820144_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NUH I H UAHULINA
Department of Environmental Quai
II

fIli
ivisin of Water ResourcesWIN
Facility Number �: - /�/ O Division of5oil sari Water Conservation
� Other Age,�ncy
Type of Visit: ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 40r�outiue O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: —j — Arrival Time: Departure Time: " gcKf County: Region: 1
Farm Name: #�_ C-2C 5,5 Cfit'L. _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: dTrn— Y�/ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: /%� Phone:
Onsite Representative: �'�, ��_ Integrator:
Certified Operator: —Sam Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Design
Gnrrent
;
I�l[)es�iga Current .
Design Cnrrent�
,
Swine
Capacity
Top.
Wet Pou1#ry:
,.
Capacity Pop.
Cattle
Capacity Pop.
�i,
to Finish
D o
Layer
DairyCow
to Feeder
$
00
Non -La er
DairyCalf
r to Finish
1�0a
DairyHeifer
w to Wean
E
j�
DesignCurre�iyyut
Cow
w to Feeder
D , Pou!
Ca " ci
-PROP., IH! °
Non -Dairy
to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Pullets'{`'
Beef Brood Cow
=
Turkeys
Other
s
Turkey Poults
=FT(5iheT
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)? _
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes E3' o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
Fff-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
D o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

1
[Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
f* Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes fo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): J
Observed Freeboard (in): '3_
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes �Io ❑ 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 Io ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes / No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes FNo ❑ 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 EJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 0<0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
1 I. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [3-1<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s)
13. Soil Type(s):
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 �lo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
❑ Yes []"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA [] NE
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
E3 11;ru
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
0 "'o
❑ 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-<
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1 " Rainfal I Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[;]�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
to
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Faeili Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?! ❑ Yes To ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? Ifyes, check ❑ Yes &Io ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes B<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes Ergo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
B' o ❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
EfNo ❑ 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
to ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[l] Na ❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
G]-Ko ❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
EA-16 ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to quesfion #) Explasui a©y YES answers a�ad/or aoy additional reeommendiitions or any: other com_neii#s.
Use drawu�gs;of facif��to better ezplam situations (use additional pages asinecessary): ;:I _ I ,I � -
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatw
Page 3 of 3
Phone:U/SJ
Date. %D ;
21412015

Ir
Is.
. Division i f Water Resources
Facility Number - /��f Division of.Soil!and Water Conscrvation
Q 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 0 Denied Access
/O " 0a
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: L�- Departure Time: ' as County: Ste¢ Region:
Farm Name: 5,9 6-1964 7 Grf%YL. Owner Email:
Owner Name: ! % r✓L Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ]� Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: ��� Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification lumber:
Longitude:
Current
� � � Design Current_
� Design C*urrent
Swine
xCapLacity' Pop.
Wetl?oultry '' Capae�ty Pope
Cattle
.Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
Non -La er
Design ,Current:
D . P,o_ultry �" ,Ca acit Po""
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
1Y Z�
Dairy Calf
y;
Feeder to Finish
:
Dai Heifer
D Cow
Farrow to Wean
p
Farrow to Feeder
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Non -La ers
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Gilts
Boars
Pullets
113eef Brood Cow
'.
Turke s
Other
Turkey Puults
_
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[] NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
E]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facilit Number: ,- jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
�* 4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate'? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): Z_e
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
tZ,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑No ❑NA ❑NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes JZ No 0 NA ❑ NE
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 DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
[:]Yes
UjNo
❑ 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 EgNo ❑ NA ONE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): ✓ l" Gc /aqyr-O=sr�_j
13. Soil Type(s): _ b 44 u -2 /1_( 23
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes JK No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15, Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes 12 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable [:]Yes IS No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available'?
❑ Yes
QNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? Ifyes, check
❑ Yes
allo
❑ 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. 0 Yes ® No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall [] Stocking [:]Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I " Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes g No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 10 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

_3 d--
f I Facility Number: - L Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes (. No
` 25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes EL No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
DNA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes jj§ 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
[Z 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
B No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
®.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer toy d&tis � ): Explain any YES answerszancllar:any additional recommendations or:any offer co menu.
Use drawings of fac�Lty io,betfer explain situations {use,adiiittdria[,pages::as necessary
Reviewer/Inspector Name: Wiz-✓� r �i-•� Phone
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date:
21412015

Type of Visit: ('Compliance Inspection O Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: -- — Arrival Timer
Departure Time: / ! y)
County: ,y✓6�— Region:
�—
Farm Name:
/
Owner Email:
Owner Name: j .-�-� {�Q7-,r
Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: l Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: _.ram-� Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude:
Longitude:
Design
Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity
Pop.
t Poult
Fp-zc: i t
M Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
on -Layer
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Wean to Feeder 4fQ0 p o
Feeder to Finish Iron 1001b
Farrow to Wean
p
lfp
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D . P.oultr.
Ca aci
P,o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Pullets
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Boars
Turke s
Other
Turkey Pouets
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [] No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes [allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters [:]Yes EO-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
21412015 Continued

ll— Ib
Facility Number: - 1 Date of Inspection:
E Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes J21 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier-,
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
N 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
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental
threat,
notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
FNo
❑ 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
a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
RNo
[DNA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [ib ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window [] Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): , "
13. Soil Type(s): e f
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes ;gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes 6No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ELNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination'?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
EKNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components ofthe CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
LnkNo
❑ 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 54 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute inspections ❑ Monthly and 1 " Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes �l No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23_ If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 0,No ❑ NA [] NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

• Facility Number: / Date of inspection:
y 24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the pemvt?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
[No
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
J2 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
JoNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes, No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes §ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes 2 No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes EjNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to gnestiont#) Eiplain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendationsor any other cortiments
Use drawings of faciliq; to betfer explain_ situations (use additional gages as necessary).`
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date: :3 %
21412015

i
i ype of visit; %prx-ampuance inspecuon v vperanou review V arrucrure nvamanon v i ecnnrcai Assxszance
Reason for Visit: �utine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: / ; pta Departure Time: / ; Dc� County
Farm Name: s-?gga P.'rL C/y S �G[,►' w�.. Owner Email:
Owner Name: a—, ►y_ ( �Q�'{ r Phone:
Mailing Address:
Region: 7p3z-z�
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: f Phone:
2.4
Onsite Representative: ��. �� Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number: �g
— a
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Desiga
Current
Desiga
Current
t
Pop..
Vet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.Cat#te
JUF
Wean to Finish
Layer
Da" Cow
Wean to Feeder
p0
ao
Non -La er
Da Calf
Feeder to Finish
tr©
(Dt�
Da Heifer
Farrow to Wean
ra:
Design
Currea#
Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D *P, al
Ca aci
Pao
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turke s
Qthe
urkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
[:]Yes CB -No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA]
NE
❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA]
NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
z. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ELNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes ;E�.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
21412014 Continued

Facili Number: Date of inspection: S /.S-
+ Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 31
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
jK 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
[21 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 LO-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 ❑,JEvidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
11 Soil Type(s): (,(1
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes JK No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes E5 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes CR No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes JE�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? [:]Yes jK No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes E�[No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box_
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ONo
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? []Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes N
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

r
Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 2! No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? if yes, check ❑ Yes Cg No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levcls
❑ 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 FA No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
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?
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
LN No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32, Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
[ZI-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question # Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments ni
'Use'drawings offaciIity to. better,.�explam'situations (use additional Pam "as necessary):
,/ �' 15
sit rl 511A
y
Reviewer/inspector Name:
Phone: ' /- -Y
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date:—� -Ir,-
2/4/2011

Type of Visit: ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation O Technical Assis
Reason for Visit: i Routine O Complaint O Follow-up p Referral Q Emergency Q Other O Den?)Ycc�ss
Date of Visit: E Arrival Time: �'° Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: 12
Owner Email:
Owner Name:-�_jp(� pwk ��C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region: Ra
Facility Contact: ��n,5 Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: l'h Integrator: �A„"� d �✓Diir�_
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design Current
Swine'rCapacity Pop.
_DestgnCtirrent
Whet#Poultry C pactty` Pop.
Cattle11 al Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
aig Cow
Wean to Feeder
on -Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Doc
airy Heifer
Marrow to Wean
��u� �Des_ign"'�'Carrent
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D ;foul `�Ca act P.o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Turkeys
Beef Brood Cow
Other ,
Po Its
—Turkey
Other
Other
Discharses and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes ❑ N ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA [] NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: -gal Date of Inspection:AT
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 I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:_
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
6 5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ElYes o ❑ 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 [DNA ❑ 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
prTo ❑ 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
wo ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land 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 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate
Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved
Area
12. Crop Type(s): C6 S G
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
E4No ❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ NE
16_ Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
7A
CoV❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
6 ❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
�
� ,YNo ❑ NA
T
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
LCJ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
5/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 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ t20 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I " Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes [No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:)Yes 0No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection: (!
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ 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 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ YesgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
Nc ❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
o ❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
L:.I N ❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
10 ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer, to -question f: Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendatiow.or,any other commentsy ,
Use drawings .of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
CDC '�' "-uVJS
Uj1P -512 (0 103
pup ut e W h� �
35X,-Sew
ti
14e4 r6%
.Q . Ov$•ti, lea S S-k
Ct,c62,1 iweJ,& r\ vxj g_ ,
L= 45."( T
I ( '��br. C4'1,4o n
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
3•U3
25�
'Y1 -,*, ren�s (,PC
Vf ymtlrU
JUKIV
`0
Phone:
Date: r�d
21412011

I
0
Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency ��11
Facility Number: 820146 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS820146 0 Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection' Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Sgutine County: Sampson Region: Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 10/11/2Q13 Entry Time: 11:00 AM Exit Time: 11:30 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Riverfront #1 & 2 Owner Email:
Owner: Quarter M Ranch inc Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: PO Box 1139 Wailace NC 284661139
Physical Address: 9419 Tomahawk Hwy Harrells NC 28444 _
Facility Status: E Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34°41'31" Longitude: 78°20'18"
On the south side of Hwy 41 approx. 1 mile east of SR 1119, east of Tomahawk, NC.Farm # 2780-2785
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other issues
Certified Operator: Douglas Stephan Atkins Operator Certification Number: 985736
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Douglas Atkins Phone:
On -site representative Douglas Atkins Phone:
Primary Inspector: Ronnie T Smith Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Date:
Page: 1

Permit: AWS820146 Owner - Facility: Quarter M Ranch Inc Facility Number. 820146
Inspection Data: 10/1 i/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
CoC in records
Wup 3/26/03
Crop yield reviewed
Sludge Survey 713113
Riv 1 Riv 2
thickness = 4.1 2.8
LTZ = 4.4 7.6
pump intake = 7.3 7.6
45% 24%
**due again 2013**
Soil Test 11/27/12
**due again 2015**
Cu & Zn levels Min range
L = 0AT
irrigation calibration 2011
**due again 2013**
Waste Analysis N
Rivf1 Rivf2
8/6113 = 1.92 1.95
6114113 = 1.55 1.86
5124/13 = 3.02 2.87
4125/13 = 3.03 2.59
3118/13 = 2.79 2.39
2/15/13 = 2.25 2.28
1/22/13 = 2.59 1.91
irrigation records correspond to rainfall and lagoon records
good looking bermuda fields
Page: 2

Permit: AWS820146 Owner - Facility: Quarter M Ranch Inc
Inspection Date: 10/11/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 820146
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean
7,000
7,000
Swine - Feeder to Finish
2,000
2,000
Swine - Wean to Feeder
800
800
Total Design Capacity: 9,800
Total SSLW: 3,325,000
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
1
agoon
2
agoon
RIVERFRONT 1
20.00
44.00
koon
RIVERFRONT2
20.00
36.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWS820146 Owner - Facility: Quarter M Ranch Inc Facility Number: 620146
Inspection Date: 10/11/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
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)
❑ ■
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ ■
❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than
❑ ■
❑
❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑ ■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural Freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Led large 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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
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
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑ ■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS820146 Owner - Facility: Quarter M Ranch Inc
Inspection Date: 10/1112013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 820146
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
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?
❑
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
w/ Rye Overseed
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1 Cainhoy sand, 0 to 5%
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?
Cl
■
❑
Cl
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?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Page: 5

Permit: AWS820146 Owner - Facility: Quarter M Ranch Inc Facility Number: 820146
Inspection Date: 10/11/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Wl1P? ❑
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Lease Agreements? ❑
Other? ❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ ■
❑ Q
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
Q ■
❑ ❑
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:
Page: 6

Permit: AWS820146 Owner - Facility: Quarter M Ranch Inc Facility Number: 820146
Inspection Date: 10/11/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Otter Issues Yes No NA NE
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report 000 ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? (i.e., discharge, ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
Lagoon / Storage Pond
Other
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or 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?
13
Page: 7

type of visit: k-�Fuompliancc Inspection U Operation Review U Structure Evaluation U "Cechnical Assistance
Reason for Visit: OVoutine O Complaint O FoRow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: ] 1 Arrival Time: t' 3 D Departure Time: County: S' a1— Region:
Farm Name:_Q_$q,�,y`_ Owner Email: �!
Owner Name:�� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: "'
Facility Contact: fin / ct v ,rZ Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: ��� Integrator: A_Vu/-17
Certified Operator: fir+---� -, Certification Number: l 9k76'
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Design
Curren `>.y
Design
Current '''
Design Current
Swine
Ca aci
p ty
. Po p Wet PoulEry
Capacity
IP�op�''�'"
Eatile Capacity Pop.
y��
Wean to Finish Layer Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
QO
,Non -Layer
Da' Calf
Feeder to Finish
o0
o Y t ``
DairyHeifer
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
33-00
DDesign
c `D Woul 4
Ca aci
Current
Po "- µ
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Boars
Non -Layers
Pullets
29
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Oth r e
Turkeys
Turkey Poutts
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?
❑ Yes C&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes allo
❑ Yes allo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

ti
Facili Number: - / Date of Inspection: 7
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
[:]Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® 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
ZI No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ®.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
; 12. Crop Type(s). _..(,1 q u
13. Soil Type(s): w
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 [Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application'?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes [j3.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes EjNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records _& Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 21 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes Ejj No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [�-No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ;9-No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? 0 Yes [S.No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

• Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes CgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check 0 Yes [3,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes JZ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes ® No
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 [3.No
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 [a No
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
3 L Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes No
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes No
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes ,®-No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Cammep#s (refer tv questron' Ex0hdn any YES answers and/or-any,additional recommendations or any other comments. y
s;
Ilse drawrngs of"facility=to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary). ;;>
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
21412011

Date of Visit: J /3 Arrival Time: :3 0= Departure Time: .'� county:j�
Farm Name: pfn �D.Ss .t i Owner Email:
Owner Name: `rs-�- �1�C�� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: dxJ 1/Q ,,r Title: Zc twv- Phone:
Onsite Representative: rat Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Region:
Design Current
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Ca#tle Capacity Pop.
Finish
Layer
DairyCow
DairyCalf
Feeder
p ��
Non -Layer
DairyHeifer
Finish DO po
o Wean
Earrow
Design
Current
D Cow
o Feeder
-D : Poul h
Ca aci
4.0 ,
Non -Dairy
o Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
BeefFeeder
Non -La ers
Beef Brood Cow
Pullets
Turkeys
OtherM111111111
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
[-]Yes a No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[—]Yes [—]No
[::]Yes [—]No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

lFacilky Number: - 14Y 1 jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
ONE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): _ f
Observed Freeboard (in): 7
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
Z 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
[R No
❑ NA
D 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
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Ay lication
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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): sUe�i►+ ct l OV-3--4
13. Soil Type(s): Z�p_B / /I�U7 / 10A3
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes [R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
I5. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes [�j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a tack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
❑ Yes [2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
I9. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
[:]Yes
[ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
[ 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
[g No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis [:]Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ®-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: -I Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ® No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ® No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
[::]Yes ® No
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes ® No
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
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
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes No
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes ® No
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes Z[No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
U e di awin_)%Eililain any YES answers and/or any
s of faciliUeto better ex lain situations use additional page sas n ces aryl onil mendataons or an other com
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: �Q-4�r.33✓0
Date:
21412011

Type of Visit: QComplian.ce Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: ,3--/ Arrival Time: Departure Time: � County: j — Region:
Farm Name �ofyl ney-.5.5 I—alwL. Owner Email:
Owner Name: Z� UATI If, /� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Phone:
Onsite Representative: integrator: r
Certified Operator: Certification Number: zS�'T�
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
WetPoultry
Layer
Design
Capacity
Current
Pop.
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -Layer
D . P,oult',
Layers
Design
Ea aci
Current
l;a P.
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
YJ
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Qrj
p
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
I erM
Other
Turke s
Turkey Poults
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?
[]Yes C&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[-]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes Ga No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: jDate 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
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): `2
Observed Freeboard (in):_
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6.'Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
® 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
[3 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
jg No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance altematives that need
❑ Yes
[3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
I I - Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): l� eez— tee" --
13. Soil Type(s): Ullb /G
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No
acres deterinination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
[:]Yes
MNo
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
§4 No
Reouired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
allo
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check
❑ Yes
0 No
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes EINo
❑ 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 3 No
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [::]Yes ZI No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA [] NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
DNA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection: /
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA 0 NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [Z 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 ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
® 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
[?I 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
Z No
[] NA
❑ NE
permit`? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
®,Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
C3,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments
r -
Use drawings of facility to bki6riexplabi situations (use additional pages, as4iecessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
21412011

i
Type of Visit CMompliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine O Complaint O Follow up 0 Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: f f Arrival Time: ; aC� Departure Time: ► .St7 County: Region: )C27Z�
Farm Name: re 5 � �a�� Owner Email:
Owner Name: u rL— Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: : a;e0 �a Title: eI7-L Phone No:
Onsite Representative: integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:'IL��
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = = = Longitude: 0 0 = , Q "
r *e „
Design '00 'Design Current - • Design Eurreat
Swine Ca aci Po ulatton��'�'et Pout�try ;Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ an to Finish ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder DO `D ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Dairy Calf
eeder to Finish fJ (P
r ❑Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean ❑ Dry Cow
DD
s �Dry�Poultryr �> *• -
❑ Farrow to Feeder"''"" [3La ers aal
❑ Farrow to Finish " ❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts ❑ Non -Layers ❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars ❑ Pullets ❑ Beef Brood Co
❑ Turkeys
Othe
❑ Turkey Pouets
❑ Other ❑ Other I Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Imoacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
EK-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
[51 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

r
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes PS No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): iE
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
D4 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
VrNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
ER 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
allo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
IL is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > l0% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Croptype(s) _ ,r_i1?fli�ac
13. Soiltype(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[S-No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
5i-No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
UjNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[KNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to gdesbaa�#) E platn�an�YES"answer"s`4and/or a0y recommendations o ��'aay atherco ments.�
_lase drawiags�of factLty to better eapiamis�tuahons: (use addstiorialtpages as necessary): _ �� ��,�
Reviewer/Inspector Name yr Phone:/O- y33 -33'D
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: y—/ I-Y ? ,/I
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Lannnued

Facility Number: ` Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes CgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists El Design El Maps El 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
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
IRNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
ID 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
EgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
(R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
CgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
t=� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional°Comments and/orDr�awtngs .. a,, e
Page 3 of 3 12128104

g�1S Z -- oy- zaio
_ f _ ivision of Water Quality
11=Facifityt '" er 82 - / 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Outer Agency
Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint Q Follow up 0 Referral 0)'t=reLmergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1-Il -2410 Arrival Time: 2. 03 Departure Time: 2 ; 30 County: S-A tZe So"1 Region:
Farm Name: .570q_t4.,^/ Ciro SS f4t, , Owner Email:
Owner Name: _S4 . t,J d f ku✓ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Sun1 f' d 5 n X • L/ L 3 � fj Title: _ rAy- ref a�4� �' Phone No:
Onsite Representative: ,Sci NL eLr' f, Vaz Q uGz _ integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Operator Certification Number:
Bach -up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = f 0" Longitude: Q ° [� d = u
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capaeity Population
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er —�
❑ Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
DO, J.Z qp Q
I JEJ Non -Layer I I
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Outer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
[I Beef Stocker
❑ Non -Layers
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
❑ Turke s
❑Turke Poults
Nurn er of Structures:
❑ Other
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
l . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
LJ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field 0/other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
El Yes
,,��
LvJ NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
E3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
LJ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
DR<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

Facility Number:
Date of Inspection 1 -11_1al d
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
❑ Yes ON. ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Bl o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in). 30
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) ��
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes EK ❑ 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
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
[--]Yes
BIVo
❑ 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
El Yes
El"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
Ohio
❑ 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) 01., i Gm;.v
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
LI No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
H oo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination`
❑ Yes
31.
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
3<, EI NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
El Yes
DNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
! '�S 4-c o Y"- <-W hr3 41�� �uL Se,—' '',K 45-re"". Ae-a W r��n
CaoW o u +# -o
.�iQ_ r'; v- 1 t `rr
D-ie,I� ✓Y-C
�1la� cc,�cri �J-al., f' r hl5a� o-F ¢�Cp4�vd�� rJ,�bLty spa f Lv y
AC p14115 an.l r-cp 6c;"'5 ,I%±Ll- 'ju-y eNc! C�'p / 1`"rsP ,b�+ V-"V'G1tj 41,4 No
Reviewer/Inspector Name 1��h� K '"�} e V cl� r_' S r`; r'� Phone: 91O. •f3,3 , 33 dy
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: / - //- Z to /D
I2128104 Continued

Facility Number: $z - Date of Inspection 1-/l-201O
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ENE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA Lr NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and l" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA- B EE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA EtNE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NANE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA LANE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA LINE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal? ��
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes ❑ No El NA L[ 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 El Yes ❑ No El NA LTNE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
/�/ � III G-3 tC� (..Ict,fCi✓ tN �YGp( SY'+'cG �f '�^�� / S %0 �4 � �PP✓'�%Ir�.�y
e Y, ✓ O f u /..mot S t S �rer.. �L%C
4
4,-�" 300 Jals er I-c.6.5.
12128104

Southern Cross Farms Inc. I RECEIVFn
P.O. Box 242 1
Garland, NC 28441
Mr. Ricky Revels
NCDENR
225 Green St, Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301
January 15, 2010
Mr. Revels,
OENR-FAYETULLEREGIOPA lsic;r
On Monday January 11" 2010 at 12:50 PM you left me a message on my cell phone stating that there
had been a complaint about a water runoff at the farm, and that you were on the way to inspect. After
listened to the message 30 minutes later, I called the operator to find out what the situation was, and
then he told me that one of the riser caps was letting water out in a form of a mist, and that was running
down the farm path. The operator had already shut the pump off and proceeded to constrain the water
flow.
After having been informed of the status I called you back to give you an update on what had happened
and you said you were on the way and that we will meet there. At around 2:00 PM I arrived at the site
to find that the small amount of water that had run off had already been constrained and absorbed by
the ground on the farm path and that it did not make it to any waters of the state. soon after you
arrived to verify the situation.
The riser cap water release was caused due to a little crack, possible due to extreme cold weather. The
cap was not leaking when we started the irrigation event that morning and was identified by the
operator on his regular inspection visits during an irrigation event. We replaced that particular cap and
inspected all others to make sure they are functioning properly.
We understand the importance of the right management of lagoon water; we take this job very
seriously. The malfunction that occurred at the farm was detected by the operator during his regular
inspections, and attended in a timely manner to avoid any further complications.
Sincerely,
Sant ggo Vazquez
Farm Manager

c
vision of Water Quality
Facility Number O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Type of Visit &Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Orl routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: I gr.'304.,. Departure Time: /.O .M County: �'"�s°^J Region: 10*?Q
Farm Name: SB�f�e r�trar,f 04r Owner Email:
Owner Name: 1 m LtIQ jkZ F- Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 6"4 eo o ✓a :3 ! . L. a Title: �`�""~ "" Phone No:
dv
Onsite Representative- Integrator: J14urfA4 _ ?I-e- AI
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o =' 0 Longitude: = o ='
=
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Wean to Finish
21vean Feeder
D0
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
El Pullets
ElTurkeys
El Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Im acts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: El Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
El Dairy Cow
El Dairy Calf
❑ DairyHeifer
El Dry Cow
ElNon-Dairy
El Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
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)?
Number of Structures: ED
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 ffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No LJ NA
Discharges & Stream Im acts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: El Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
El Dairy Cow
El Dairy Calf
❑ DairyHeifer
El Dry Cow
ElNon-Dairy
El Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
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)?
Number of Structures: ED
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 ffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No LJ NA
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)?
Number of Structures: ED
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 ffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No LJ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No 0NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
NNoo ❑ NA
El NE
�
[:]Yes o ❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: gZ -- /q:
5 =or"d 9
Date of InspectionF3=a-T-_,799
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus stone storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes E�10 ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? El Yes [3 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 9 /
Spillway?: dD
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [31�0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) /
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ElO
Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ErNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes L7 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 ETNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes LJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes lIivo ❑ 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) Eej_m,, dj,_, C � i � 3 t 5.L•41� e!v i.✓ [ �y�vs+ �
13. Soil type(s) Al",
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
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?
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
01 o
❑NA
❑NE
E?<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[a<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
IComments (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 Name 91 c- %��_��-<-S _ Phone: YAO, Y33-333 V
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 Continued

4
Facility Number: 72 —/ f/Si Date of Inspection SOS-O 9
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes C o ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes E No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Ergo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield Cl 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 Reviewerfinspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Comments and/or Drawings:
❑ Yes
Dlo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
D<o
ElNA
ElNE
ElM Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�30'NZ
L7 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Dfo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
NNo
El NA
El NE
Ell� Yes
,L.�7,,
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ETNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Blvo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
B No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
D<
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

r
Type of Visit EMompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine 0 Complaint O Fallow up O Referral O Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ]-Z7-►O Arrival Time: Departure Time: 3=0i� County: Sa Sc7J Region:
Farm Name: cross Owner Email:
Owner Name: ►"``- t-J0.(kw Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: S��J-�i a�4 p �4� .35 itle: P�0' r+n Luc ras<-✓ Phone No:
Onsite Representative: s04-4i AL.F3 Xj6 !j 4 «aS Integrator:
Certified Operator: '.►J -�- ee. '2 V 20 rt, � Operator Certification Number: � �� 7 9
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = 6 = it Longitude: 0 o a I = u
Swine
El Wean to Finish IM
Design Current
Capacity Population
Design Current
Wet Peultry Capacity Population
CattleE'CRV2C1DXr,0PU1aU
Design Current
n
Wean to Feeder
Dischartres & 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 D< ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[ -9A
❑ NE
El Yes
❑No
[3A
❑NE
S NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
�fo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection 7 27 /a
Waste Collection & Treatment /
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ElYes D No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier-
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Frceboard (in): ,3 6 M
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [��o ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes E 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? ElYes Lllt1vo-- ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑5o­ ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes B'1To— ❑ 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 6 ❑ 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) �-ot� E PaSA V- !Z�k.a.4_tl C-M'W
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
N'o
El NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
M�
Ll NNoo
❑ NA
[I NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
8'50-
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
gn-zo�
❑ NA
❑ NE
Camtnents"(refer to question #): Explain any YES answersand/or�any:recommendations or any o hercomm_ ent
Use drawings of facdit} to=better explain situations. (use additfional pages;as necessary)
y.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
w S `
Phone: 91o. f�33. 33 a o
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: 7-2 7` Z.t,/ 0
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: z —f Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes L7No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Id'lao ❑ 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
0- o ❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
C NA
El NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
_No❑
91gwo❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
El Yes
B No ElNA
ElNE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
ElE Yes
No ❑ NA
ElNE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
ElYes
El_q ❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
El Yes
��
NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
El Yes
,Ergo❑
L7No ❑ 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
,�
B-50 ❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
Ir No ❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

XfC 4-11-7007
® Division of Water Quality
Facility Number ME
/ 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency ,
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit (FRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: -0`%/ Arrival 'rime: ; 30 Departure Time: / ; Z� County:�/JSe..� Region: �zo
Farm Name: u A✓ C I 1Ce_Ee&j Owner Email:
Owner Name: S w Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ��FN7� 447a l/a4 4uC Title: riu91r Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: E] c 0' El Longitude: ❑ ° = ' E__1 u
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
❑ Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean SOO Q
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
❑ Layer
❑ Nan -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any pan of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Capacity Population
t:
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non-Dai
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes UTNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
JANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: $Z 14 ' Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
V1 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
fO No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �Q
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
o 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
VNo
❑ 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
[PNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
S. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ 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
0 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 101bs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifl Application Outside
of Area
'El
12. Crop type(s) c:li r_�f4��(�.✓
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
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
LgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
IComments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name k� e�v e_tS Phone 110 . 43.E . 3330
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: P.1 I k-4--k- Date: (6 ~/3— ;Z6,O 7-
12128104 Continued

e -
Facility Number: Z-IVV Date of Inspection
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [? No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists El Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers P 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
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
ra 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
[)I 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
[p No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
Pd No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
V No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[jNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12178104

o�0� warF9QG
T4ithael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
j [ North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
December 1, 2006
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Jim Walker
Southem Cross Farm
PO Box 798
Garland, NC 28441
Subject: Application for Renewal of Coverage for Expiring NPDES General Permit
Dear Permittee:
RECEIVED
DEC 06 M
Mffl-FAYEnEVq.1f RE vNAI rlmrr
Your facility is currently approved for operation under one of the Animal Waste Operation NPDES General Permits, which expire on
July 1, 2007. Due to changes in federal rules, facilities that do not discharge nor propose to discharge may choose whether or not to
retain coverage under an NPDES General Permit. Copies of the draft animal waste operation NPDES general permits and the State
Non -Discharge General Permits are available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.uslaps/afou/downloads.htm or by writing or calling:
NCDENR — DW Q Animal Feeding Operations Unit
1636 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1636
Telephone number: [phone]
In order to assure your continued coverage under one of these two types of general permits, you must submit an application for permit
coverage to the Division. Enclosed_you will find a `Request for Certificate of Coverage Facility Currently Covered by an Expiring
NPDES General Permit.' The qpRlication form must be completed and retuned by January 2 2007. Please noteyou must include
two 2 copies of your most recent Waste Utilization Plan with the a lication form.
Failure to request renewal of your coverage under a general permit within the time period specified may result in a civil penalty.
Operation of your facility without coverage under a valid general permit would constitute a violation of NCGS 143-215.1 and could
result in assessments of civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day.
If you have any questions about the draft general permits, the enclosed application, or any related matter please feel free to contact the
Animal Feeding Operations Unit staff at 919-733-3221.
Sincerely,
Ted L. Bush, Jr., Chief
Aquifer Protection Section
Enclosures
cc (w/o enclosures): Sampson County Soil and Water Conservation District
Fayetteville Regional Office, Aquifer Protection Section
AFO Unit Central Files - 820144
Murphy Family Farms
lvorthCarolina
Aquifer Protection Section 1636 Mail Service Center Raleigh. AFC 27699-1636 Telephone: (919) v /Q g7aally
Internet: w_ww.ncwat uality,org Location: 2728 Capital Boulevard Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax 1: [phone]
Fax 2: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 5046 Recyded110% Post Consumer Paper Customer Service: [phone]

4
Type of Visit @'Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: .� t: J Departure Time: Region: lc_—� 0
Farm Name: DL[ Y✓i1 Owner Email:
Owner Name: Ja t\ Lr / Phone:
Mailing Address: � �/"� %�d✓�.��el Nt� ���'��
Physical Address: r n• (9` �V--t-
Facility Contact: X 0 1ZZ7—fWeZ Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: 15*0-"_-,e Integrator:
Certified Operator: >
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = O = 6 = « Longitude: = o = 6 = ie
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
ElLayer
OD ❑ Non -Layer
❑ Wean to Finish
EKWean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
/000
Farrow to Wean
oo
El Farrow to Feeder
El Farrow to Finish
El Gilts
[I Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Pouets
Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'?
Discharge originated at: El Structure ❑ Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design C, went
Cattle Capacity . Population
El Dairy Cow
El Dairy Calf
El Dairy Heifei
El Dry Cow
ElNon-Dairy
El Beef Stocker
El Beef Feeder
El Beef Brood Cow
.:
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes OZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes
El No
El NA
El NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
J9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
i
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection h
1�4'aste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
U1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): c3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
4 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
9No
❑ 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? MYes El No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 4 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 EgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. []Yes JKNo ❑ 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)
13. Soil type(s) 73 t.LYZ/ ku cCa .Lija Z
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
Dd No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination`
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
El NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[ffNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
4-/N vvC p ��ot ►�,�3 ` R pr�r�!-s��e� ��a.-r v�—
Reviewer/Inspector Name _ ' _ ��,� Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: iy Date: A///—P51)_b
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: � — TR
Date of Inspection (?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 29 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ W UP El Checklists El Design El Maps El Other
2 I . Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ;�I-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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
,4 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 (FLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
54No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
;4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
V 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
V] 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
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Addi#tonal Comments*aud/or"`Draw�ngs:.
��� tea='►�--�
12128104

(Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
IReason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 80? Date of Visit: /d/.Z QY Tune: :30
o Not Operational O Below Threshold
m Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified M Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: S Q. it. s,. eb C -a {- s' x . _. County: 5 a 3P-9 o #a
Owner Name: _ G �''� Sr . � T.,r+n r�� 15 Gt _. 'Phone No:
!Hailing Address:
Facility Contact: :�;*�jjri a j Va z%j&r.'L---------- - Title:. Phone No:
Onsite Representative: , , _ Integrator. irn A.V IA4 —
Certified Operator: S o.—k-% 4 ' -a Operator Certification Number: g-91 Vg' .-
Location of Farm:
Ud swine ❑ Poultry ❑ cattle © Norse Latitude • u Longitude • `;
Disdunes & Stream Im cts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? Ar/x
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
33 "
12/I2M3 Condnued

Facility Nu%nber: 8.? - /49 Date of Inspection yo ,tt je+p
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? Cie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes P No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are .there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plats? ❑Yes ®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes [J No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancehmprovement? ❑ Yes (] No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes ;I No
elevation markings?
Waste ApipEcation
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvernent? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No
❑ Excessive Ponding [IPAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type lJnC v- w+ u d I- I S t-% -A l I G r d: b" •-
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWN P)? ❑ Yes No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
c) This facility is peended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes M No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes JR No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes IM No
Air Quality representative immediately.
'G {nrdertd yES-amwQs aaaJ'or�ay other
-s y , ' VA0 Feld Copy ❑ Final Notes
46
Reviewer/lnspector Name
,emu-....: a-----� > �r .�•.�:.V�:-.:�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: / O 11.2 /G 4/
77171Pm2 d'-" "r1Ar

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Rewired Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
25. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
27. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWW.
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Stocking Form [:]Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IX No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes E� No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes Q No
❑ Yes m No
❑ Yes O No
12112103

-. Waa ?�.vr.n_� r �i.=r'�'r_-�.,..7'xnTi.-..at?•r`"..=...rF _ �'�... h--�--�..__r, z_. _ _.. �.- � _ - �. . c .. ... _ _ - � _ _ _ .. �: �`` _ �....`__ _ �.� �s :.—
Type of Visit • Compplliiance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Le
Reason for Visit IkRoutine *Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 3®' Time: �D
Facifih. \umher $a-
Kot O erational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted Certified M Conditionally Certified O Registered Date Last Operated or _above Threshold:
Farm -Name: _ .SOkAeJr \Ce0-5S County: Seat.,jaapAu r �y
Owner Name: C ve L 'l (fin �L r Phone No:
Mailing address:
Facilitv Contact: Sa-- V%4Q d Vazque 2 _ Title: _ F-t r r-. "*I4QW . Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: ?V 1 kr o . — : a w 0
Certified Operator: Sa n-Vi e4 ctya -2 ru e z Operator Certification Number:
Locarion of Farm:
Swine ❑ Pouttry ❑ Cattle 0 Morse Latitude ' ' " Longitude ' • L _J
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Ca acitF Population Poultry Capacity Po elation Cattle Ca acity Po ulation
ElWean to Feeder 1 10 Laver ❑ Dairy
El Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Laver ❑ Non -Dais°
LMFarrow to 1%Vean
El Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow w Finish Total Design Capacity
El Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps
uid
Area
Discharges S Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes I No
Dischar,e ori_inated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in eal/min?
d_ Does discharge b�Tass a lagoon system? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑Yes El No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
3. Were there an-,- adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes No
Structure I Structure ) Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier_
Freeboard (inches): D�
05103101 Continued

Facility —Number. 9;L — /j% Date of Inspection 3-.?
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate. gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Wastf Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenanceiimprovemeni? ❑ Yes ❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload El Yes ❑ No
12. Crop type d ep"M&W. / Sct
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CANVMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14, a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ElNo
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ R'UP, checklists. design, maps. etc.)
ElYes
❑ No
19-
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation. freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22.
Fail to notify regional D«`Q of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(icr discharge. freeboard problems. over application)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23.
Did ReviewevInspector fail to discuss reviewrinspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
E No
24.
Does facility require a follow --up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
JM No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
�No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit You will receive no further correspondence about this visit
comments (refer to`ques6on ): 7Explsm any' N snswess and/or yatry;t� d�eonameatiahans;or a� oilier t�pmmeats frti � �-
Y
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary) s w'
Field Copv ❑ Final Notes w
aV+
T1 1 n
Q 1� O- C/6 .- \l �J11S WCrC i..J 1h
craro 4-�- �- `�".,"x olowlvs. S�oki c w;+r_ ta.-r1 Y►?�rL. Sa..�� t J�V* a�>r
�`ifdu� O►.1 Srr4-t}V% 4•., �Cr h'tGrG lCOCayICGL. P►•i�*i aA.i
I �G (u[�pOry C; /fn 4. Sbi'hG �Ga}1� f-Aaf, t+►C t xi.-. t-Ta4+ will r'ciNoVe-_
—Ae1 rrf;Saj;0Ac Lra�Q ra r/.rl/v10JOP Qf j0c4rcAL fii4..t eYc�pt �'ny
Levee./_)J
4.C^'C
_ •^..•.' .k*a
Reviewer/Inspector Name ram^ e� i � =-��
D"-�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
OSIO3101 (/
Continued

Information contained in this database is from non agency sources and is considered unconfirmed.
Animal Operation Tele hone Log
DWQ Facility Number FT] Date 7-21-2003
Farm Name Southem Cross Farm Time
Callers Name Santiago Vazquez Control Number 3756
10 Reporting Q Complaint Region IFRO
Callers Phone # [phone]
Access to Farm
LaLuon Ouestions
Farm Accessible
from main road
10 Yes Q No
Breached 10 Yes Q No
Inundated 10 Yes O No
Overtopped 10 Yes Q No
Animal Population
Water on O Yes Q No
Outside Wall
Confined
Q Yes Q No
Dike Conditions O Yes O No
Depop
10 Yes Q No
Feed Available
10 Yes Q No
Freeboard Level
Mortality
10 Yes Q No
Freeboard Plan Due Date Date Plan Date Freeboard
Inches (? equals blank) Received Level OK
Lagoon'! 19 7I23I2003-24-2003
Sprav Availability
Lagoon2
Pumping
Equipment
10 Yes Q No
Lagoon3
Lagoon4
Available
Fields
10 Yes O No
Lagoon5
� 0
Lagoon6
Vazquez called to say he was out of the red. LCB had no information on this report so this call in was
Paul Sherman ~
Comments2

y .
w y4
l�
, lko-r.
..mot
y er
� ' R
M
4
t a
i
�W-
March 25, 2003 N134 4.7,306 M07815 73,6
• jIY�� ti

AL FaciliryNum6cr: g Z - f SF *
Division of Environmental Management
Animal Feedlot Operations Site Visitation Record
Date: (. /z 7/ 7 [a
Time: / Z /S
figneralInformation: // /'��
Farm Name SO ut�i. eyw, Lr M c FQ ✓r.t County: ri M.� fj s G N
Owner Name:-- Phone No: PVO) s3Z -z 841I
On Site Representative: _ Integrator. hJ µ rPt,S4
Mailing Address: .Re sdc- 1 8c,C ^z10 -14
T20s,- gill ,VC a S 45,g
Physical Address/Location:
cxss ?vlr.a... .mot /e y _ - ye e vL L r Aga, d
Latitude: 1 I Longitude: I I
eration Description: (based on design characteristics)
Type of Swine No. of AnimaLs Type of Poultry No. of Animals Type of Cank No. of Animals
0 sow 3 if -o O 0 Layer O Dairy
0 Nmseay O Non -Layer 0 Beef
❑ Feeder
OtherType of Livestock Nu ber of Animals:
Number of Lagoons: (include in the Drawings and Observations the heeboard of each lagoon)
Facility LMRg Lion•
Lagoon
Is lagoon(s) freeboard less than 1 foot + 25 year 24 hour storm storage?:
Is seepage observed from the lagoon?:
Is erosion observed?:
Is any discharge observed?
0 Man-made 0 Not Man-made
Cover Crop
Does the facility need more acreage for spraying?:
Does the cover crop need improvement?:
(fin the crops which need bVrovanew)
Crop type: 6oq5klB<,,,,,. _ 1 PAcreage:
3. 0 8 Yes ❑
No Gr'
Yes ❑
No EY'
Yes ❑
No 19'
Yes ❑
No all
Yes ❑ No 3"
Yes 0 No 3"'
Setback Criteria
Is a dwelling located withi! 200 feet of waste application? Yes ❑ No
Is a well located within 100 feet of waste application? Yes ❑ No Ur
Is animal waste stockpiled within 100 feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes U Noe
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 feet of Blue Line Stream? Yes ❑ No
AOI — January 17,19%

Maintenance
Does the facility maintenance need improvement?
Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
Does record keeping need improvement?
Did the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan on site?
Yes ❑
No IE(
Yes ❑
No e
Yes ❑
No
Yes Or'
No ❑
Explain any Yes answers:
��2ri�t�— _ s
�fs��cLw►�--� + �f
J ' 4i
Q �+�� s 5= e /_9 9 7.
,�
Signature: /�.� /`Sa��.-Qr� _ Date:
cc. Facility Assessment Unit Use Anachmems if Needed
Drawings or Observation.
l Y1,:. ri r•� _- Tamil '_il �l ti.11• *Y F.r r• ~^•--:~~ir T- -�
AOI — January 17JM

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Murphy's Family Farms
PO Box 759
Rose Hill, NC 28458
Dear Sir:
Xf ?OWA
E)EHNR
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
July 25, 1996
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
Bladen/Sampson Counties
On June 27, 1996, an inspection of several of your animal operations was performed by the
Fayetteville Regional Office (FRO). Please find enclosed a copy of our Compliance Inspection
Report for your information. It is the opinion of this office that these facilities are in compliance
with 15A NCAC 211, Part,0217, and that Animal Waste Management is being properly performed.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact me at (910) 486-
1541 ext. 325.
Sincerely,
Ricky Revels
Environmental Technician N
Enclosure
cc: Facility Compliance Group
Wachovia Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville N%q
� FAX [phone]
North Carolina 28301-5043 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 910-486-1541 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

1
FaciliryNumber: Q z _ 04
Division of Environmental Management
Animal Feedlot Operations Site Visitation Record
Time: / z / S
G—eneral Information:
Farm Name: Sr a v-,v Ya s S _ Fa r r�-� County: S i•••p S n!
Owner Name: �m►+r.. 4 s= 0.l [� w _ Phone No: (9/0) S3z - 2,3 j /
On Site Representative: Integrator. W(L&v�,
Mailing Address: R a tfc--
OS 4 &G
Physical AddresslLocation: H4•.. "Op-3 A�fcs,vci:a -� I�J�cress �s�.., Spa./ 3~,/ems
Latitude: 1 1 Longitude: I I
Qperation Description: (based on design characteristics)
Type of Swint No. of Animals Type of Poultry No. of Animals Type of Cattle No. of Animals
❑ Sow 3't0 O 0 Layer 0 Dairy
0 Nursery 0 Non -Layer 0 Beef
D Feeder
OrherType of livestock Number of Animals:
Ntimber of Lagoons: 1 (include in the Drawings and Observations the freeboard of each lagoon)
facility Inspection:
Lagoon
Is lagoon(s) freeboard less than Ifoot + 25 year 24 hour storm storage?: 3 . a? t
Yes ❑
No Cd'
Is seepage observed from the. lagoon?:
Yes a
No Er
Is erosion observed?:
Yes ❑
No al'
Is any discharge observed?
Yes ❑
No i(
❑ Man-made 0 Not Man-made
Cover Crop
Does the facility Deed more acreage for spraying?:
Yes ❑
No all"
Does the cover crop need improvement?:
Yes ❑
No C'
(list the crops which need i-nprn wnew)
Crop type: (-�as Pr, s Acreage
Setback Criteria
Is a dwelling Iocated within 200 feet of waste application?
Yes ❑
No C`7
Is a weU located within 100 feet of waste application?
Yes ❑
No C'
Is animal waste stockpiled within I DO feet of USGS Blue Line Stream?
Yes ❑
No
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 feet of Blue Line Stream?
Yes ❑
No it
AOI — January 17,1996
-

Maintenance
Does the facility maintenance need improvement? Yes O Noi�
Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? Yes ❑ No a
Does record keeping need improvement? Yes 0 No ar
Did the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan on site? Yes Or' No ❑
Explain any Yes answers: `/: s
r e 5 Ls
e .,.A
b ;'A; M a N
Q#rb li f ej w s ,c- he a
a ti...� _._ + �u-.
¢
A N �O3`D r c. e .� 6 �.r 3 ;. r 9 77.
—.
signature:_ Date: G - z T - G
cc. Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed
Drawings or Observations;
AOi — January 17,19%

Plan Amendment to Include S&WCC Chronic Rainfall Practices and Standards through March 31, 2000 .
1. if this facility can comply with its existinapermit and CAWMP it must do so.
2. Temporary Addition of New Sprayfields (*) (Check appropriate boxes.)
[) A. acres of cropland. List crop types used:
f 1 B. acres of hardwood woodland @ 100 lbs PAN / acre added.
[} C. acres of pine woodland added @ 60 lbs PAN / acre added.
3. Summer Perennial Grass (Check approp box.)
A. Application window extended for acres of perennial grass until first killing frost
[. An additional 50 lbs 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.)
�A. PAN application increased up to 200 lbs per acre for 0 cres 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. B.
5. Waste Analysis (Check appropriate box_)
XA: Prior to Dezember 1', 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 DecT! .)
[) B. Use current waste analysis to determine PAN.
6. Required -Maximum Nitrogen Utilization Measures for Small Grains and Winter Grasses.
A. Use of higher seeding rates,
B. Timely harvest of foraee to increase yield, and
C. Irrigating during periods of warmer weather.
7. Required - Itniaation Management Techniques to Reduce Runoff and Ponding Potential.
A. Making frequent, light irrigation applications, and
3. Not irrigating immediately before predicted rainfall.
S. T-he owner / manager is required to manage the movement of animals to and from the facility to minimize environmental
impacts, ensure compliance widithe facility's permit and amended CAWMP, and avoid discharge to surface waters.
9. Authorization to use the additional practices included in this amendment expires if a facility discharges to surface waters.
Any discharge is a violation and may result in an enforcement action.
10. The owner / operator is required to keep records of all waste applications_
11 _ This revision must include a map or sketch of new land application areas.
Facility Number 9 Z- % U C l
Date C7 r r I
Cl `ASS
!/ Facility Name
; I 5..,;iist Signature
This document must be filed at the SWCD office ante attache to the facilities CAWMP
and be available for inspection at the facility.
(*) New temporary spraynelds must meet applicable buffer and setback requirements. Waste most not be applied to wetlands.
I 1/12/1999

CD
rm
NO