT Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
❑ Yes [E, No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
Z 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
2,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
i
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/1011 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? [-]Yes [aNo
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check [] Yes 0 No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes (2 No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [Ej No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes Pq No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ®, No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [a No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [allo
❑ Yes ® No
[:]Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional nates as necessarv).
G� f •u.� u�vrk�.
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: L Date:
Page 3 of 3 2/4/2011

Type of Visit: [4EvMpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: / Arrival Time: D.'ptl Departure Time: /.3a County Region:
Region:
.011
Farm Name: t`! a�P_ aryLs �}`� Owner Email:
Owner Name:/. ; G�Q'+"�"-5`t Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:�rnn, L Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: SIAI� Integrator:
ox
Certified Operator: ��//"r�� Certification Number:
Sack -up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
i
"-
F
Design
Current .' Design
Current
- Design Current
Swine
Capacity
Pop.
Ca aci
WsetPoultry p
PI o p
Cattle Capacity Pap.
Wean to Finish
-
La er
Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
dD
--D--
Non -La er
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
/7^"
�D
F
Dairy Ileifer
Farrow to Wean
DD
G Iviz#
Design UurrentE
Dry Cow
Farrow to FeederD
gl'oult - �Ca aci
P.o
-Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
u.:...s..v�:__,..:....o—..�..
---lMGft uT'=:::-:.
Turks s
Turks Poults
Other
❑ Yes E3
Dischar es and Stream Im acts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure F1 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)?
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes ❑ No
�] NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes KI No [] NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I ofd 2/4/1011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: - /1
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
jo 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
[K 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?
[S Yes
❑ 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
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop/ Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):�j l©
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?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [a No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check [:]Yes 1,'-'3 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 V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? [:]Yes No
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 2/412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Ins ection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes Eg No
25. is the facility out of compliance with permii conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes fg No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ® No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [3 No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29_ At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes O No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes JZ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:] Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes 54 No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
E] NA ❑NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: %L�`��57 3c�
Date:
2/4/2011

Type of visit QMompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine O Complaint Q Follow up O Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: � Arrival Time: X 30 Departure Time: i7� County: �� �� Region:
Farm Name: 7E; & Q/ryz, _ / f -- Owner Email:
Owner Name: t F2!+ -5 L/1c. Phone:
Mailing Address:
Phvsical Address:
Facility Contact: gzo-k+_,,S2 z=Dom- Title: f�G!/Br- -��Phone No:
Onsite Representative: _ 5 Gt� _ Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: =0
=. = Longitude: [� o =&
=] q
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Design
Current
❑ NA
Design Current
Design Current
Swine
IMF
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ La er
❑ Dai CowII
❑ Wean to Feeder
8'D 0
6
❑Non -La er
❑ Dair Calf
❑Feeder to Finish
' tyo
/wc)
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Dai Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ NA
3,PVD
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
El Farrow
❑ NA
❑ NE
Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
E]Beef Brood Co
❑Turkeys
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turkey Poults
10 Other
Number Structures:
of
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
U.No
❑ NA
EINE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
EINE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
C,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128/04
Continued

Facility Number: / & 1 Date of Inspection 1.
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): T,
Observed Freeboard (in): S
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
1 -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?
SYes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[R 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
[:1 Yes
9_Vo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
E.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes allo ❑ 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) 2ff,��e�f���
1-#
W
13. Soil type(s) a '�j $
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes Eallo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes 5d No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes a No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes [9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
IComments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
ReviewerlInspector Name I I Phone: -3701
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: /p
Page 2 of 3 12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: — j� Date of Inspection 5S-16
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 KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ W ­Up [] Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes JANo ❑ 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 J,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes E,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
E3No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
®.No
❑ NA
EINE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
E4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
M 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
C3,]Vo
❑ 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
KNo
❑ 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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12/28/04

A
Type of Visit EMompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit C7Houtine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
c2 D : �'�
Date of Visit. � -' Q Arrival Time: T .' D Departure Time- �r3 County: Region:
Farm Name: _�ria��.C�s d_ .0--- Owner Email:
Owner Name: _ ' 'OL 'o e_a rnsK C- Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: T4"-rS� Title: �P�r" Phone No:
Onsite Representative: �p Integrator:
Certified Operator: 0—ar&-1y Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: =o = � [=& Longitude: =° =' 0 «
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity PopulationrLayer
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
I I
Cattle Capacity Popuiation
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ an to Finish
Wean to Feeder
pO p
❑ Non-Laye
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
p
❑ Yes
❑ Dairy }Heifer
®,Farrow to Wean
O O
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ No
❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑Gilts
❑ Yes
❑Non -La ers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
Pullet
❑ s
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other I
Structures:
12/28/04
Continued
umber of
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
EINo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
C&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12/28/04
Continued

Facility Number: rp Date of Inspection
i
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [,No ❑ NA EINE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): / 9- / g
Observed Freeboard (in): ifw
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes C, 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 0_No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Cl Yes JZ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit'?
❑ Yes
CR 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
9 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
[]Yes
�No
[:INA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement'?
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 ❑ Application Outside of
Area
12. Crop type(s) ,nf f �Rr.�sr�sr. f../1 Zen 4
13. Soil type(s) W,,r 7 N p 5
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
C,No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
a No
❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
I.No
❑ NA ❑ NE
1� �. 44yr Nr� S/-��' �r rOuv" r--�
Reviewer/Inspector Name ]►� ." Phone: Vj_D-633-33a O
Revi ewerA n spector Signature: Date: — D'-
avvr.unu—

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes Eallo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 0 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 Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
,@ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
, 0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
iK No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
§XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
CgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
BNo
❑ 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
®,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
EgNo
❑ 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
ERNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
A'ddittoSl�Commentsa'nd/�pr Drawings:
12/28/04
12/28/04

Type of Visit qMompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:e Arrival Time: t D Departure Time- �' � County: 0' Region:
Farm Name: �jGtrf I �/1Yf-5 l42= Owner Email:
Owner Name: - 7—,,,'o- of „_ Fa, -,h _'�-77HC, Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: , Z J � Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: _ S1 Integrator:
Certified Operator: ��urr��� Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:Latitude: =0 =4 = Longitude: " g = ° = ` ❑ u
Design Current Design Current ` Design =Current.
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle CapacityPopul�ation
❑ Wean to Finish
0 Wean to Feeder IMYO --Z�o
9Feeder to Finish Z> O
0 Farrow to Wean o fl
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
❑ La er
❑
Non -Layer
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?
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structuress: -`
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 I of 3
❑ Yes J�S.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[I Yes
El No
0 N
13 NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
�Io
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
M o
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number:,V__� Date of Inspection J
S -No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
1 Waste Collection & Treatment
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? []Yes
[SNo
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): /
Observed Freeboard (in): ILL
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
[:INE
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
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit'?
❑ Yes
9.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
El Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 2�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) jYrrtyt U J«x /� V e -c_ � d , _
13. Soil types) .3 Z A��j
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
S -No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
O -NO
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? []Yes
[SNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and - r any recommendations or any Other comments.
Use drawingsof facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary}:
Reviewer/Inspector Name t,c p�� Phone: 33
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: —
Page 2 of 3 12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Reguired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fait to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes O No []NA ❑NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps p [:1 Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0 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?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
[__1 Yes
0 N
El NA
El NE
❑ Yes
.2 -No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ES No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
®.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
®,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
JRNo
❑ NA
EINE
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
EINE
[:]Yes
B No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
®,No
❑ NA
EINE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
F,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12/28/04

Division of Water Quality -5-170"f---
Facility
-/70"GFacility Number, 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation /p —� 7�v%
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit &16ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine 0 complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ® Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region: ! "' -2
�R rms �d
Farm Name: �%+0.�„� % i7L Owner Email:
Owner Name: rT!'ict� �ar.�i .S e- Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: ��
Facility Contact: U o—kl _SR /,m a - Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: azCL , �% �ll`e l
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = =' Longitude: =o=,
o0` ❑
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
11Layer Q ❑ Non-Layet
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ No
2. Wean to Feeder
❑ NE
�eeder to Finish
D 0 /x`D a
2SFarrow to Wean
Op DU
El Farrow to Feeder
El Farrow to Finish
El Gilts
El NE
❑ Boars
EJ No
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
ElLayers
ElNon-Lavers
EJ Pullets
ElTurkeys
El Turke PoUlts
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1 _ Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
El Dairy Cow
El Dairy Calf
❑ Dai Heifer
❑ D Cow
ElNon-Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
El Beef Feeder
El Beef Brood Cowl
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes. notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3_ Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ;.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El NA
El NE
❑Yes
EJ No
❑ Yes
;&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
fi�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection/0—/ h� %
Waste Collection & Treatment
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 ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ('',r,r� �('r12
Spillway?:
2
Designed Freeboard (in): Z T
Observed Freeboard (in): yQ
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes ;0 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 RNo ❑ 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 Q9 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 W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes IN No ❑ NA- ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence/ of !Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) zfjeS—��
13. Soil type(s) _ T
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes J4 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 (Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes 2 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):
IReviewer/Inspector Name ��� � 6)— p— Phone: 9-10—_66F3__3300
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: fp—/5 —,;AD 0 7
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: — �2 Date of Inspection`s
t, Required Records & Documents
y
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes E&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists
❑ Design [I Maps [:1 Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes J, No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
®.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
g,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
(3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
E( No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
2$.
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
C 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
B No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, Freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
§4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or
12/28/04

JLYiV of Water Quality
Facility Number ?f�" Mm%Z6 Q Division of Soli and Water Conservation
Type of VisitCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ® Arrival Time: t% D Departure Time: County: Region: LLdrQ
Farm Name: i 6r)"S Owner Email:
Owner Name: / i a) a✓Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: (/f]h 5Q /_rn rp,1L_ Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: C ✓� L��
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator: ✓
Operator Certification Number: - 3
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =0
❑ ❑ Longitude:
Swine
Design
Current
Design Current
I Wet PouEtryCapacity Population
Design Current
Cattle I pacity Population
Wean to Finish
RWean
❑ Layer
El Dairy Cow
to Feeder
g'D t7
❑ Non -Layer I
El Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
pO
O
[:1 Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
p
D.ry Poultfy'"";,:,,, w u: .
El Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
ElNon-Layers
El Feeder
PE]
El Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
ElTurkeys
Other
11 Other
❑ TurkeyPoults
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges &Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? El Yes J9LNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: El Structure El Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made? [:1 Yes ;3.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) El Yes ZNo ❑ 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 PSNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? El Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State El Yes Cj�-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 12/28/04 Continued
Gilts
Boars
Discharges &Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? El Yes J9LNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: El Structure El Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made? [:1 Yes ;3.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) El Yes ZNo ❑ 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 PSNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? El Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State El Yes Cj�-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: — 169
Date of Inspection I &
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structurer2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: /'id 1 �� ct.�1 'p—
❑ Yes Wo
❑ Yes MNo
Structure 5
F-1 NA ONE
❑NA El NE
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): /91
Observed Freeboard (in): p2
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 0 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 5aNo ❑ 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 RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes R No LINA ❑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 KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA EINE
maintenance/improvement?
11.
Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
9No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12.
CroptyPe(s) (( : i rj eS
13.
Soil type(s) },(J� l ?J03
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes
KNo
❑ 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
0— 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
NNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
61 d03
Reviewer/inspector dame ---- — ]�,.` - Phone:%�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 9'_ /��f7
Page 2 of 3 12/28/04 Continued

V
Facility Number: — (o Date of inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes &No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists El Design El Maps ❑ 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 I " Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 54.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
JO No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit'?
❑ Yes
;@:N0
❑ 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
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
R[No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
tgNo
❑ 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
1KNo
❑ 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
BNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12/28/04
Page 3 of 3 12/28/04

r
Factltty, Numtier
❑ No
G
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
:<
Dmsion of Water Qualrtv _. b f �
Q Drvtston of Soil and 'Vater Conservation �}
Other.'Agenc}
Type of Visit 9 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ID Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: �,' D Departure Time: County: S_d� o•,_._. Region:
Farm Name: _ Tr�o� Fci�n, Tit „ Owner Email:
Owner Name: _ _Tr ad &jcm . x.,_ Tog, S Phone: `/-0 -
Mailing Address: to,4. `ZBcj __ - RI�ar4 } AV C
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Je44Pei Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: Ly12,ei�,i_p1
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Phone No: 7/0' �8� 7300
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =0
❑ 1 Longitude: =0=1 = "
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish ❑ La er
EPW'ean to Feeder goo 1 10 Non -Laver
❑-reeder to Finish ;2 000
0- arrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry.Poultry
U Non -Lavers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. 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?
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 GIX'o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
ElNA
ElNE
❑ Yes
❑ No
ElYes
[`J<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[ Io
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128/04 Continued

8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
DTo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
Facility Number:
Date of inspection/ -o
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
Quo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Collection & Treatment
Waste Application
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
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier: J.
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
Spillway?: j'In Ae
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of
Area
Designed Freeboard (in):
12. Crop type(s) Qerl,, jc, s�ra�� tri : n P. nP -5
Observed Freeboard (in):
- -
13. Soil type(s) " d l No,d
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination',[--]
Yes
❑ No
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
01] o
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
[:1Yes
EKoNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat, notify DWQ
7_ Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
DTo
❑ 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
Quo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
21 o
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
D -lo
❑ 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
I— 7 �c, 3—
12. Crop type(s) Qerl,, jc, s�ra�� tri : n P. nP -5
- -
13. Soil type(s) " d l No,d
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[INo
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
2'1�o
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination',[--]
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA 2'5E
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[INA [3111E
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
[:1Yes
EKoNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
P%N-1s -'o svbsar'� /a.r,f of 744e �',e-/V c.,W a cows 4e✓e
C a yo o -c 4.1e '.1L_
ReviewerA nspector
•!-
Reviewerllnspector Name �r: � � �, .re,. *��,�,� ., _- - T Phone: /er�i3o
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: 5 Date of Inspection
Reguired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes [Et o ❑ NA ❑ NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check El Yes
[
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
the appropirate box. ❑ Wyr ❑ Che sts ❑ DE] M❑ O
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the app riate box below 'Yes
�"'9. S--)3 /.y
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
.r
❑ ❑ W ree oard ❑ Waste Analysis O "-+' "t4-'-'- ❑
❑
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Rainfall QS+m*ircg ❑ Crop Yield [1128 Mintite h%peekena- ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections [9 -Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes
[2<
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes
Digio
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑
PNYes o
[I NA
El NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
[ BINo
❑ 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
2<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes gNO ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
ETNo
❑ 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
ENo
❑ 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
allo
❑ 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
[TNo
❑ NA
NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
Ulo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments andlor Drawings: '
,c r!
12128/04

r
.,_._
Type of Visit • Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Beason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: �' Time: 0;00
rot O erational 0 Below Threshold
ermitted 06ertiFed M Conditionally Certified D Reuistered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: _ _rC.'g�ut i7 f County-:lgita7,0fsn
Owner Name: _ /.bf_�a�..� 5_-- Phone 1o: /O-
Mailing Address: rD. a, 60,vLr/
Facility Contact: J sa Title: Phone No: q10• 700
Onsite Representative: _., 7-.24n In. 0; tntegrator: Am
Certified Operator: !Iqn_ 4 o!Operator Certification number:
Location of Farm:
MA'w`ine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude Longitude
Design Current
Swine r�nnrih Pnnntntinn
5 {Mean to Feeder goo
D'feeder to Finish oo
arrow to X;`ean a.
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Ca acity POIDU131601M
10 Laver ❑ Dairy
❑Non -Laver ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons l 2 1 JU Subsurface Drains Present PLJ Lagoon Area ILI Spray Field Areal
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps No LiQuid Waste Management Svstem
Discharaes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge, observed from any part of the operation?
- ❑Yes B<O
Discharge orizinated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Sprav Field ❑ Other �,/
a, if dischamt is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes L3No
b. If discharge is obsen•ed, did it reach Nater of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ yes o
c. If dischar6e is observed. what is the estimated flow in sal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if v_ es, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes To
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
[3 Y. levo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes R*N'o
Waste Collection & Treatment
4_ Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes EKo
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure { Structure 6
Identifier: _ 1 -:1e,
i 36 r
Freeboard (inches):
05/03/01 Continued

Facility Number: g — 1,Z f,
Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes 2<0
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes B<o
closure plan?
(If any of questions 46 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 �To
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes leo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
❑ Yes o
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes GKO
11. is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Loo
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
1 a o
12. Croptype �Cr,h✓��o S/� Gin:.. Rnes ,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor 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 ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 5�-1Qo
❑ Yes [-fo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes RKo
❑ Yes [4o
❑ Yes [3 leo
Comments {refer to uest,on # Faq r-
) plain buy YFS answers and/or any recommendatzoas orany other comments. ,,
Use drawtags of fadity W better explain sttuattons {ase ddrtion_al pages a5 necessary) - [�eld Copy ❑ Final Notes i
_ ;
�.r. -3.. ...
..__. .-,5.. _':: .,...-x• ,' ....._ .n .-:. .-mw'.'.`.,_r'-....'.i.-r :.r .__. '".-....«,.!_ i i.' s.STT�__. ':
Reviewer/Inspector Name_ - -
Nid<k
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: [3 Date: "1'-77 .G
12112103 v Contrinued

' f �
Facility Number: — (a Date of Inspection
Required Records & Document.~
2 L" Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(lel' ' clywid sts, >io, tis, etc.)
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ rr ❑ -Feebeard ❑Wwtv Amdy ❑Seri-Sm-plirrg
� .1� q I
24. facility not in compliance �th any applicable setback>'iteria in el _'2 the timof design?
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
26. FaiI to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
NI PDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
,1
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ 5tee� ❑ Eren*Wd-Feran ❑ Rainfai1 ❑ n
❑ ❑
❑ Yes B�Ko'
❑ Yes B'lao
❑ Yes abib
❑ Yes B -No
❑ Yes &-1'-
❑ Yes Di<o
❑ Yes M4Co
❑ Yes EWo
❑ Yes G}i<o
Elles ❑ No
❑ Yes MW6-
❑ Yes 4KO
❑ Yes 93 -Pio
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes RN'O
E3 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
i
E
121.72/03

Facility Number Date or Visit: li '/ o`f Time:
O =Not Operational O Below Threshold
MV�ermitted ElCertified ecQ Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ........ .... _.
Farm Name: ..... r�?--- �2Cr>xA- ...�_._._... FRf County; .. . . d.
Owner Name: l r:a L ................. Phone No:
Mailing Address: -P. o: % c. ......7�/ y......." Wa/lac e �- NC _ - �8 L16 .------ - ----- -..........
Facility Contact: _� d6 - 'Sa � �.+� .. ..........._. Title:...... _........ _ ........._. ..._._... Phone No: _9�c7 _.2Y : 220L
Onsite Representative: Bid s_1A_ I Integrator: JHvr i�, Famf� �ar �......�_WW._..
Certified Operator:._ .... ........ _ . __...._.....---- -,---- Operator Certification
Location of Farm:
13/swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �• �' �" Longitude �• �' �"
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gaUmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:_...._.._..�.................... ... -- -
Frecboard (inches):
12/12103
Structure 5
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 5
Continued

rt�'acili umber: � —� Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ❑ No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancermprovement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes ❑ No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancerimprovement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
11" 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 for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
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? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes ❑ No
Air Quality representative immediately.
_ -�5
Comments(re�er togaon #} F.plam aay YFS answers and/or aay ,ecamnieadatia� or..an other comments.
Y�`Y� a, wq. y -ti # .. --' .�w.z-'.L.ti.:�..—........-i...-...•*rxz�-.....Y...rwFr.'-`m3»'trt
Use drawings of faditq to better explain sttuataons. (ase addrfi&W pages as necessary} field Cop ❑Final Nates h
Y
Sla o ✓"J; P . 6--M ras Of rf'j (f,md I "ere W41 cc
.5J01`17
re lease )rr 0m fie 11'0.4- II )l [^
jlpu{RrPn� ef'v,P�f6 Pc arSf aT u Sr' /; � ! h a [acr/"M9
1e .'f- C, /d T ; O of �. � sow [ 4i.�lC�.. 1 / I /�
n AT lr Gv!/S �b G K �I�
, �P re��r a ci [ ��w o c
t
IG0?0or1 Gt/"e SOme `1dor10r1 441rJ 409 40uSej, I Rf-M 5/011:;r
aN
�n COn/4i>f e resf and vsec sL,h,P Yd PC, A,`� fA
�ack a /4saQY1,
Reviewer/Inspector Names r �( +Q >yp, L rr' -' _ % u,r
/'a:�r
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 0
12112103 Continued

1i
13 DSWC Animal Feedlot Operation Review
.. �+...
'j DWQgAnlmal Feedlot 0peration�5lte l;nsi)ection
O Routine O complaint 33 Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other I
Date of Inspection
Facility Number jet
Time of Inspection -3Q 24 hr. (bh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: ❑ Registered Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for I hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
❑ Certified Permitted I or Inspection includes travel andprocessing).
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated:.... _... �-__.............. ...... .........
�...._ .... �_..._._. .. _._.. —....
Farm Name:......... _.:Ir• t a � � . rr2 �. N^ .... _�. Coun
_...._._......._......_............... t.:
Land Owner Name:..-�_!� --.. _.SGivw^p;r..... ............................... Phone No: ... (grQ
Facilitv Conctact-
.....Ssr� _.Mp^................. _... Title: ..a�^4.f........_...... ........�_ Phone No:
hlailtno Address:
....._ .... ._........................... ..._.._. r
a C� g I
Onsite Representative: -...... ...... -..._..... Integrator: _.-M ..` 7- .
......��. °
........ ....
Certified Operator:...._4i� ^ .�.��� '^ Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
........... ................................................. ....._ .................. .......................................................... ...... ........ _.....
_....`._. 4
........ ......................... . .
Latitude �• �` �" Longitude
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
.; »De"sign Current w e ;Design w Current 2 DesignCurrentt w
• : Cattle
Swtae Ca act 4.. Po ulation ,. Poultry wCa act ;.Po ulatton: ,».-�Ca act Po ulatlon
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ La er ❑ Da
.<
❑ Feeder to Finish I0 Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
El Farrow to Wean
Farrow to FeederT©taI Design Capacitya'� ¥'
Farrow to Finish
notal SSLW t�,
❑ Other
'x Number ofLagoons hffolding � Ponds f ❑Subsurface Drains Present
;`��`�"�`Y;� � � x��� ��� �-�� � �.r£ ;�- �,,:,�_ �x. �;� �;^�=��� � �� ❑Lagoon Area ':�,. ❑Spray Field Area ,:u.»;
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes P No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes P�-No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes [ INo
b- If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes [P)No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in galltnin? '
d_ Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes &No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes [A No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes D No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes No
4/30/47 maintenance/improvement?,
;.1., Continued on back

Facility Number:...
6 FIs facility not in cotnpLance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail.jto have a certified operator in responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons I -storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Oil.... ............ ............................
❑ Yes 91 No
T
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes allo
❑ Yes R No
Structure 5 Structure 6
10.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
C&No
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
ff No
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
❑[No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and tate situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
[9 No
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
Wo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type-; ..�:...--....... ..................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ` �.�(❑ Yes ❑ No,. -
18.
o,.
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
For Certified Facilities Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes [i%No
-Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes [KNo
y�c ❑ Yes ❑ No)
b£3oo
❑ Yes [BINo
Continents refer to question # Explain any YES answers and/or an , recommendations or any other comments 17 —
Use�� drawings .of facility to beiter explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
[
.r:wl%�}t) ! .u..�1.1- �►ti•Q ' S �l E' C r �n 0 r- i f -✓ 5f{! ' F�-.aC �. %].Q�rr.�.JC��r�• 1 i�p ,� n aT
i j J
^
y
r:�
r ciA�
— Witt pk_o (t'i
cc�af &r.
0�Scd` Ur raar� Sa �0tr••.� SQJ� aiv t7
i
4
1 I
CoVGr L f J� �CI {ta
fofi i A� h
k
o, soy+[ �wr�S "j 5Prtt�h l l �C
Reviewer/Inspector Name �,:. ( c�lx.;,'�<r. , A a� 3�°
-.
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
w.
cc: Division of Water duality, Water Qualii)> Section, Facilitj, Assessment Unit 4/30/97

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
f Health and Natural Resources
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N F1Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Andrew McCall, Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 9, 1994
Mr. Bob Salmon, Contract Grower
Murphy Family Farms
P.O. Box 789
Wallace, NC 28466
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
Sampson County
Dear Mr. Salmon:
On November 8, 1994, an inspection of your animal operation was performed
by the Fayetteville Regional Office (FRO). Please find enclosed a copy of our
Compliance Inspection Report for your information. It is the opinion of this
office that this facility is in compliance with 15A NCAC 2H, Part :0217, and
that Animal Waste Management is being properly performed.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact
me at [phone].
Sincerely,
A--�
Grady Dobson
Environmental
Enclosure
cc: Facility Compliance Group
Gary Scalf
Engineer
Wachovia Building, Suite 714. Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

le
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JMV 1, HEALTH & NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF AL !MANAGE 4ENT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
SECTION I
Animal Operation Type:
Horses, cattle, serine, poultry, or sheep
SECTION II
1. Does the number and type of animal meet or exceed
the (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal Operation REGISTRATION?
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12 -month period?
4. Does this facility have a CERTIFIED ANIMAL
WASTE MMANAGEMENT PLAN?
5. Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
6. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc?
1 11 G.
OEM
nNION101nNION101l
Rim''.

�7
rid
SECTION 1131
Field Site Management
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
Map Blue Eine Stream?
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream?
3. Does this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
4. Does the land application site have a
cover crop in accordance with the
C3MTIFICATION PLAN?
5. Is animal waste discharged into waters of
the state by man-made ditch, flushing system,
or other similar man-made devices?
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices
(BMP) of the approved CERTIFICATIOW.
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approximately 12 ft )
B. Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
SECTION 1V
Comments
Section III (4): This facility was partially under construction with some
animals stocked in some buildings which is okay since a certified plan has
been submitted. The land acreage is currently being cleared and graded for
the cover crop to be established. It will be ready in accordance with the
submitted certification.
e■�
Section III (4): This facility was partially under construction with some
animals stocked in some buildings which is okay since a certified plan has
been submitted. The land acreage is currently being cleared and graded for
the cover crop to be established. It will be ready in accordance with the
submitted certification.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, A'VIFA
49
Health and Natural Resources • •
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor� C
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C
Andrew McCall, Regional Manager
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 9, 1994
Mr. Bob Salmon, Contract Grower
Murphy Family Farms
P.O. Box 789
Wallace, NC 28466
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
Sampson County
Dear Mr. Salmon:
On November 3, 1994, an inspection of your animal operation was performed
by the Fayetteville Regional Office (FRO). Please find enclosed a copy of our
Compliance Inspection Report for your information. It is the opinion of this
office that this facility is in compliance with 15A NCAC 2H, Part .0217, and
that Animal Waste Management is being properly performed.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact
me at [phone].
Sincerely,
jj'-� gee -.-,n
Grady Dobson
Environmental Engineer
Enclosure
cc: Facility Compliance Group
Gary Scalf
Wachovia Building, Suite 714. Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF , HEALTH & NATURAL RESOURCES
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
Bob Salmon, Contract Grower
Quarter M Farms 1 11/3/94 Triad No. 2
P.O. Box 789
Wallace, NC 28466
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
SECTION I
Animal Operation Type:
Horses, cattle, swine, poultry, or sheep
SECTION II
1. Does the number and type of animal meet or exceed
the (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal Operation REGISTRATION?
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12 -month period?
4. Does this facility have a CERTIFIED ANIMAL
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN'?
5. Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
6. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc?
nOEM

t
^al�ION III
Field Site Management
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
Map Blue Line Stream?
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Hap
Blue Line Stream?
3. Does this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
4. Does the land application site have a
cover crop in accordance with the
CERTIFICATION PLAN?
5. Is animal waste discharged into waters of
the state by man-made ditch, flushing system,
or other similar man-made devices?
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices
(BMP) of the approved CERTIFICATION?
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approximately 15 ft }
8. Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
SECTION IV
Comments
This facility is currently under construction. No animals are yet stocked.
The facility has a certified waste management plan in effect and animals could
be stocked when necessary. All lagoon effluent will be managed with QTRIAD
farm. The land is currently being cleared, graded, etc., to prepare for the
cover crop.