820358_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qua

0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
820358 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS820358
Denied Access
Inspection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Sampson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of visit.
09/20/2017 Entry Time: 10:45 am
Exit Time: 11:30 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Garland & Petty Farms
Owner Email:
Owner.
Murphy Milling Company
Phone:
910-285-1005
Mailing Address:
PO Box 1139
Wallace NC 284661139
Physical Address:
2716 Garland Airport Rd
Garland NC 28441
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Integrator. Murphy -Brawn LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 34° 45' 07" Longitude:
78' 21' 29"
On the west side of SR 1131 approx..5 miles south of its intersection with SR 1133.Farm # 3887-3888
Question Areas:
Dischrge 8 Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, 8 Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Douglas Stephan Atkins Operator Certification Number: 985738
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. Bill Dunlap Phone:
Inspector Signature. Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Calibration 5-15-2017
Sludge Survey
Lagoon N O
Garland 1 3.6 1.2 74%
Garland 2 3.6 3.9
Petty 4.6 2.6 61 %
All fields need 1-2 tons lime per acre
page: 1

Permit: AWS820358 Owner- Facility : Murphy Milling Compar Facility Number: 820358
Inspection Date: 09/20/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
�v"nearrow to Wean 4,136 0
Total Design Capacity: 4,136
Total SSLW: 1,790,888
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identliier Closed Date Start Date freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
GARLAND 1
19.00
40.00
Lagoon
GARLAND 2
19.00
46.00
Lagoon
GARLAND NEW
Lagoon
GARLAND OLD
Lagoon
PETTY
36,00
Lagoon
PETTY3
19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS820358 Owner - Facility : Murphy Milling Compar Facility Number. 820358
Inspection Date: 09/20/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream lmpacts
Yes
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
E ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
E ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
0 ❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
N ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
N ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Wasts Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0110
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
E ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
EEI
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
E ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yee No Na ft
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS820358 Owner - Facility : Murphy Milling Compar Facility Number: 820358
Inspection Date: 09/20/17 Inppection Type; Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yea No Na No
Crop Type 1 coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2 Coastal Bermuda Gran w/
Rye Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1 Tomahawk sand
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
0 ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
E ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
1101111
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
N ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
[]
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS820358 Owner - Facility : Murphy Milling Compar Facility Number: 820358
Inspection Date: 09/20/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Na
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26, Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
M ❑
❑
27_ Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Nam
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface file drains exist at the facility?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
1101111
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewrinspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
M ❑
❑
page: 5

A I'k- 5 -f E�a J6
n i`vii"sion of Water Resources
rKpacitit-
,y]Number L2AJ - ® Division of Soil and Water Conservation
� Other Agency
Type of Visit: QCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: gefioutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time:1 ajqUpcounty: '54- Z'
Farm Name: PAOwner Email:
Owner Name: m 14-1 % Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: "00 k AS
Certified Operator: i {
Back-up Operator: 16
Location of Farm: Latitude:
6-2- rQ, - 3�
G11 3g,t
Region:
Integrator: A ` _5 �
Certification Number: 7y'S / 3K
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design Current - 3 Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
WetiPoultry: Capacity Pitp. Cattle4 i Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
DairyCalf
Feeder to Finish
r DairyHeifer
)a=
Farrow to Wean
Design. Current D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Dry P,oultr.'Ca acit e _ .1?0 Non -Dairy
La ers Beef Stocker
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
on -La ers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
tern
Other
TurkeyPoints
-* .=-
Other
10ther
Discharmes 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)
❑Yes [- ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ❑ No 'NA [3 NE
❑ Yes ❑ No [NA C] NE
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) ❑ Yes ❑ No EZINA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes .0-No 0 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 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - g Date of Inspection: JO 00
Waste Collection & Treatment
4.1s storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 0` 6-O NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? [:]Yes ❑ No [D-NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structur 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
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.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes
E] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[—]Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
Ej`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
dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0� ❑ 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): 4 S b d
13. Soil Type(s): q,tJ S
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes I jKo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes tl 1-<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists [:]Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑ Yes
011o�
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
B-14o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
E No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes D-90- ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Ea -go-
rvD ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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 ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I " Rainfall 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 El"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

FacilifF Number: - � ,S
Date of Inspection: IV #iro
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [D`11;ro__ WA
❑ NE
25I�_ Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes go ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
[] Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes Eg<o ❑ 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
io
❑ 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
LJ N
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ ' Yes
[�f/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
L, 0 {-v V u `-t'l7-e Cr c
Reviewer/Inspector Name: S' Phone:
t
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: 3-D 6 V _
Page 3 of 3 21412015

s 7 Dc.c-_15 9 C�l
Type of Visit: QrCom ance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: r Departure Time: 1 County: Region:
Farm Name: A I G Owner Email:
Owner Name: ftidw � f Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: NMI,
l Title:
Onsite Representative: Y
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm: Latitude:
DischarPes and Stream Imnacts
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number: 9 E,,5 73
Certification Number:
Longitude:
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
Q'i o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance mart -made?
[—]Yes
❑ No
[J�A
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ No
[ A
❑ NE
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)
❑ Yes
❑ No
ff NA
❑ NE
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
Ef o
❑ 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 21412014 Continued

Facili Number: - �. Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [�'No ❑ NA ElNE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes [Ej"No`_ ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Struc e 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): � r
Observed Freeboard (in): b g tI t b
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 0No ❑ 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 [2/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 � o ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes j(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 dNo ❑ 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 im rovement�
P
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
�� �� 0Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):(l�C. T'�t t7
13. Soil Type(s):
D
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
0 Yes
dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
E3`�es
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
F73,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[ENo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ETNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
N/o
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[3
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
040
❑ 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
❑ 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
[2rlNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
[:]Yes
E/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412014 Continued

Faciltty Number: - 6 Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? [:]Yes Q-Ko
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check es ❑ No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey DlfaZilurc 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
2-90
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
24. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
[::]Yes
1 0
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)
3 1. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
D'�10
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
I__I too
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
CNo
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
E/No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ONE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
additional pages as necel recommendations or any other. commen
Use drawings of facility to better ezplain:situations (use additional
Comments (refer to question ap am any answers an or any additional
10 .- 2, -- �_o(5
G -1- M- z, 1
N — 3, b
)U 76 — �0 � t e Q v c{v_1/
G -2- - A aL I I k - �, 3 .� �7
Pe- ` 2 S ._
`tom 5 Nti[7� �-e !i✓` 00 �e P C� ear &
�Y
Reviewer/Inspector Name: z h
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
21412014

OMs 30 J,n [5
Type of Visit: Cj Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: ilJ Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: j County: Region:
Farm Name: ,� +W` + � �` - E Owner' Em�aill:^'
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
U- V Title:
Onsite Representative: t
Certified Operator:
Phone:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number: 1 b S Z 39(_
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
CP
Des'
Current
Design Current
Swine
pent711=
Capacity
Vet Poultry
Ca ac'r
p ty
Po P
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
I
INon-Layer
I
Dairy Calf
lFeeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
� .
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
-D
: jl?oultr
Ca aci
P,o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Imnacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[�Xo'
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
EJ4A
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ No
ErNA A
❑ NE
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)
❑ Yes
❑ No
La NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[Z],No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
[:3'1 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412014 Continued

s
r lFacility Number: - Date of inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 0_b1v ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes [5-Ko- ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1
Identifier:
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): _
Observed Freeboard (in): 2y
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
❑ Yes g �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
FjWo
❑ 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
g3'<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
[:]Yes
Cg o
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
[:]Yes
[2'l�lo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Anplication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
Er No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
l I . Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Q' 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 Q ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): ge", sc7 J -
13. Soil Type(s): -f o -,-L
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the i7-,AWMP?
❑ Yes
�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[ l�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
[3"1-o
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[R'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
t.J N
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
Io_
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
[2' fl�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
E� o
❑ 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
[j1po
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412014 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection: n.1
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�o
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, 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 to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[d" No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
E No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes [fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ENo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [k<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [tlNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [31�o
[-]Yes ErNo
❑ Yes [T'No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers -and/or any additional recommendations or :any other comments.
Use drawings -of facW;y.to better explain situations;(use additional.pages as necessary). �, Fy
P--3,o- ll it �0 4 rcA�,r
t� to- g l3 P0� N
s r�ti o rs �,
s .� -6 I✓ I;� 1 2
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: B 3 - 3—&3
Date: b eg -
21412014

Type of Visit: 4V Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: ® Routine O Complaint Q Follow-up O Referral O Emergency Q Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: U / Arrival Time: a0 Departure Time: County: s—&—"�� Region:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �r.� o.� Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: `�� i"t5 Integrator:,
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Design Current
Current
Design CurrenSwinet
Poultryy
ns.'Da)p
Pap.,
AN
Catt[e Capacity Pog.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
La er
Non -La er
=
Da' Cow
Da' Calf
Dai Heifer
arrow to Wean
Design
Current -
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D . P,oul
Ca aci
Po
-Da'
Farrow to Finish
La en
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Boars
w
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impact
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure [j Application Field ❑ Other:
❑ Yes CdNo ❑ NA [] NE
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 (gailons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ o ❑ NA [] NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 2/412011 Continued

IFicility Namber: _ Date of Ins ection: ZORI
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 1 Structure 2 —7 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?: _
Designed Freeboard (in):
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.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes qr<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental th eat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes Io ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? [:]Yes ( < ❑ 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 ADV&3tion
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [lNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Yelo ❑ 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
pD (� ❑ 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?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑ Yes io
❑ YesVN
❑ Yes
❑ Yes E�<o
❑ Yes �Ko
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
[Dyes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes fo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ONO ❑ 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 ] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes P�No 0 NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Wacilit
y Number: - Date of inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑Yes rNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ 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
c ❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
6X0'1:1 NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ 0 NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
7
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
640 ❑ 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
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes No NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
rN NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments
# *y`
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
CAI_ I-V\ T-C c 6-k-As Irv�/01I�,s►S
p , �' ,p G t c�ez
II tt oo ['00 !.
k!::�_ 3 3 at J V
;?
C_ z � 3 0 T 7-1I51l3 - )a-4-
'S00 70
&",yN its TC�s
n 4
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: �— -11
Date:
214,12011

0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 8ZQ358 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS820358 Q Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Region: Faygtteville
Date of Visit: 1011112013 Entry Time: 10:00 AM Exit Time: 10%30 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Garland & Petty Farms Owner Email:
Mailing Address: PO Box 1139 Wallace NC 284661139
Physical Address: 2716 Garland Airport fed Garland
Facility Status: E Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34°45'07" longitude: 78°21'29"
On the west side of SR 1131 approx..5 miles south of its intersection with SR 1133.Farm # 3887-3888.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col. Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Douglas Stephan Atkins Operator Certification Number: 985738
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: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

Permit: AWS820358 Owner - Facility: Murphy Milling Company Facility Number: B20358
Inspection Date: 1011112013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
CoC in records
WUP in records 6119108
Crop yield records reviewed
Sludge Survey 10/2/13
G1 G2 Petty
thickness = 3.0 2.6 4.4
LTZ=1.93.6 3.4
pump inake = 4.6 5 7.5
59% 37% 52%
"due again 2014"
Soil Test 11/27/12
"'due again 2015"
Cu & Zn levels wlin range
L= 1.1T
Waste Analysis N
Gar 1 Gar 2 Petty
816/13 = _82 .69 .90
6/14/13 = 1.00 1.08 1.45
5/24/13 = 1.76 1.07 2.02
4/25/13 = 1.33 1.21 1.66
3/18/13 = 1.84 1.47 2.58
2/15/13 = 1.27 1.07 2.00
1122/13 = 7.13 1.31 2.35
irrigation calibration 2011
"due again 2013"
irrigation records correspond to rainfall & lagoon records
Page: 2

Permit, AWS820358 Owner - Facility: Murphy Milling Company Facility Number: 820358
Inspection Date: 10/11/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current population
Swine
Q Swine - Farrow to Wean 41136 4,136
Total Design Capacity: 4,136
Total SSLW: 1,790,888
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
GARLAND 1
19.00
54.00
agoon
GARLAND 2
19.00
35.00
agoon
GARLAND NEW
agoon
GARLAND OLD
agoon
PETTY
40.00
agoon
PETTY3
19.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWS820358 Owner - Facility: Murphy Milling Company Facility Number: 820358
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? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? 11000
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)
❑
N
❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
11011
❑
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 (I.e./ 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? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS820358 Owner - Facility: Murphy Milling Company
Facility Number : 820358
Inspection Date: 10/1112013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
O
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
wl Rye Overseed
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Tomahawk sand
Soil Type 2
Wagram
Sail Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre 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 Permtt readily available?
Q ■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWS820358 Owner - Facility: Murphy Milling Company Facility Number: 820358
Inspection Date: 10111/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
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 fait to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
24_ Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
25, Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate
❑
■ ❑ ❑
box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

Permit: AWS820358 Owner - facility: Murphy Milling Company
Inspection Date: 10/11/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Records and Documents
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Facility Number : 820358
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
0000
Yes No NA NE
28. Did the facility fait to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report ❑ ■ Cl ❑
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 1 Storage Pond
Other
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
11
n
Page: 7

type of visit-. jpCompliance inspection V Operation Review V Structure Evaluation () Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine Q Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: It Arrival Time: .` ^- Departure Time: 1 l� T County: S#JQ4*WF9k% Region:
Farm Name: e-Y, s Owner Email:
Owner Name: Llit i~�li!) �p, Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Lib Title:
Onsite Representative: y
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: �(l
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
igrr�ent
Design Ciirreo_t
Design
Current
Swine , Capiicttyl?op.
Wet Poultry Cap city Pop,
Cattle Capacity
Pop.
a
Wean to Finish
La er
airy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
airy Calf
Feeder to Finish
airy Heifer
X
Farrow to Wean
1
3 b
Design Curre"ut
D Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D Pouf , .
' ■ Ca a i P,o -
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
I 113eef Brood Cow
-�F
,Aa h
Turkeys
Other�w;
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
DischarUes and Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
❑ Yes W No ❑ NA NE
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 T[C NA NE
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) 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 It No [] NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: 9119 _3 Date of Inspection i
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 Struc e 2� P e 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?
0 Yes [ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes �] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures tack 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 ® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Pending ❑ 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. Vo the receiving crops miter from those designated in the GAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
U Yes
`MI No
U NA
U Ntr
❑ Yes
®' No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ER No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes (�p No
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:]Yes ® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: A jDate of Inspection: 11
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. T
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes CM No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
❑ Yes y
No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes EP No [] NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Phone: ql0-(33-3,?M
Date: l)1311-1
21412011

'Division of Water Quality
Facility i�iumber I__.rL�J - ® � Division of Soil and Water Consenation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: 40 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: '0 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region:
r
Farm Name: ar'd S Owner Email:
Owner Name: At)" Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: f�
Certified Operator:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude•
Longitude:
Design Current
Design Current
Design C•unent
Capacity Pop.
h
La er
Dai Cow
er
rFarrow
Non -La er
Dai Calf
sh
Da' Heifer
an
Design Current
D Cow
der
D , P,oultry Ca aeity P,o
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -La ers
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Boars
Pullets
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Pouhs
01_10ther
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 P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[] No
0 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[3NA
❑ 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

Facility ;;?umber: Date of inspection: 20
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 fg NA ❑ NE
Identifier:
Struct e I
Struc re 2
�
St� t 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
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
r
❑ 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
OpNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
Ir
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
I I . Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 10 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): �45— Qn65 G,_-AU, 1 , . C31r:,
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination'?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ Yes
1XNo
0 NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Y No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
(P No
[DNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[�? No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design [:]Maps ❑ /.ease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement'? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [—]Yes P No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes InNo
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

F'acili Number: Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No [DNA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes 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 igoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit'? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field 0 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 EpNo
❑ Yes T No
❑ Yes 10 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
DNA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes P No [DNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes qq. No
❑ NA ❑ NE
D Yes : No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Ne p Y aki4 i�tianes asnecessarvl:YCher commendrawn of facility to' better explain situations =(use ad''andJgr any additional recommenda k q x lain an YES ttonsRor an o
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: !Q _
Date: l %[(
21412011

I%
Type of Visit C9 bmpliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine 0 complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ® Arrival Time: fJ (� Departure Time: / County: Region: 4�
Farm Name: !! jf-l/!n�„ Owner Email:
Owner Name:,.r•��.5 /%?.`�li`ny G'a _ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ,�%� ��>��r`-- Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: �r9us� �,� Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number: g�S73�
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = n 0 ' = « Longitude: = ° 0 x = fl
Design Current
Design
Current Design
Current
Swine Capacity Population
V1'et Poultry Capacity
Population Cattle C*apacity
Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
Poultry
❑ Dai Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
ER Farrow to Wean
I q1 31.Dry
❑ Farrow to Feeder
El Layers
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
ElNon-La ers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
El Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑
Number of Structures:
Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 93�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
[R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
2.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12178104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes V 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):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 99-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 EgLNo ❑ 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 IgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes U9,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 ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 6No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[:]PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift [:]Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) In y
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those d61
esignated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
UNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
®,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
(LNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to ques ton'6 - Explain any YES answers and/or ny r�mmendations or any othe_r�comments:
Use draw tugs of factli,Y ,n�pgs artbetterexplain situations onsuse addmos6ssary)-y
Reviewer/inspector Name
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
Page 2of3
Phone: 27p'�.��
Date:
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection �- l
Re wired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ yes [R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I " Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[HNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
f� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
O 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
O 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
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
®.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
C,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Q Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: S _f Region: 7 F-Ro
Farm Name: &a-t, ,d q- felfv to-Iml Owner Email:
Owner Name: Rurehx H111ha, Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: , A 3 U'1 u Title:
�L Onsite Representative: o A I ri 1 S
Certified Operator:N��
Back-up Operator:
Phone No: rl
integrator: Ill h -o t.! I {
%
Operator Certification Number: 3F
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 0 0 = t ="
Longitude: = ° = I u
Design Current Design
Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity
Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑Non -La er
❑ DairyCalf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Dai Heifer
Farrow to Wean Dry Poultry
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ La ers
❑ Gilts ❑Non -La ers
❑ Boars ❑ Pu]]ets
❑ Turkeys
El Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Other ❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other ❑ Other I
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ 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
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
5R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: `A — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes tRNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: i
Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 19
Observed freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes R 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 JRNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
® Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ERNo ❑ 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 RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes CR No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. []Yes FS1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop types) Hell -d GL ffav q_ VG._TA'e "
13. Soil type(s) TQ S, l k I I S
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
5�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
CRNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
recommen
Use drawings of facility to better explaen.sit ations. (use7addtfionala ay es as neces aahjns or aay other comments
b.
pages Comments refer to uestion'# Eg lain an YES answ
T
Reviewer/Inspector Name SC r� Phone:t710
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12 810 Continued

. Facility Number: a. —3 Date of Inspection
Re wired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ["No Cl NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 151 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists [I Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 5;[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 allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No &NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
IR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
ER No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
IRNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
JR NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
JR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
ERNo
❑ 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
3 1.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
R 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
ballo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
ETNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
�. please- cd-e oC,a�1s -Nq,,1 10 0014 ba, �s of+ AfW
CSff- b-e (0"7
Pease rAd4a " a ,i° ma- f o(f1'ee b0C at` Pei! i �' rO�.s! blet 9� war
Ieya Q* a I I ifm ej, a c(ovd j 4o I-eco�dl ),
y
ail. one- no+ Ca it brak ro �-C , M11 be- redche_
T dye a'I s ""to e+re -t- v©1 ,P, Peas P- J�
D i`on iCn6t- dog a l read � C1�PA�1 pub` wl�h 10 a
Ya'-s'
l2/2VO4

I ,
i i r 11 1 ► j ` a a° �� �l �;� cM O `�
rb76
ez
o-�•-� ;4^ � r 001-i ce h
t ,
ei m� Ac-
ry
Z' znss a , �• a� is .?�'
r

��. \JL .06 9-)~
o w z v v
9.0
Lo ov
�OQ
� f
t09

raciiity No. 3Z _Farm Name 6914n 4rQ Date
Permit % / Mr. ✓
Pop.Type Desi n Current
7qTM
�1,�R��� �
PLAT Annual Cert
Lagoon
Spillway
Design freeboard
*bserved freeboard (in)
Sludge Survey Date
. Zone
5 0211F50�c'�l
y4l�_,e
Calibration Date
Soil Test Date �� Wettable Acres Weather Codes
pH Fields WUP �� Transfer Sheets
Lime Needed O—r)Weekly Freeboard RaIN-GAUGE
Lime Applied Rainfall >1" <1)kad_Lokpr incinerator
Cu ✓ Zn SL 1 in Inspections Mortality Records
Needs P 120 min Inspections
Crop Yield �~ '� `� tlllU
r
Waste is Date
Soil Test Date �� Wettable Acres Weather Codes
pH Fields WUP �� Transfer Sheets
Lime Needed O—r)Weekly Freeboard RaIN-GAUGE
Lime Applied Rainfall >1" <1)kad_Lokpr incinerator
Cu ✓ Zn SL 1 in Inspections Mortality Records
Needs P 120 min Inspections
Crop Yield �~ '� `� tlllU
r
Waste is Date
-Analys
I
NMI
Pull/Field
Soil
Crop
RYE
PAN
Window
Max Rate
Max Amt
igTN
D03 50
ffiy_5_
M-N41-G
6
�a
t
Verify PHONE NUMBERS and affiliations
Date last WUP FRO3h04 PQ r!b Jtq Date last WUP at farm
FRO or Farm Records
Lagoon # -
Top Dike
Stop Pump
Start Pump
Approx. Pon version- Cu-I 3000= 108 Iblac; Zn-I 3000= 213 Ib/ac
use ' p fie y -'y .t—
UA�ek�w Jy
App. Hardware
y e t Q 6f�h;hsfte0,

6 (H) ovj 6 giaalp� -- - -
Type of Visit �rcornplianee Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 'Q(j Departure Time: County: S4v S Region: FPO
Farm Name: 64VIAnd 9 Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
S ,L
Facility Contact: I Uo { a? Title: I Phone No:
Onsite Representative: 4 114Integrator: M` g
Certified Operator: �[ A+ [ Operator Certification Number: V-4 (Q
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = = 014 Longitude: = ° 0 1
ig
_ g
N
Current Desi n Current
Design Current
Swine
Ga acn
p ty
Po ulahon V pity p
p, wet PoultryCa aci Po Mahon
Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
El Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
M
-
D y Potilltry
El D Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Rom.:.
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
El Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pllt
ues
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
❑ Turkeys
Other
El Turkey Points
❑ Other
_
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
9No
❑ 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
tRNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
ERNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

Date of Inspection
Facility Number: a - 35r6
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes ff No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. I f 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: Ow60-12"Jo
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): :�j q �q_
Observed Freeboard (in): Ll S 1-1
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes J?TNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
Yes EgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes ®'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes CRNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window El vidence of Wind Drift El Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) Coll,Pimt!! —6f8' e. S/1- OS
13. Soil type(s) T bn+Q6Vit
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
49 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
UNo.
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[''No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments(refer to question;#): Exptatnany YES answers and/or anyrecammendations or�y*other. comments.
F
Use drawings ofFfacri�ty 3. beater explamgsttuations: (use arldihonal¢pages as necessary .
�.
a
Reviewer/Inspector Name � SOVEtEP,
R 1 Phone: 10) L433 33
ReviewerAnspector Signature: %Af, Date: d
Page 2 of 3 12128,104 Coritrnued

Facility Number: 3 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 99No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the approprrate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑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 I" 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 ❑ No 5�NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Rlo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
ER No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
EN No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
CRNA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ES No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
[2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
[$No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit'? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
27No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
93 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(�. Carl�,►d. 1a�ao�1=94oZY-asta. e_ POA
Vor�1�
7. Pleoe cKom iro,h&;f I ayar, 4- ben on C�-laJ­ Lai
wJ h be. lim-dt -Y*'hit fal 1
a�{ Ca li b rq$Ci) `Q�-'P6v Nor Va gab lbk,,'Qr -4aO5M3, h.iil be rem1 b -� ;ram
-dal 14o f`� fle bll°,, .
iNeil rnalll�lire(Ad ' 0A CO'" f'­'IPi'
Page 3 of 3 12128104

L ` M o A�
Facility No.Sa 3-�T Farm Name 6W IN a- feDate
Permit ✓ COC -✓ OIC� NPDES {Rain breaker
Pop.Type Design Current
3S0-
PLAT Annual Cert )
Lagoon
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Spillway
tp
Design freeboard
Observed freeboard in
Sludge Survey Date Perm Liquid ft
1
y a
4 Sludge Depth ft
'3,5
1,4"7
Calibration Date
Desig Width
Actual Width
Soil Test Date lallo�
pH Fields
Lime Needed Yam.
-ter Lime Applied
Cu Zn
Needs P
Crop Yield d��, ck
Wettable Acres
WUP
RAIN GAUGE
Weekly Freeboard
Rainfall >1"
1 in Inspections
120 min Inspections
Weather Codes
Transfer Sheets
000-
• ,
�
,
Date of last Waste Plan in FRO Date of last Waste Plan at farm roll iff Ann_ Hardware
Pull/Field
Soil
Crop
RYE
PAN
Window
5b
- H&-
Verify phone numbers and affiliations
I•o r
a 45-
L6

N
6_15ivision of Water Quality �S
Facility Number Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit
ompliance Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
outine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: ,' County: Region:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: !1l�A V Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: j. f, Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
01
Certified Operator:-5&VL-X--L— Operator Certifies Von
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [= o = 6 0 Longitude: = n = I = u
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream im acts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifej
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stockei
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: Eil
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 JZ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes 5JNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 50 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: ffl,9L_ 3 Date of Inspection
3 Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
KNo ❑ 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): J 19"
Observed Freeboard (in); _ ,� �� #,9
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
El Yes
No El NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
rklNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-5 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?
gLYes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
S. 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
X[ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
91 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside
of Area
12. Crop type(s) /eyrr/
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
r,-. q3No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
IT Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name �V__ Phone:-iQ3'33a 0
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: dc Date: �e
1LiZoiUlf k.onnnueu

�. Facility Number: — Date of Ins
• Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ElYes ® No W1,TA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists El Design ❑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
[KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[B No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
5d No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
U& No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
94-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
04 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
EQ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Revicwer/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?
�KYes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

1
Type of Visit ercompliance
Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
Routine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
'
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ��� Departure Time: County Region:
� g
Farm Name: ,�y�`� y Faem 4i Owner Email:
Owner Name: l�/ _�LJur p LL _C J� _ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 1EtU a �`�1�in 5 Title:
10,
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: — s� c-
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Su-ine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phone No:
Integrator
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o = ; � Longitude: [� 0 0 t
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑on-LayerN
I
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1 _ Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current-'
Cattle Capacity Population `
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ 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 ves, 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 allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
RtNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

I
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
o
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):3 r 3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑Yes
�No El NA El NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
RINo ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? &Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
14 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
KNo ❑ 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
RNo ❑ 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 ❑ EvidenceofWind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) l (�;- r� /SI11� CX �s✓zri'^
—
13. Soil type(s) 11ala
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes
M. ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes
LKNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination%❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
®,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Phone:
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:
I2128/04 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
®•No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
®No
El NA
El NE
❑ Yes
�R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
9LNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes ®No ❑NA El NE
❑Yes J4No El NA El NE
❑ Yes
[4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

of Visit i Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
(Reason for Visit O Routine Q Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
1 Y�IY�11111111111 YY� AYY I__ _.....�
Facility Number $ 2 3 s 8 Date or visit: 0 Tune:
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
FlPermitted 0 Certified © Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .._ .------
Farm Name: ........ 44.sC.i�� r]�.... ... pe ._. � C.IMS - --.......... County: .. _. y►a SO v� • .... _...__._--._.
Owner Name: R ff Phone No. -
MathnAddress: ............................ ............................ ...�_....._..;�:........_........a�......................__�.---••-•••-. ��.���1.
Q c.11 S -T, Phone No: — 91Q_' ZS q — 241
Facilih• Contact: ------...! ........._.'� ..........t[� !.. ......._Title:................................................__.
Onsite Representative:
...................................... Integrator:...................._!_?. rP.A�.........
Certified Operator:.-... t e��'�elY.r.._use>r y!'� _.. _. Operator Certification Number:._.
. _... .
Location of Farm:
Swine ❑ poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • ° `j Longitude • 4 "
DischMes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes J9 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?
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 X No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes D[No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes KNo
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 5
Identifier: --- _-..... r.._.__......... _.... .... .W...._
Freeboard (inches):
12112103 Continued

l~acilittNumber: $2 — 3Si► Date of Inspection O
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? Oe/ 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?
$. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancerimprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancehmprovement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type Dervva u S rN.ad a tea. N . EocK . vJ kea'r
❑ Yes g No
❑ Yes 9 to
Aar LZyYes ❑ No
❑ Yes JXNo
❑ Yes J&No
❑ Yes EkNo
❑ Yes J?No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes KNO
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes M,No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ®,No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes Oallo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes JgNo
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes 13 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 �,jdo
roads, building structure, and/or public property) l
20_ At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes WNo
Air Quality representative immediately.
Copy ❑ Final Notes
5t keJ0 CAk wce-AS Gtro w—A tar, oa s, Y►e/cf w-ee-k .
ys . 5PAYcd o f �tL*x- ,,w eJJS LQsk we-c
1 S. W q" +- vn, w e c_+t.a-r 'ku e t ea r ', v- vr-1 er +o e-of gQ i�- rK u d m
e�dS
S Irl" $�,�� ax 41.r s: A_e o-f' °`gD''" c e gcit �• Gav e r ax
o(_ Lague wo- �4�so , P �a...Ma ,,.� fo sooQ an- a4-e--_S
t,,' 1S a.r� ��e e. ►,.� e ra s i ruts
ReviewerAnspector Name
d
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: �' Q
12112103
Continued

Faeili[y Number: 8 Z. -- 3S Date of Inspection z
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
RNo
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUV�,checklisw,'desigk!map�tc.)
❑ Yes
Di No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
0No
❑ Waste Applicatiot"�❑ Freeboa**�❑ Waste Analysisr❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
C4 No
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
5ZNo
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
Oe/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
No
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
RNo
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
CZNo
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35) & Yes ❑ No
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 53 No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes CWNo
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? ❑ Yes [RNo
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ONo
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 29 No
❑ Stocking FornY❑ Crop Yield Forte❑ Rainfair ❑ Inspection After I" RArf
❑ 120 Minute Inspectionlr'❑ Annual Certification Fortri✓
119 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Z r, . W eAt VAr+ r-e—Uw0i S r
12112103

Type of Visit .6Com ce Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Fallow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: E Time:
Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
© Permitted [3 Certified (3 Conditionally Certified D Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: _ Cam. ca n t eig a h County:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: r f Title:
Onsite Representative: L2 `C /1`
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 4 0 " Longitude 0' '
Design Current
Design Current Design Current .
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry Capacity Po nlation Cattle Ca acity Po ulation
El Wean Wean to Feeder
JE1 Layer I I ❑Dai
❑ F r to Finish
❑ Non -Layer Non -Dairy L-
0'Farroww to Wean 411
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
N ©
umber of Lagoons
❑ Subsurface Drams Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ 5 ra Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps
10 No Liquid Waste Mana ement System
Discharges & Stream Imnacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ONo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Laaoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ON5,
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes rN
No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes o
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure b
Identifier: C e
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 Continued

a A0 , -A .1 j
Facility Number: Z— Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which arc not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or �--�,�
closure plan? ❑ Yes !a 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 maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes 'Co
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ONo
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes �f
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes No
12. Crop type 7� r/,, 4. d J-. r r n S re L S n ., b y 'v
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certi Certified Animal
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application'?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
Management Plan (CAWMP)?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
dNo
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
El Yes
No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
s sorayylli"ifime d
sdrawtngsoficility to beer apages
etplain,stuaas necesarField Caav Final Notes
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: z !J
O5103101 Continued

Information contained in this database is from non agency sources and is considered unconfirmed.
Animal Operation Telephone Log
DWO Facility Number
Farm Name
Caller*s Name
Caller's Phone #
Access to Farm
Farm Accessible
from main road
(Garland & Petty Farms
Pohn Bizic
10 Reporting 0 Complaint
1910-264-0433
10 Yes 0 No
Animal Population
Confined
Depop
Feed Available
Mortality
10 Yes 0 No
10 Yes 0 No
10 Yes 0 No
10 Yes 0 No
Spray Availability
Pumping
Equipment 10 Yes 0 No
Available
Fields 10 Yes 0 No
jMr. Bizic is sending a POA.
Date
Time
Control Number
Region
Lagoon Ouestions
Breached
10 Yes 0 No
Inundated
10 Yes 0 N
Overtopped
10 Yes 0 No
Water on
10 Yes 0 No
Outside Wall
Dike Conditions
10 Yes 0 No
17-15-2003
13635
JFRO
Freeboard Level
Freeboard
Plan Due Date Date Plan Date Freeboard
Inches
(? equals blank) Received Level OK
Lagoon'!
Lagoon2
Lagoon3
Lagoon4
LagoonS
Lagoon6
...................................................... I
1............................—........t................1R.....-' ...../../ ................................................ ......
M 31eic c--kkaQ --
---------------------------------------------------------- _ ...............................................................................................
........................................ .................
................................................................................................................................. ................................................................. I .............
-G-atw..cr . ...................................................................................................................................................................................
Larry Bax
Comments2

Type of Visit Cp Compliance Inspection O Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit o Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: f
1P Permitted a Certified Q Conditionally Certified 0 Registered
Farm Name: C'Ct -IC'j
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Zi v2 Time:
rO Not Operational 2 Below Threshold
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
County:
Phone No:
Facility Contact: I pot It EllrG�^ IM-t } /� Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: 'u-1 1� • r-, it 4 2 f� Integrator: J t rn+i u
Certified Operator: ` �la u�. fiL T"l _ Operator Certification Number: ��
Location of Farm:
Q Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 a 0+ « Longitude ' ' C�
Design
ter• ..
Current a �1 Design Current k ;'°Design Current
5vsine
_Ca aci
P,o ttlation P1ouRtry Ca acrty P,a ulation Cattle z Ca acity Po ulat'on
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ La erI
JEJ Da'
❑ Feeder to Finish
ILI Non -Da'
.A,
= =
Farrow to Wean
13
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
Total De51 Ca aCI
❑ Farrow to Finish
El Gilts
❑Boars
4=
O SSLW
Total
x��
Number ofi agoons ® ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La ooa Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps ❑ No Li uid Waste Mana ement 5 stem
Discharees & Stream Impact
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
El Yes [N No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
2, is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes EA No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes 91 No
Was to Colitc-tion & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? El Spillway ❑ Yes � No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: G f
Freeboard (inches): ` ;3
05103101 Continued

l
Facility Number: $' — Date of Inspection � b2
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? El Yes [� No
(If any of questions 4.6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes [ANo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes No
Wa§te ARIllication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes allo
U. Crop type ' Cr('nu ct 7 sct : n O S
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes [YNo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes I@ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? El Yes Lp No
Reauired Re or..& Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
1B No
18_
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
[$ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
[!A 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 re ioml DWQe f
15
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
5p,4 Z'Jjs
l�
Tx,) cSeVeSL[!�
Q-,,c s o4 i��CcSlO/7
� FIGLe&45 CQ1.Lc9
�y c C le_
41 n� v_QQ
!?Q� ircpCtirQ
ReviewertInspector Name I
ReviewerlInspector Signature:
05103101
Date: [D IV 10
Continued

1
Facility number: — C� Date of Inspection y °2
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
05103101

[Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit 8 Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other , [] Denied Access
Facility Number
�� ��� Date of Visit. ime:
Not rational O Below Threshold
M Permitted M Certified U Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: ... ... `�1r ` �................. County:........�..i
Owner Name: _.�_'!C! . 1f.'!i!.... ... _. __. Phone No:
Facility Contact: .......... .1......... e?�,5 oec, Title :......................... ........................ ... _.... Phone No:
Mailing Address: ........ _.1. :. Qr /C� ...... .rf...... P�.f�!.:11..1._Y.. ......
Oasite Representative:.__¢ c Z--- - _ Integrator:
/ O rator Certification Number:._'
Certifed Operator:......... A}ex: /........... fx'/ems _..................... pe
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine' ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
' _ Destgn,� Curn
Latitude 0 & 46 Longitude a Du
- r De
.' ❑ Layer
nM-_ r ....e_
Wean to Feeder
-
. Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
/. Z'
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
. Curri it..
r mn1A4nn .. Cattle_ '_ . ,,
❑ Other I
Total Design Capacity;.
TotaI:gst* .
-Number of i.agoong - Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holuduq; Ponds /Solid Traps =' ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Dischacr-es & Stream Impacts
L Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N"No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ff No
b. if discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes JjTNo
❑ Yes EfNo
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ff No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes MI -No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes KNo
Structure t Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure b
Identifier: .................................... ............................. -.......... ... I .......... _.......... ........
Freeboard (inches):
5100 Continued on hack

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes JRNo
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes P1 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 maintenancerimprovement? ❑ Yes AQ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes ANo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes KNo
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes RNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes N No
12. Crop type hJFlmcedrJ ...0 �_
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes JW 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?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Reguired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, map etc.) ✓
19. Does d keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
jr, itg0c1ep i ire n dvtr g t.i�s:v�s}.. Yoh wi.......o.i ¢r ..
Cori is{r deike__ abwuf this visit:
�� lc� �cc•��s � ,�caa�/s.
❑ Yes JRNo
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes 19No.
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes )qNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes PNo
eI
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: _ �� '_; r__ X/�� Date: /// 7 /4?' 5/00

Facility Number: Xz -f Date of Inspection 7 CS J
Odor Issues
26. 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?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ONO
2$. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes gNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ,KFNo
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (Le. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes CNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? JvYes ❑ No
5100

® Division of Water Quality
Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0`.Other'AgencY :.
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ® Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number �5, Date or Visit: �Ti►ne: 2 = 3�Printed on: 7/21/2000
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Ceer~tifie`d [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: ....... {�?..!�r/O .. i4, '.�- .. Count':........ ,rf!j'..............................................
Owner Name: CO/j4n jP�..... ill Phone No:
.......................�_O� Z���2./// ...............................
..............
Facility Contact:....-.��..........,�,�7.��2..��.............. Title: Phone No: ...................................................
MailingAddress: ............. .2�y.�c�..................................................... ..........................
Onsite Representative: ...G'/./.lvtn�o......................................... Integrator:...../1Ta.r4x` .............. _........
Certified Operator: ....... /�`:� ......................................... Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
w'
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • Longitude •
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
�l
/
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Giits
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacitv PoiDulation Cattle Capacity Po ulation
❑ Layer I I ❑Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present © Lag,nn Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a- If discharge is ohserved, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. II'discharge is observed. what is the estimated ]low in gal/tnin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes k No
❑ Yes K No
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'? ❑ Yes 29 No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes P9 No
Waste Collection X Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure b
Identifier: ...........`............... ............�y.l..................//....................................... .......... .................................... ....... I............................
Freeboard (inches):
5100 Continued on back

Facility Number: L hate of Inspection 0 Printed on: 7/21/2000
5- Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes NJ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes O�'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 maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes] No
Waste application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ONo
11. is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes [5No
12. Crop type-
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes 11
No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes PNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? []Yes XNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ;g No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes NJ No
M. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes XNo
Required Records _& Documents
17, Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes �Vo
18. Does the facility fk l to ha� all co onents of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
91o(ie/ WL1P, checklists, design, m s, etc.) ✓ ❑YesNo
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrig n, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sale reports) ❑ Yes XNo
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes )ONo
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge'? ❑ Yes S No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) El Yes AD No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes eq No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes A No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes 1!0 No
0: Ufa viQlalticjris;or deficiencies were noted dirritig tiiis:visit; Yoi>E will-reeeiye iio further .. ; •
ctiriespoiidence.' about: this visit:... ............ ......... . .
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. =
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
A.
1 _
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: y��h � 5100

Facility Number: Date of Inspection G Zoaa Printed on: 7/21/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge At/or below XYes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes R] No
28, Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes RNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes .M No
31, Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes )'No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ores ❑ No
5/00

10 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number Z Date of Inspection 2Aab
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified 13 Registered 113 Not Operational I Date Last Operated•
Farm Name: G,P�.. •�,r-- County:......... 5�^y�.avJ..............................................
Owner Name:......... � f j,c / a `� Phone No �/O ..! ....; Y ...................
Facility Contact: t� .. R'.C,��/........ Title: ........................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: ze, ..A71 i/1..... lYT /VC........! ............................... ..........................
Onsite Representative:........ ............................... Integrator:.,•, /"Pr�r �e...•% .........
Certified Operator:,............. ......, e ......................... Operator Certification Number: ..........................................
........... ..
Location of Farm:
Latitude 9 4 1& Longitude 0 4 44
Design:: ' 'Current- Design .Cuirrent " .-_:Design? _ '':'CuIrrent
-_ • Cattle iPoSwine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity' Population 'ulation
.:. ❑ Wean to Feeder JE1 Laye 1 ❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish JE1 Non -Layer I❑ Non -Dairy -
® Farrow to Wean /,3G
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gifts Total Design: Capacity:
❑Boars Total'SSLW
❑ Sub
Number of Lagoons 2 surface ❑ Drains Present Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System �'-
DischarIzes & Stream lmnacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? CgYes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon X 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 ycs, notify DWQ) Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated t7nw in gal/min? 3 7o
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (II" yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes JR No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes CRNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes 9 No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes M No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure'4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identilier:
ry
Frcebotud(inches): .......... ........................................................................................................... ................. .............._......
.................. . . .
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes IN No
3/23/99 seepage, etc.) Continued on back

Facilhy Number: f 2 —_?r- Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes JVNo
(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 XNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes Ll No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes R No
Waste Avolication
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
)RNo
11.
Is there evidence of over application? Excessive Po/nding ❑ PAN
Yes
❑ No
12.
Crop type
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
R 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
X No
16.
is there a Iack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
biNo
Required
Records & Documents
17,
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ 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
RNo
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
KNo
t
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
XNo
(ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative`?
,Yes
❑ No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
XYes
❑ No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes No
0: _No'A61a*fioiis:oi- deticienc�es vtFere rtofeld' Olkl ing #his:visit: • y' 041 ' flffei b.. a 1iti further
corres oridenke. abo' uA this :visit: .:..:... . .
Comments.(refer to;queshon #):, Explain anyYEs answers and/or any recommendations'or any other cowmen& z
a �._ _
Usegs_drawinof facility to better;explatn.sttuahons (use additio_nal pages as necessary) t
1. � d•��,� � ,� .� u•« .d �<,..,,�,� �,��.��� .vim o�
,a 12.: 30, /4--,
b,� /.�w,r�r�•�� � �,C.E. �.x....�►•.,�.-.-
!tom//�//'C
f
Reviewer/Inspector Name n
ReviewerAnspector Signature: , Date: IZGW Zed

r`
0 Division of Soil and =WaterConsirvation -:Operation Review
13 Division of -Soil `aid=WaCt:liInspection =>: r- .:
_®Division of Water Quality , oinplianee Insspection �� `
-' Other::Agency Operation=Review Y s
W.
r
Q Routine Q Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number Z 3 f P Cate of Inspection /
Time of Inspection :,7G 24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Permitted i Certified [] Conditionally Certified j] Registered JE3 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
/�' P ..........................
Farm Name: ............[7A?/Z�A�✓ ..... jQi�!'-.- County: • .....—Lip �a.J
Owner Name:......... ..... Phone No:.. ..............
FacilityContact: .................................................... ..........................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address: �� % r%` /.l(... �< C..................................................................... ..........................
............................t..... ...............-...... �............ ................
Onsite Representative: ...... Integrator: r%��. -. ,� ... .....................
Certified Operator: ..................................................... Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
A
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Latitude 0 6 a Longitude =• =' ="
Design
Current."" `, .: .. _ =Design Current Design Current
WineCapacity
;
n " ... . -CattleS„.Po ulatioCapacity ty Population .
j- `0 Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer1 ❑Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
_ ❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other 7.
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Des:gn Capacity
.. C111t5i
❑ i
Mx
❑ Boars
:.. _ .- :: °ToU1 SSLW '
:.
of_Lagoons.
❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑Spray Feld Area
-Numlier.
Holdeng,Pands'/ Solid Traps
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? F'Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance: man-ntade? ❑ Yes RNo
h. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes N No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Discs discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes VNo
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? El Yes 'irNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes QrNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway (Yes ❑ No
Slruclurc I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
re
.......... .......
�..�r1
Freeboard(inches): .........................................................................................................................................................
. ..................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes >"No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

E] Division of Soi
E Division of Soi
Division of Wz
0 Routine Q Complaint @ Follow-up of DWR inspection Q Follo-w-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number I)ate of Inspection Lp
Time of Inspection : J 6 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Permitted ®&Certified Q Conditionally Certified © Registered JE3 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
Farm Name L?e5?(r.�q,.�� .... ��i4..:`'':....................................................... Crrunh = .-.......—L - --��x...."-�..............
Owner Name:......., `is7i2......... Phone No:
Facility Contact: ................................................... ......-...---------..... Title:.......................... . Phone No: ................:
Mailing Address: � � � - ��.>�.... /Y`� �� w
......7.....�..5. f...............................................................................
Onsite Representative: Integrator: .. c
Certified Operator:................................................................................................................ Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
Latitude
Design Current
Swine Canacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
611 Z
[] Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts,
❑ Boars
Longitude • ��«
` Poultty Ca acity Population Cattley .
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
- ----------
❑ Other
•----: Total Design Capacity
Total SSLNV
Design 'Current;;
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
h. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Dees discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure t Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard "inches ........................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99
T
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes Cj} No
❑ Yes J� No
[]Yes P-No
❑ Yes O§rNo
❑ Yes QtNo
R Yes ❑ No
Structure 6
❑ Yes N'No
Continued on back

Facility Number: 2- — fig' Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not property addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes R1 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 maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Aoolication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes P No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes &] No
12. Crop type �sE.¢s,.cf�•f .ri++A/� ice.•
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes 91 No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes W No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes [R No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16_ Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Re uired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ic/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19_ Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
�' Nd •yi6iatidris'er &ficiendtxs •were 06fea• during tbis;visit: Yoi� vviil receive iiti iui-thglr •
: Cori-es�oric�eirce abouti thi visit` ... :: ' ::..:::::: : ' :::: ' ...:..... .
❑ Yes I& No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments (eeferto gnestion #} Explarn any_YES answers and/or any_ recominenditions or any other comments. _ _
_ -w-. Y _u - _
Use drawings of faeiltty to better explatnsttuahQns (use additional pages as necessa
.•� ,o'.�- >�.s��� s� 40
��u�,�i�.� � .ram-•-���.6y ,4.�0�Ar
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: ..r �� Date: lb
3/23/99

t•r^.—.-w- :r•,•- rn ... �fy,•�:..N.,: ..,-.��,:.y�,�pyYy4+�•-:Y�'.r •, .."'''-:,w. rm-. •ay^ r r r v -. c. -n mow:-.'.lti�r l'�'' _'Y..
ram.;
facility Number: Z — hate of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which arc 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)
Iv 7. Do any of the structures need maintenancermprovement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenarice/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste AnDlication
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes 21 No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes © No
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
No
12.
Crop type
13-
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
© No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
0 No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ 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 DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑Yes
❑ No
23-
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0; NO •viol"atioris of defciendies •were noted• ditring this;visit: • Yoit :will •feceiye ii6 fu>!•O ;
correspondtence. about this .visit.
71 '
�.✓� rKi� //�R7� �d.+C/..� li�/rrKra /c�LY�" rCra+.l�i��.�.t��/S"`/� ��- -
rX
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:y.i� ` Date:
-
3/23/99

[] Division of Soil and' Water Conservation _ Operation Regrew = ,
t a ar
[� ivision of Si and:Water Conserve#�on _Compliance,Inspection
w } ivision of Water Quality Campliance-lnspec4on - h
- Other Agency Operattoq=Re �_ _ ......., . Y-
_ _ 2
outine 0 Cum laint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
j Facility Number Date of Inspection -�
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted E3 Certified E3 Conditionally Ce ified E] Registered 113 :Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ...0_?er_d_...�..... . - ........d.... 1/t'l�.T............... Co€tnty:......... ............. ......0''_` ........................
Owner Name:......i11.f �... S Phone No 2."Z/.../......................................
'. r1................ :.................
pa,
Facility Contact:... ..(. ........ �.�..L.r�....�...............Title: ... F-�*�!?1.�7..... 1..��. �.......... . Phone No:...................................................
Mailing Address:...... 1 11........ ...... .. QSe.. !�lf.......................................�.0..... /V�
Onsite Representative: a'"_ �Q t f.l b Integrator:
.. ..... ...........................................................................................................
Certified Operator:.... A4........�i(�.- ............... �/ f ....... Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 0 a : Longitude 0 ' 1.
-., Design Current. ° _ Design.;. Current
Swine :::Capacity Po ulatioti Poultry Cii acit .Population Cattle -
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts.
❑ Boars
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total-D&i2n: Capacity
Current
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ [.a7oan Area ID Spray Field Area
Holdas
ing Ponds / Solyd:Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
r
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? []Yes j No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance than -made'? ❑ Yes V.No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes kNo
c, if discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes Z[No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ItNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes Ef No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard ply stor/n storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway El Yes gNo
ru/cl •c (�`trl�+~a(ure 2 Struc ure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: �rQ
3111
Freeboard(inches): ............................................... I............................ ...................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, [:]Yes ;&No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

[Facility Number: - 3 Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes FJ;(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 maintenance/improvement? �cs
❑ No-
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes A', No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes RN
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes KNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ xcessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes WNo
12. Crop type — a Or 1AAA Jn 4a" �_
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
M. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19- Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
Rio v�olatiotis:or• def cie'r_cies -were noted• dtWi tg this visit: - Y;oitt :will •rebd*4e iio furthOF'
corFes on�eitce about this visit::: :::::::............::::::::.:::: :
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes KNo
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes I
❑ Yes I
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 14 No
❑ Yes 9tNo
❑ Yes kNo
❑ Yes [.No
Commen#s (refer to.guesi� n #} Eacplain any YFS answers andlor_any recomtttendateons or any other comments t -
Use:diawin iif facilr to;iietter ez IarD-slhiations _ _- - -
gs ty p- (use'additional pages as necessary} .
It 7. % ks A.
he� lrazvq -
F,-,,,,, ,d 4,
9 61 �G r t to dQr /041 •-re , Oft A15e6 5 A)d-y-1 A 66" ke � _S b -17 s4a1 q/ q SS_
J
ReviewerAnspector Name
Reviewernnspector Signature:
Date:
3/23/99

Facility Number: 3s Date of Inspection �--%
Odor Issues
26. 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?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ANo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i-e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes �o
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ANO
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e, broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes Dj:�No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? [-]Yes OZ'No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? Wes ❑ No
banal Comments an or rawm
V �
3123/99

❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency
Opivision of Water Quality
JV_Routine O Complaint O Follow- u [)of DWO inspection O FoUow-up of DSWC review O Other I
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection � 24 hr. (hh:mm)
17 Registered ACertified © Applied for Permit *ermitted JE3 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: 0--r f p� J ] County....- ...............................
......... .r.. A.T. ....... .... ......................... ...
Owner Name:..LP i U f �.?. .. > .. Phone No: SZ� 2([�`....................._ .......... `Fz.;.t .... l'I'n ............ ` .
Facility Contact: c. 4a Title: Phone No: ...........
............ ........4l.!: .-- ... ..................
Mailing Address: ......
..... �.. ... Aoiq...L..P.. X...&C,........................... Z.r.,�.....5..
Onsite Representative:. Integrator : ............ .................. .........................................................
Certified Operator, ... ..................�i! �'„1 .. Operator Certification Number:....................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 00=' 66 Longitude =• 0' ="
yk ;Design Current " Design ,Current Design <' u'.'Cnr[nt
�• .
Swtae`",..: %:`Capacity: Popalaiton=;:Poultry
Capacity"Population � ;Cattle Capacity Popuiatada
r._
Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
K
Dairy
Y
[] Farrow to Feeder
'Other
5°41
A Total Design Capia .0
a,
'¢.sP .
_ ,u NTota�-tJSLR - K
�Nt3uanbetif3Lagoo s !Holding Ponds, ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
'� '3.r5.r'�>^.y�:,. t� K•. ACt 3ai .�;. �S" ��� �� �....... ..---...- ...... .. ...
�'� "`r ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
,� []
Farrow to We
�-
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑Feeder to Finish
❑ Non-LayerNon-Dai
ry
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? [I Yes No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? . ❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: [I Lagoon El Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? [I Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes jo No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes � No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons holding ponds) require ❑ Yes � No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? El Yes A No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes &No
7/25/97
❑ Non-LayerNon-Dai
ry
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? [I Yes No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? . ❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: [I Lagoon El Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? [I Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes jo No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes � No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons holding ponds) require ❑ Yes � No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? El Yes A No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes &No
7/25/97
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? [I Yes No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? . ❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: [I Lagoon El Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? [I Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) El Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes jo No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes � No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons holding ponds) require ❑ Yes � No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? El Yes A No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes &No
7/25/97

V t�
Facility Number. --?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lacoons.HoldiLag Ponds, Flush Pits, etch
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structu L Struc re 2true .._....._.__.....................................
Identifier:) t�e
urn Structure
......... ----
Freeboard (ft): ........,, .b...............
....._......�9..�r.............. `�,,
10- is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste ADolication
Structure 5
❑ YesInip
Mo
❑ Yes PkNo
Structure 6
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
19Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes 0 No
14. is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes PO No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop lczr J1_/W Ae d� �t Ste.... f' ............ ....... ! ..R......... ..............
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (A )? ❑ Yes KNo
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes gNo
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes PI -No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ' ❑ Yes 14No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes [;�No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes KNo
22. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes qNo
For Certified or Permitted Facilities pnh
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes P& No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes KNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit? ❑ Yes K(No
1Vo:violations or deficiencies; were;noted during this:visit.`You:will receiire.no:ftirther ::
6)&r sp6hde te. atiout this. visit:
Lh 5-Je SloleS Reny /Y ow;- j . /u� !-ai�/o- �d,sed ,,ter :s �Vle `�7
4 draw $/ J
4,elk Aeed �`o,._-j /lo 4. 1irh1kw _, er,—
7/25/97
€4yy "+
Reviewer/Inspector Name Z
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

4z'
7❑
V D W.
D
J1�Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWO inspection 0 Follow-uv of DSWC review 0 Other I
Date of Inspection
Facility Number 2&ZM
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: e Kred gprplied for Permit (ex:1,25 for I hr 15 min)) Spent on Review kVwd Lff Permitted I or Inspeeflon (includes travel and processing)
0 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name., 1%51 County:
Land Owner Name: Phone No: Jr.- 4C .... . .... 7,
Facility Conctac62-- Title- Phone No:
Mailing Address:
Onsite Representative:4 7, r�� Integrator:
it&
. . ... L r:
Certified Operator: . ..... Operator Certification Number:1-7,?/-3
Location of Farm: J.-0 'Z2 ,., 3/
Latitude 0 C 4 " Longitude 0 6
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
"ems 545W !Design6Q:
tn
u
t
'40
'W%il apacim0pulition ODU �ti� Ini ulat
lont
Wean to Feeder L. Layer JO Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish L] Non -Layer I 'AJONon-Da
iTyj j
QTarrowtoWean a NZV
awrsts' sue':
Farrow to Feeder nA W'D' esig_'XA0,'ac1t',,3
�A-
F Farro
w w to Finish - 4'oftll
r F
V,
U �
rofLagoons6us ESubsu ace Drains Present
M
L Spray Field Area
�M
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: 0 Lagoon 0 Spray field El Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4- Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
0 Yes QIqo
[I Yes EKO
0 Yes 0 No
0 Yes 0 No
0 Yes ONO
0 Yes GKo
[3 Yes 13'1�
El Yes zo
Continued on back

i
Faeilii Number: _ - — ;'a Z
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
E31<0
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
LiT o
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
WdVo
StruMures (Lagoom and/or HoMing Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Freeboard (ft): Structure 1 Stlu 2 Struc 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑Yes
L<oo
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
01 o
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
OYes
❑ No
(if any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
91<0
Waste Annlication
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes EK
(If in excess of WMP or runoff en n waters o the Stite, notify D Q)
15• Crop type �.... �..... ,-..-. -. t—....... --.... .....
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in a Animal aste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes UK
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes Mk o
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes M401
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? [:]Yes n,,_,-�ko
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ,Ql o
2I. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes L'�t"No
For Certified Facilities Quly
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes fi o
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes EN/No
24. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes U<o
Co ffirents'(refer to question #) , Explain -any YES'answers'and/or.any recomrriendatio' br:any other comments 4 s
Use drawings;of facility to better ezgia�n situat�oris. (use as 'tioriaI pages;as necessary) "° x: a
?`Y'P ...F N.. .^>k
r �T (Pe-
2; /14 /NarG w.. _d dew
f G,c s l� ire- V,4� e a-►,4 to-1 P4fte , tjt'j ItA f& '
Reviewer/Inspector NameZ�17
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: %�
cc. Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97