820140_INSPECTIONS_20171231

IMF -
NORTH CAHOLINA
Department of Environmental Quai

0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 820140
Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS820140
❑ Denied Access
Inpsectfon Type: Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine
County:
Sampson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 03/23/2017 Entry Time: 01:00 pm Exit Tlme: 1:30 pm Incident S
Farm Name: Southern Pines 1 8 2
Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 610 Southern Pines Rd
Garland NC 28441
Facility Status: Compliant ❑
Not Compliant Integrator.
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Fain:
Latitude:
34° 50' 42" Longitude:
78° 24' 46"
On the north side of SR 1259 approx..3 miles east of Hwy 411, north of Garland, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Waste Col, Slor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other Issues
Certified Operator: Danny Lee Tyner Operator Certification Number: 28715
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Ammons Phone
On -site representative Mike Ammons Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Lgoons:
2555 = 36"
2558 = 27"
2559 = 66"
page: 1

Permit: AWS820140 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 820140
Inspection Date: 03/23/17 Inssection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
FffSwine - Farrow to Wean 7,678
Total Design Capacity: 7,678
Total SSLW: 3,324,574
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
SOUTHERN PINES#2-1
Lagoon
SOUTHERN PINES #2-2
Lagoon
SOUTHERN PINES 1
19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS820140 Owner- Facility : Murphy -Brawn LLC Facility Number. 820140
Inspection Date_ 03/23/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharcies & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na No,
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ M
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
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)
❑
110
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
M ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
M
❑ ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
0
❑ ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
M
❑ ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
M
❑ ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
0
❑ ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
M
❑ ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Ng Na
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 01111
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 100/6/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS820140 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820140
Inspection Date: 03/23/17 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Qverseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Wagram loamy sand, 0 to
6% slopes
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
M ❑
❑
Management Pian(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16, Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
M ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
M ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Me
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
M ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS820140 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820140
Inspection Date: 03/23/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
E ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
01311
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
E ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
N ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface file drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■ ❑
❑
page: 5

0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number.
520140
Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS820140
❑ Denied Access
Inppection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County:
Sampson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
09/23/2015 Entry Time: 09:00 am Exit Time: 10:00 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Southern Pines 1 & 2
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
510 Southern Pines Rd
Garland NC 28441
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑
Not Compliant Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
34' 50' 42" Longitude:
78' 24' 46"
On the north side of SR 1259 approx..3 miles east of Hwy 411, north of Garland, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Other Issues
Certified Operator: Robert T Young Operator Certification Number: 18461
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
24 hour contact name
On -site representative
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s�:
Inspection Summary:
Name
Mike Ammons
Mike Ammons
Title
Phone:
Phone:
Phone
Robert Marble Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWS820140 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: B20140
Inspection pate: 09/23/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine — — -
Swine - Farrow to Wean
Swine - Feeder to Finish
Swine - Wean to Feeder
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
SOUTHERN PINES #2-1
Lagoon
SOUTHERN PINES #2-2
Lagoon
SOUTHERN PINES 1
19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS820140 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820140
Inspection Date: 09/23/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No No No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
E ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
E ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
E ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection Storage & Treatment
Yes No No Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
E ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No No Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ E ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS820140 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820140
Inspection Date: 09/23/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Gress
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Wagram loamy sand, U to
6% slopes
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
N ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
E ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
E ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS820140 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820140
Inspection Date: 09/23/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
M ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
M ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
E ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No N8 No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
M ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
El
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

r %
Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number. 820140 Facility Status:
Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Date of Visit: 08/20/2014 Entry Time: 03:30 pm
Farm Name: Southern Pines 1 & 2
Active Permit: AWS820140 Denied Access
Inactive Or Closed Date:
County: Sampson Region: Fayetteville
Exit Time: 4:30 pm Incident #
Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 610 Southern Pines Rd Garland NC 28441
Facility Status: 0Compliant ❑ Not Compliant integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34' 50' 42' Longitude: 78" 24' 46"
On the north side of SR 1259 approx..3 miles east of Hwy 411, north of Garland, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Michael Richard Ammons Operator Certification Number: 985998
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Ammons Phone:
On -site representative Mike Ammons Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS820140 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820140
Inspection Date: 08/20/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean
Swine - Feeder to Finish
❑ Swine - Wean to Feeder
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
SOUTHERN PINES #2-1
Lagoon
SOUTHERN PINES #2-2
Lagoon
SOUTHERN PINES 1
19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS820140 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820140
Inspection Date: 08/20/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream tm acts
Yes No Na Me
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
[]
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
M ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■ ❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
0 ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑M
❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
M ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
■ ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
E ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS820140 Owner- Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820140
Inspection Date: 08/20/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No No No
Crop Type 1 Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2 Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1 Wagrem loamy sand, 0 to
6% slopes
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
N ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
■ ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
N ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
N ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
0
page: 4

Permit AWS820140 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820140
Inspection Date: 08/20/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a PDA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
M ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
M ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
M ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 820140
Facility Status: Active
permit: AVVS820140
Denied Access
Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine
County:
Sampson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 10/1812013 Entry Time: 08:30 am Exit Time: 10:00 am Incident #
Farm Name: Southern Pines 1 & 2
Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 610 Southern Pines Rd
Garland NC 28441
Facility Status: Compliant ❑
Not Compliant Integrator.
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
34' 50' 47 Longitude:
78' 24' 46"
On the north side of SR 1259 approx..3 miles east of Hwy 411, north of Garland, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other issues
Certified Operator: Danny Lee Tyner
Operator Certification Number:
28715
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Ammons
Phone:
On -site representative Mike Ammons
Phone:
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS820140 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820140
Inspection Date: 10/18/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean
Swine - Feeder to Finish
Swine - Wean to Feeder
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
SOUTHERN PINES #2-1
Lagoon
SOUTHERN PINES #2-2
Lagoon
SOUTHERN PINES 1
19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS820140 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820140
Inspection Date: 10/18/13 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges $ Stream Impacts
Yes No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
�]
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
C. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
01111
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage 8 Treatment
Yes No Na Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
■ ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑0
❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

I
Permit: AWS820140 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820140
Inspection Date: 10/18/13 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No No Ne
Crop Type 1 Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2 Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1 Wagram loamy sand, U to
6% slopes
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
M ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18, Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
M ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
M ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS820140 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820140
Inspection Date: 10/18/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Me
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
E
❑
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
E ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
E ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
E ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
E ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
N ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33, Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

i ype or v isn: lop t omptiance ttnspection V uperation tcevtew U btructure Lvaluation U i ecnmcat Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 5- �—! Z Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: _'54jjj0re&%/ Region: A00
1
Farm Name: S p
o4 rw t —t s 21 Owner Email:
Owner Name: '- 2 'ilCLC T _ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �4 1 k! p An nvr,9 $7 S Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: " T
Certified Operator: U Certification Number: I
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Design Current _ -Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet.Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle
Capacl- Pop.
Wean to Finish Layer Da' Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Da Calf
Feeder to Finish
""
Da' Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D , tl'oul Ca aci l;o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Turke s
Beef Brood Cow
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 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?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes �a No
❑ Yes [:]No
[:]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes []No
❑ Yes �9 No
El Yes � No
❑NA ❑NE
[?g NA ❑ NE
09NA ❑NE
�NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Ji4o jDate of Ins ection: -2
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
[] No
NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: S
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): M it
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
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 [N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window _r _ ❑ Evidence of Wind
Drift ❑] Application Outside of
Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): � 5k1 _&rM J->1
13. Soil Type(s): Wan fry h, — G1J
14. Do the receiving crops i Ter from those designated in the CAWMP?
[—]Yes
W 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?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
1� No
"(
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reguired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
[] Yes
J�g 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 [P No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking [] Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1 " Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes IpNo
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes E� No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
[]NA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

[Facility Number: jDate of Ins ection: - r'-1'L
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 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 to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes tENo ❑ NA ONE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes 0 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 P] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes ro No ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application) LP
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWW? ❑ Yes M No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes [� No
❑ NA ❑ NE
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):
i`ecer-dS re,j; F4,eJ f zZ�l 2,
40
was s I s 5 z _r Z el'i
SOw .•. f I�.a5 LJas V-'Z'►-��1
Lcto coo,
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
0 n
Phone: T0•� 23W
Date: 5-17 - 1 z_
21412011

i ype of visit: W t ompltance inspection U operation xeview U structure Evaluation U I ecanicat Assistance I
Reason for Visit: • Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral Q Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Z$ Ir Arrival Time: a)04n. Departure Time: County: SAII'tP-9W Region: F
Farm Name: SOai`i wsk f ` me S t- s 9k Owner Email:
Owner Name: w'P 1 -&z wVVI LL.L Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: M ; ke A "WS Title:
Onsite Representative: 14
Certified Operator:
Phone:
Integrator: %hlWP4.y4re W&%
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Design Current s t='„ Design "*Current
Design Current
ice= - �'_ •.,r -.k . -^'+. ..
Swine - Capacity Pop. WetLPouIti- ;_j Cap itv. _ p.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish La er
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Feeder to Finish
2,CCC>
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
ccx)
Design "Current
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Dr Pool- Ca' acel?o
Layers
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Caw
_
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Qther -
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)?
❑ Yes
1P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[:]No
W NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
M NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No Rq NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes tn No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection: Qlff,I
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 19 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No P NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 2�— L5_yB—q 25�
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
;�s
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [ZNo [DNA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes [g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes E�) 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? 1P
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes fp No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes fjj No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus 0 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): Qa5 64o 6211" s�el
13. Soil Type(s): �J[.�.1YI&J'A—Wa16 _
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? T
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
EP No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes Vfl No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes Vo 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 0 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
C] NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

lFac-flity Nu[nber: jDate of Inspection: 11
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? []Yes ® No [DNA ❑ NE
25. is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes TV] 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:
0
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes `A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® NA ❑ NE
Other Issues T
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal? r
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
[] Yes_
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #: Explain any YES answersandlor any additional recommendahonseorany other comments.
Use drawings of facility to'better explain situations (use: additional pages as necessary).
V,e,&,j5 rev{ewaC 9C j1r,
15tt R(2-4 t) .
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature
Page 3 of 3
}
s �
Phone: q/0--t(3S-33VD
Date: ctf 2-0lW
21412011

=RIrL
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit is Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Farm Name:
Arrival Time: I 4-' 1 Departure Time: i wl County:
rh R?es 1 s a, Owner Email:
Owner Name: _ A1L1 ✓D►'► _AW u*1 fI'LL,
I If
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Phone:
Region: /'7w
Facility Contact: M r Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: " ' ar-wr,
�6iv
Certified Operator: _ _.� Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = 0 =1 = « Longitude: ❑ o ❑ S ❑ 1i
Swine
❑ Wean to Finish
Design _
Capacity
Current
Population
Design Curren# Design
Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity
Current
Population
❑ La er
❑ Da' Cow
Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La er
Poultry
❑ Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
❑ ary Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
zDcn❑
70co
1 IWUDry
❑ Layers
—
El Farrow to Finish
El Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
Non -Layers
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Pullets
Turkeys
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
iml❑
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
Numiser of Structures:
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
\Page 1 of 3
1�
❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
(� NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
❑ No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28/04
Continue

r Facility Number: — Date of Inspection *OD
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 2 �� - ( 292 �2�pf -Z _.$
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ElNA [INE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes O No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4fi were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environment 1 threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement`? El No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the sructures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs El Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Eviden'cfe��� �l
of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) Ca� jl r� C /i1
Ja lYt all ) 1 5v- � SeaAJ
13. Soil type(s)� r
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ONo El NA
El NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
El Yes
No ❑ NA
ElNE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
El
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
J iS'A- Corny "k ej
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 2 of .3
to -z�O-10 t
Phone: 3
Date: b 2 D
12128104 Continued
1\

Facility Number: Q Date of inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ['No El NA El NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check ❑ Yes (� No El NA [I NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP El Checklists El Design El maps ❑ 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?
❑ Yes 10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes ❑ No
NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes F No ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
0 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
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
[�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
MNo
El NA
El NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[,�j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
1
_ e3of3
12128104

i
0 Division of Water Quality `YJ
Facility Number g�. O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
ether Agency
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
�y �
Date of Visit: ZG O Arrival Time: Departure Time, j County: 1"?0 Region: �,
Farm Name: 3113 �`7_ 37131 ._ Owner Email:
OwnerName- ' FYI Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: ry
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No
Integrator: —�ro�n U-L
Operator Certification Number: / 7903
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: 00 0' =" Longitude: 0° =' =
Design Current
Swine C►opacity Population
Wet Poultry
Design Current
Capacity Population
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Dai Cow
II
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dai Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
El Pullets
❑ Dai Heifer
❑ D Cow
❑ Non-Dairy-
Farrow to Wean
Cl Farrow to Feeder
2—
10 Farrow to Finish
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
El Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures:
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Pouets
❑ Other
Discharp-es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at; ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge`?
ee 1 of 3
❑ Yes (0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
y No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection O
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes T No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? []Yes ❑ No VONA ❑ 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? El Yes
No ElNA ElNE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
No ElNA ElNE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
I
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 El NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
4No ❑ NA El NE
El Excessive Ponding El Hydraulic Overload El 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)
13_ Soil type(s) Wig
n
t.
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer torquestiaWft Explain any YES answers andlor anv recommendations or any other commeatsx'
Use drawings "of facility to betOr explain situations. (use additional pages as necessarv): s4
"kCt'4" s rev 1\'tWC l 11- 4- IL r
Reviewer/Inspector Name ---� Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Amo, I L Date:
12128104 Condimed

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection t L
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes T No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 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?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
[ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
f� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
T No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
t� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes l@ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[AOditfdiialc Comments and/or Drawings: ; , +
Page 3 of 3
i�N
12128104

r'
* Division of Water Quality
Facility Number 02 ` p O Division of sail and water Conservation
QJ
Other Agency
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1 1 lot Arrival Time: M
%s �T' Departure Time: i%%' S County: Region: aLo
Farm Name: r Ni / r Owner Email:
Owner Name: i a✓✓!n �C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: %
Facility Contact: — 91140 Title:
u
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No.•
Integrator: ac
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: e Q , 0 u Longitude: = o = ' E] u
=CC-ur-jr-en
Design Current
Deslgn Current
Sine
Capacity
Population
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
t?
0
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
[� Feeder to Finish
I ZOW
1 O j
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
7COV
'150'7
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
ElNon-Dairy
ElBeef Stocker
❑ Farrow to Feeder
El Farrow to Finish ❑ Layers
❑ Gilts
❑Non -La ers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
❑.Turke s
Other
❑ Turkey Poults
Number of Structures:
❑ Other ❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
(p NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
O NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
P NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
7No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3_ Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
$ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: 0 Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 10 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No P NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: B
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
W
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
EPNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(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? ❑ Yes
qNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes
19 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA [INE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
[!ffNo
❑ 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 El Evidence of Wind Drift ❑/Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) &_n'J4 [ 655 04,
13. Soil type(s) W&A r-a M --
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
UNo
❑ NA
El NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[8 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
QR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (rdit. o question #}. Explain anv Y-.ES answers and/or atiy recommendations or anv other comments "d
Use drawings: oaty use additional=pages as necesbn oxa
Reviewer/Inspector Name I �' Phone: f m
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Q Date: t -f
12129104 Continued

Facility Number: 2 1 Q Date of Inspection I 11/17/D`T I
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists El Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 19 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
(ffNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[�l No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
19 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
09No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
19 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
EM 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
n No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
KINo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
ID No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28✓04

Type of Visit 0 Com nce Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Cility Number Date of Visit: Time: '
',,F �"`10 �������TTT�N" Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted D Certified © Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: - �[! �� "� -j- County:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone No:
Facility Contact: n -I Title: Phone No: -�
OnsiteRepresentative: . [ - '-Ap r �` �)Sh+i a� _ Integrator:
Certified Operator: L i K £ ;_ `� _- Operator Certification Number:
Location Ott arm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude & 0 4 K Longitude 0 4 u
Design Current
Swine V.nnnrity iannntwtinn
to Feeder
D
Fe der to Finish
I -too
arrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gills
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacitv Population Cattle Capacity Po ° ulation -
❑ Layer I I Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I ❑ Non-Dai
❑ Other I-
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ t.a oon Area 1EISpravUell Area HoldingFonds / Solid Traps p ❑ No Liquid Waste Management Svstem tT
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at_ ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2_ Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Stru ure l Struc re 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): t f
05103101
❑ Yes ErNo
❑ Yes YJ 1+i
El Yes No
❑ Yes 7Np.,
❑ Yes
El Yes No
❑ Yes No
Structure 6
Continued

1 S o t4
Facility Number: z —
Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
J.-4_da S)-,,Qra:. -5,
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
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'?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18, Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ic/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
Ely es 'C El Yes �N,
Yes LtJ N
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
El Yes ��No
ElYes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ONoZ
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes FNo
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
q }. xp iiuiry YES answers and/or any recommedatsons or any other comments �Cammeots. refer to uesdon # E lam "wiers
U(
se�drawingsiof factltty to better explain situations. (nse�addttional pages as necessary) ❑Field Cope final Notes
Reviewer/inspector Name u�
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

z
Type of Visit • Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: f Arrival Time: 1� Departure Time: 0 County: 7T/lip�r
Farm Name: sc n -Pl%JM S r S �.Z�+ _ Owner Email:
Owner Name! 1' 1uA Au - grn.1 i1 . LLC Phnnv-
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region: EPO _
y{�i
Facility Contact: M i �-� Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: 1�, " S t`l'4n Operator Certification Number: AS&
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: El o El I El" Longitude: =°= 6 0
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
swine
Capacity Population
Wet Poultry.. Capacity Population
❑ La er
n-La er
Cattle Capacity Population
❑Dai Cow
❑Dai Calf
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
2ag
Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
}
Dry.�Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
'"`"
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ La ers
❑Non -Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
ElTurkeys
❑Beef Brood Co
_ _ _
Other
urkey Poults
❑Other
�Numbi:r of"Structures:
MAWOther
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes FINo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
P NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
1PNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
PJNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 4fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
❑ �§No
❑
❑
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
Yes
NA
NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No
?NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Stru tine 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Structure 5
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): i S-8 v
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes �9 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 nNo
❑ 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 U,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? [:]Yes [PNo ❑ 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 IffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window El Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outssiid_e_ of Area
12. Crop type(s) `-ca$� 8r rMl� l7's 0�L gat,J ► 5m, i3*�,rt.. 0Wc., of
13. Soil type(s) iWa4r&M --
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
Q9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
IV No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
[jqNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
FNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name ` Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: /
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ yes VgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes fi� 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
nNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
'R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
[)kffo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ENo
El NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
El Yes
ES No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
f3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
1KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
a g
Additional CommentsiandLor1Drawm s
AL
w
Page 3 of 3 12128104

❑ Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish G_s.. G ZbC)o
Farrow to Wean C)Cso
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Facility Number
Division of Water Quality
Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency ]I
jType of Visit 1491Gompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
If Reason for Visit OkRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1 Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: U rl 'T ✓ - Owner Email:
Owner Name:- us-, Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region: tom_
Facility Contact: Nrl1 Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: t Integrator: l -
Certified Operator: 1 r` Operator Certification Number: aW�
Back-up Operator: C-)&� �Q V1 rwe I___ __ Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: E_—0 0 { 0 u Longitude: = ° = ' E--] a
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
❑ La er
❑ Non -La ei F==�
Dry Poultry
Layers _
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turk_
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifej
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of 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 y No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No [NZNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes Wo ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes IQ El NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

s
L
Facility Number-.ys.Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes IqNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Strure 2 StrucZ 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 NA NE
�3Vo El
large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) //
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ElNE
through a waste management or closure plan? 14
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? XYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes JMNo ❑ 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 ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste ADDliCation
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes *No ElNA ❑NE
maintenance/improvement?
I. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) I1 d4 Tt � G , Of � C`,t r O I(S
//�� r f
13. Soil type(s) A Lk..& f �
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
o
El NA
El NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
_
//Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
/fg No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
�gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
05 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. I
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector l�iam q Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur • Date: PUGV a-3 2�"7
1 'f MO/Ill !'___�•___._J

Facility Number: Date of InspectionA 4—
o1
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Desig
n El maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ,VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes "RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
XNA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
o
ElNA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
ElYes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
!9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
KhNA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CA WMP?
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
F) 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
6 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
�INo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
)z Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Lawn 2 1 4A� I SD . AzV o I t.-.-D . CAS IL-3 c_v 0.( ugat:- `
ej�j-vftra�% Cxuix&_v-J- <JL1AQA 4A�4vvv_,_+
�' X+ - r ves�dh� �i , n �r �{ S11 t LA+ , S ies-i
" cx - - �.e l� S.P �1.. lq � . , S � S � ►� o-- o_t, ¢%X -� �� vJan
t e.p a:► { e c . ph-X,,,0 0�l uA 4-o C_l.,eJc_ 4-►vA 4a_ Lp czv r ccA ,re.,
aon . L,, ��l �I� �', �k,Yx
12129104

Division of Water Quality eNNSINg
1Faciiity Number �' y �i� Q Distision of Soil and Water Conservation
-- O Other Agency W1nwn
Type of Visit JO Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral�0 Emergency ® Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: fZ Arrival Time: 0 Q Departure Time: IJ y{J IJ I County: �N Region:
Farm Name: U k-a-vn ! 1 re-S Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone:
Physical Address-
Facility Contact: IYI i C DIW i Title:.., Phone No: ti
Onsite Representative. rAiIntegrator: '' ` —
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ❑ o ❑ I ❑ U Longitude: = 0 0 ' ❑ W
Design Current
Design Current
Design
C►urrent
Swine C►apacity Population
Wet Pau[try Capacity Population
Cat#le Capacity
Population
❑ Wean to Finish
El Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La er
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
El Dry Cow
Dry Poultry
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
ElNon-La Non -Layers
❑ Beef Feeder
El Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
El Turkeys
Other
❑ Other
❑ TurkeyPoults
❑Other
Number of Structures
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
El Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Discharges & Stream Impacts
l . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
Discharge originated at: Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
,Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes )(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
CR Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes XANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes �o
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facili6 _Number! DL-19O Date of Inspection O
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure i
Identifier:
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
�r
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, epage tc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes*. ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No 9NA ErNE
k
Structure 5 Structure 6
.® Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA VNE
(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
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 16VE
maintenance/improvement?
IL Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
❑ 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)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement'?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA $.NE
❑ No ❑ NA .4NE
❑ No ❑ NA �jb NE
El No El NA biK
❑ No ❑ NA , PNE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES`an§were andlar any recommendations or any other comments
Use drawings of facility'to better explain situations (tise additional pages as necessary) _
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 2 of 3
I Phone:
Date:
12128104 Continued

Facility NumberJTa —jV0 I Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA PNE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA PNE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Desig
n ❑Maps El Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
[--]Yes
[:]No
[]NA
;�NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑
Weather
Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
0 NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
014E
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
WE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
El
[INo
ElNA
E
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
ElYes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
P 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
❑ No
❑ NA
JgNE
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
'1KNE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
[]Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes )n No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
�'es
El No
❑ NA
❑ NE
T 41i�
Additional Comments and/or Drawings: p
U
m .� 6Yl �� 1 cso�nex Lam; 5 U-MUO
n
b��
wan 0 0.4 QA) n [ 0 -- I Z I n r 4o 5 -i
a
i r7 v -e -�
�ruvl�n-� f 5
osk z w o.kev �� Rs�.v.s U- - -�. Sa . ?:,v-0 Z
Page 3 of 3 QVP UR_j V : o - 0_� r v.tojk SkiO MA--t- - 12128104
�- u v

Type of Visit *Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit * Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑Denied Access
Date of Visit: t♦d p Arrival Time: Departure Time: ounty: f11 Region:
1
Farm Name: 4uAlem i 4 � � � Owner Email:
Owner Name: tA Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: j,� Title:
�1�
Onsite Representative: 4 `T r1
Certified Operator: —` eyxz —T�0.yiti Qr
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: 5 9
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [= o = g = Longitude: =° = d a 6f
Design
Current
Design Current Design Current
Swine
Capacity
Populatiou�� Wet Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
ean to Finish"
❑ Layer
❑ DairyCow
eE=an to Feeder
C5u
Non -Layer
'
El Dairy Calf
eder to Finish
�j
�,
�"' ❑ Dairy Heifer
�VFrrow to Wean
rE
Oop'
1?ry Poultry
< ❑ D Cow
rrow to Feeder
' ❑Non-Dairrow
to Finish_Beef
Stocker
lts
� ❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
,
El Beef Brood Cowl
Other
a
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharses & Stream Impacts
Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes PoNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
�A
❑ 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
yd No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

aciliWNumber: is
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: 9
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3 yCt 634
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(iel large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA El NE
❑ Yes ❑ No 0 NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes t&%o ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes pNo ❑ 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 J5 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes En 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 El Yes 09 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) �K.1l.m�C�@ N UU4_ 01 S
13. Soil type(s) il"1_�L e A
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
El NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[E No
❑ NA
❑ NE
;Comments (refer to question #17: Explain any YES answers and/or.any recommendations or eny oiher�commentsFM I
`x
.Use drawings of fac►lity to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary): r
Reviewer/inspector Name `tty� hTT I Phone /O -:� 2 Gj
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: A, Ab Date: l0 1
rage Z of 3 1 "ZO/V4 uonunuea

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection /Qad V,61
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes PU-No ❑ 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 NNo ❑ 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 Id No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
&i No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2T Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CA WMP?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
[:1 NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32, Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
00 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
J ] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
1J t el -40 lcz y Csa P`� 66 �J tkdcit Fo,q i ra rprr-r) � le s 6n st+e .
Page 3 of 3 I Z128104

Type of Visit ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 chnical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency they ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Time:
3CCp--__
S Departure Time:
r� 0 County:
..Arrival
lk;! P
t Z
Farm Name: � x) r
rw 5
nwnPr Email:
Owner Name! r �C— Phone:
Mailing Address:
Region:
Physical Address: y�,y '
Facility Contact: 1 � ! /} % t'1V G%2/1Title: C_-!V Phone No:
Onsite Representative: .{ Integrator: A
Certified Operator: Operator Certification umber:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
WwavaclRyPop
urrent
Swine ul�ti`o�
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Latitude: FT 0 g= 46 Longitude: = o= t=
Design Current
11 ;MWeultry Capacity Population
yern-Layer
ry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys i
❑ TurkeyPoults
❑ Other
Design Current
rCIDairyCalf
Capacity Population
Dairy Cow
Heiferow
❑ Non -Dairy
9 ❑ Beef Stocker
�❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood CovA
Number of Structures:
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
e. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
,® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: — NO
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Struicture 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
or
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 30
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
29 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
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4{ were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ® NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need []Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ONE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. 9 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
xcessive Ponding ydraulic 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)
13_ Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
® NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
® NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
;9 NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
® NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
Q NE
Ati►'t 1/`rttLUQyJpGau�C e� ©dS��p✓ate•-• �� f+rn 14
iie*Alli a� d- �f �ssr��-- ��n a fry-'; r Lox C�c�s� ✓ /� �naf; H cll�'s
Reviewer/Inspector Name e�rC. L ,+ � , , Phone: Vo V33 3300
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: ZgQ+1 3
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

f1 Facility Number.Date of Inspection q >'
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA DINE
20_ Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA RNE
the appropriate box. ❑ W`Up ❑ Checklists ❑ Design
g El Maps ❑Other
i
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
❑ Waste Application [:]Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers [:]Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
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?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
KNE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
19 NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
MNE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
)UNE
❑ Yes
;K No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
E.NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
®,NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
L,NE
®Yes
[I No
❑NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
R Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Coiriments and/or Drawings:
�.
fal /yl�nrt f� tf%�S 11r77�i >�.j-r Lt-ytp� G',rp�.� Val Gt/'/;✓� `l/j P� ijd�
GAyt59ibtd4 6,� fifl I�/'cv�.t d`u�-I ®,F1�����P 77,��r�
�iuq /`C/rtr � n i �� • GCJIj��r [� a � % n�o �� i�Q�Q�t1�.
v
•r
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit 41 Compliance Inspection U Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit CPRoutine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: OS'p3 Arrival Time: / Departure Time: $ County: �=.e-4 Region:
Farm Name: 2 Owner Email:
Owner Name: Fn A VA_ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: k ct "'j �J:�, .- r Title:
Onsite Representative: ,,00
Certified Operator: t� e k e la n if
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
arrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number: I? 91115�9"El1 __ __
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o= 4❑ Longitude: 0 0❑ 6= U
sign Current, Design Current` -,
I t ^
paucity Population`Wet'Poaitr�y Capacity Populatron Cattle
srr— r' ❑ Layer ':: ❑ Dai _ Cow
A 'U ❑ Non-Layet I Dairy Calf
d v o`20 0 " - ❑ Dai Heifer
040 1170 0 " �` Dry�Poultry _ ,z� 4. v El Dry Cow
r�
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
l . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
on- at
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
I
:Niumber 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 E91No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
L _, No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: �x —��� Date of Inspection Os�OS
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 9'NO ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes Egf�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box_ ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ W.agf an,�,,. .,.r�� ❑ We rkly F. Mbv.ftl❑ Wncta Analysis_ ❑ h is ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ n
❑ Rainfirif ❑ Stag ❑ Crep4iod— ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 crCaite
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes [ErNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes T No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Ly'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Pl1 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
9111�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
27_ Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
[g.io
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
UNo
❑ 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?
El Yes
,,.�.,,/
L y o
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
EKo
❑ 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
��,,�
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
Ej4o'
❑ NA
❑ NE
Addrtional.Conim nfsandlor Drawings:
w �P �✓ �p Li�- Ai /A lit/i4 �rr e�a�oJ — i�l.'rs •:. jr 4�/ � �I d f�
12128104

Facility Number: — 4( 0
Date of Inspection lQ5/
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
P'�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
1 lra..
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier: sY�.r ?
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
'/ —•��
Observed Freeboard (in): 413 .2 1 �
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
,—,/
l� 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
[9,No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat, notify DWQ
7_ Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[I NA ❑ NE
S. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
ElLl Yes
,[j)No
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
OYNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Apolication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[(E10
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑<
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside
of Area
12. Crop type(s),r
13. Soiltype(s) _�ct �e �n?
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ErNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
Q'No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination%❑ Yes
Q'lgo
❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
0,�"N' o
❑ NA El NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[q o
❑ NA ❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name , ijJ + Ma :A Phone:
-.. �.��iiF'L ° ,_ •,, z x i,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 Continued

(Type of Visit *Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit d Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: i' 0 Time: S !✓�
Facility Number Z
Not Operational G Below Threshold
S Permitted S Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated
eor-Above Threshold:
Farm Name: 5ou-6,Le_r roe S 1 ..Z............- County:
Owner Name: U r — PhoneNo: .--------•.,.
Mailing Address:.---P:��.. K-------
Dp ` ct� S,M
Facility Contact: �'a!�.............�--•---- .L.'w ...............Tit1e:--------- Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Qi �, r ti� , Integrator: �/�ur� - ��p�y v� ____—
Certified Operator:,,,,,_�� Vie„_.. ��.a!► r�@-�...................... _. Operator Certification Number:.
Location of Farm:
J9.,5wine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • i « Longitude �' �4 «
i'- Design r C
Swine. :[`arsai•.w`' -Pit
fa Wean to Feeder
Sao
800
Feeder to Finish
Zip
2zoro
Farrow to Wean
600
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
--
�y Ti
remit:= =-
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Non-Dairy
Total SSLW -'
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d_ Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: S( 2-
Freeboard (inches): qq7- S
121.12103
rr0
❑ Yes CKNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ Yes
M,No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: 8 2 — I NO Date of Inspection LILd.! v
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes KNo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes P1No
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 KNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes tgNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes RNo
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes 19 No
1 I . Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Wo
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type y>e rwt UA& . S wtaU Q rai
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes P No
14, a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes 50 No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes §9 No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes J1 No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ;RNo
I6. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes JaNo
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 1�tNo
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes JZ 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 YENo
Air Quality representative immediately.
�Comr>xents {refer to q��on"�) �F�latn any YFS answe s awid/a;r ai�Fmendatzons or anY>other aommeatsa =� .. �;� � - -
.Use drawur&s of iac�ty to bettor ezplmn sit:sat.osts. (use:additzonial pages as necessary) ❑Field COPY ❑Final Notes
�. ___ems.._ �__.�3rt�sx3 .. ..ram �_ r-� :.•.��. :zz_" � ...__.=.o:__���_:ai'�_._ ��,r.,e, �•*.:. ,`S.^ ¢.•3='� �':.-++u
Lug' we4a6 a1v� 6x�ook e,P� � s inelc4c week.
(J . We&A V-(Ae-r wXS aeP1, ek Ao C-i e1IS tms�- Wee— - .
Reviewer/Ins ector Name
I1 1. a a "
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
l L/l L/VJ i.onureuea

Facilk Number: g z _ yO Date of Inspection p
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes KNo
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/�hecklis�esigamappKtc.) ❑Yes KNo
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 14No
❑ Waste Applicati*O ❑ Freeboard' ❑ Waste Analysis❑ Soil Samplint___�
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
15t No
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
KNo
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
JKNo
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
I& No
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
j$No
29, Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
MLNo
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
6d Yes
❑ No
3I. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
KNo
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
09 No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
®,No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
KNo
35. Does record keeping for NPI)ES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
)qNo
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Fory>r"'❑ Rainf4k"'❑ Inspection After 1" Raik"*�
❑ 120 Minute Inspectio*/ ❑ Annual Certification FbArl'
12112103

Site Requires Immediate Attention: A_
Facility No. Sz -/f6O
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: 8 - Z , 1995
Time: '4v //= WP
Farm 1`
Mailing
County
Integral
On Site
Physica
Type of operation: Swine _x__ Foultry
Design Capacity: 3sdd so.,/icln i:�N Number of
(tattle
Animals on Site: f4�vo
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: Longitude: "
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches)
Was any seepage observed from the
Is adequate land available
Crop(s) being utilized: L
Does the facility meet SCS
for spray?
Yes or(0) Actual Freeboard: Ft. _/,Q Inches
lag_oon(s)? Yes oi�o Was any erosion observed? Yes or&
Yes or No Is the cover crop adequate? es or No
minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings? es or No
100 Feet from Wells? es r No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or0
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line: Yes or(R
Is animal waste discharged into water of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes or&ia If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management reco ds (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on s ific acreage with cover crop)? or No
Additional Comm,nts: s h9 4�J�Q , nl pf2pg�& -AQ A/A/ f 0
/ A4� J f 7 A ---re 5 .
Ent
Inspector Name
Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
November 12, 1996
Murphy Family Farms
Southern Pines #1 (Sow)
Rt 1 Box 605-A
Garland NC 28441
SUBJECT: Operator In Charge Designation
Facility: Southern Pines #1 (Sow)
Facility ID#: 82-140
Sampson County
Dear Farm Owner:
NOV 12 W6
ENV. MANAGEMENT
FAYETTEVILLE REG. OFFICE
Senate Bill 1217, An Act to Implement Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Study
Commission on Agricultural Waste, enacted by the 1996 North Carolina General Assembly,
requires a certified operator for each animal waste management system that serves 250 or more
swine by January 1, 1997. The owner of each animal waste management system must submit a
designation form to the Technical Assistance and Certification Group which designates an
Operator in Charge and is countersigned by the certified operator. The enclosed form must be
submitted by January 1; 1997 for all facilities in operation as of that date. Failure to designate a
certified operator for your animal waste management system is a violation of 15A NCAC 2H
.0224 and may result in the assessment of a civil penalty.
If you have questions concerning operator training or examinations for certification, please
contact your local North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service agent or our office.
Examinations have been offered on an on -going basis in many counties throughout the state for
the past several months and will continue to be offered through December 31, 1996.
Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions concerning this requirement please
call Beth Buffington or Barry Huneycutt of our staff at 91gn33-0026.
Sincerely,
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P. ctor
Division of Water Quality
Enclosure
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office
Water Quality Files
P.O. Box 27687, !oWcA.0 FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-7687 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-715-4100 - 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt,,Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Murphy Family Farms
Southern Pines #2
Rt 1 Box 605
Garland NC 28441
�EHNR
November 12, 1996
SUBJECT: Operator In Charge Designation
Facility: Southern Pines #2
Facility 13#: 82-141
Sampson County
Dear Farm Owner:
NOV 12 1996
ENV, MANACEMENT
FAYETTEVILLE REG. OFFICE
Senate Bill 1217, An Act to Implement Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Study
Commission on Agricultural Waste, enacted by the 1996 North Carolina General Assembly,
requires a certified operator for each animal waste management system that serves 250 or more
swine by January 1, 1997. The owner of each animal waste management system must submit a
designation form to the Technical Assistance and Certification Group which designates an
Operator in Charge and is countersigned by the certified operator. The enclosed form must be
submitted by January 1, 1997 for all facilities in operation as of that date. Failure to designate a
certified operator for your animal waste management system is a violation of 15A NCAC 2H
.0224 and may result in the assessment of a civil penalty.
If you have questions concerning operator training or examinations for certification, please
contact your local North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service agent or our office.
Examinations have been offered on an on -going basis in many counties throughout the state for
the past several months and will continue to be offered through December 31, 1996.
Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions concerning this requirement please
call Beth Buffington or Barry Huneycutt of our staff at 91gn33-0026.
Sincerely,
Preston Howard, Jr., , erector
Division of Water Quality
Enclosure
cc: Fayetteville Regional Office
Water Quality Files
P.O. Box 27687, N;WC FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-7687 An Equal Opportunity/AffirmaWe Action Employer
Voice 919-715-4 700 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

Plan Amendment to Include S&WCC Chronic Rainfall Practices and Standards through March 31, 2000
1 If this facility can comply with its existing permit and CAWMP it must do so.
2
Temporaty Addition of New Spraytields r) (Check approgate boxes_.)
0 A acres of cropland. List crop type used:
0 B. acres of hardwood woodland Q 100lbs PAN 1 acre added.
0 C. acres -of pine woodland added @ 60 Ibs PAN I acre added.
3 Summer Perennial Grass (Check appropriate box.)
A. Application window extended for '171.80 acres of perennial grass until first killing frost
Q B. An additional 50 Ibs of PAN applied to acres of perennial grass prior to killing frost
4 PAN application Increased for Small Grains & Winter Grasses to be harvested. (Check appropriate box.)
0 A. PAN application increased up to 206 Ibs per acre for 120.00 acres of small grains or winter grasses to be harvested.
B. PAN application increased up to 150 lbs per acre for acres of overseeded summer perennial included in 3.8.
5 Waste Analysis (Check appropriate box.)
�] A. Prior to December 1st, 1999 the calculation of PAN will be based on a 35% reduction of the last analysis taken
prior to the first 25 year 24 hour storm event. (Current waste analysis must be used after Dec. 1st)
0 S. Use current waste analysis to determEne PAN.
6 Required - Maximum Nitrogen Utiiization Measures for Small Grains and Winter Grasses.
A. Use of higher seeding rates,
B. Timely harvest of forage to increase yield, and
C. Irrigation during periods of warmer weather.
7 Required - Irrigation Management Techniques to Reduce Runoff and Ponding Potential.
A. Making frequent, light irrigation applications, and
B. Not irrigation immediately before predicted rainfall.
8 The owner I manager is required to manage the movement of animals to and from the facility to minimize environmental
impacts, ensure compliance with the facility's permit and amended CAWMP, and avoid dis:harge to surface waters.
9 Authorization to use the additional practices included in the amendment expires if a facility discharges to surface waters.
Any discharge is a violation and may result in an enforcement action.
10 The owner I operator is required to keep retards of all waste applications.
i 1 This revision must include a map or sketch of new land appli-r-dtion areas.
Facility Number 82-140 Southern Pines Sow Farms I&II
Facility Name r
Mur Fa arms Kraig We erb
Facility n Mana , Na (PR NT) Tecr�ISpecitalist
Facility Owner/ Manager onature TechoDate 11/16/99 Date
This document must be filed at the SWC❑ office and be akttached to the facilities CAWMP
and be available for inspection at the facility
(') New temporary snrayiields must meet applicable buffer and setback requirements. Waste must not be applied to wetlands_

.-W
W
'¢
$94 ?

_qu
aft
'94 2 2

_ 4 {,._4. ;Y - i SFr -� 3i f� �. rI ` {-�r��1 ��`_{yk'{ ,
' i�r_. - -4- _ 7 - _ - - _ .. -.

,,
� -� _
,.
_ �� 3_ _''
_,��~`r.1�J��[` rV�rH. fin. .i
._. ��.� i+��._
(� 5'

' ►`
._ _
�„
lR
i

y_
F � !
L7F 1