310082_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental W4

r
rvisiontaf.Water Resources
Facility Number - ® O Division fSoil a ond Water Conservation h '
•
Type of visit: mpiian Inspection Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: JD.' Departure Time: j O County:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: j ;� p�,,� ; �,a�j�`G �C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �" /72 DD 'r`z- Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator: _
Phone:
Integrator:
Region: - <�
Certification Number: c},e,9LD 7'�;'
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other.
Other
Design , Current
Capacity ,Pop 'Wet Poultry -. Cap
Layer
o Non —Layer
.:De
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
—.Turkeys
Turkey Pouits
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes RLNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [-]No
❑ Yes F_-A, No
❑ Yes ®.-No
[DNA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
[DNA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

FacUi Number: jDate of Inspection: Z, --
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [�JNo
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?: 3 �r,3ir
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): y� 7
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes JZ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 14No ❑ 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 ED No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes bb+ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes jZ_No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift. ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops
LI ULLI Luwc UUbI6UdLCU III L11C l.t'X W rvlr
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?
❑ Yes [,No
❑ Yes ZNo
❑ Yes allo
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ Yes [R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes E3,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [2�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Jallo
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ® No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes JZ�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facifi Number: - 1 Date of Inspection: w-
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
c�
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes 13,No [] NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
Name:
Reviewer/Inspectoi Signatur
Page 3 of 3
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Co No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes O-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 12 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 5a No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
S - �' _ -To- T: r 7/7
Phone:/l%-3Dq-�IS�4
Date: / Z
21412015

Division of Water Quality
Facili'. Number - ® 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency Ll
Type of Visit: ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: P40utine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: t rrival Time: I G aU Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: n., Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative: M(ck' =f` k) a cas
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine, Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Dischames and Stream Imnacts
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: ho
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Design
Current
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
La er
Non -La er
Design
Current
Dry Poultry
Canacitv
Pon.
La ers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Longitude:
Cattle
Design Current I
Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes J�J`No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
PTNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
En' —No
❑ 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
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
[]Yes
ETNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
[—]Yes
6 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
.- .
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

a._
��•r
,4-� , rc �. p: � - t :• r 7 �. s � a :�:: f - .�sui ,vr ti. M : s a 'a - � {� r--. :ram: '::r(7 y z
..a • 4 1 ,@fit--w°��'�.r -�3 , ,, - , i . � j ' _ ,. E - .,
ter," Division of Water Quality
yNu1nber - ® Division of Soil and. Water Conservation
_
0 Other Agency
Pype?of Visit: QrCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
teason for Visit: Q' butine 0 Complaint 0 Eollow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Farm Name:_
Arrival Time: 70 -0 Departure Time: //,' /`' County: /, Region:
=�
c� Owner Email:
• Y
Owner Name: '�' . '+ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: ��(�(fp�Orl 5 Integrator: /,
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder`
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wein
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish '
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Latitude:
Certification Number: '
Longitude:
Design
Current
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
La er
Non -Layer
Design
Current. .
Dry Poultry,—
Pop.
I
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Design -:� Current :.
Cattle Capacity Pop•:,.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Y
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
-
f
Discharges and Stream Impacts
L Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes �❑/ -No ❑ NA ❑ NE
f
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other: i}
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes E]'No ; ❑ NA [] NE
b..Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ErNo ❑ 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)
a.. 2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
[ No,
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
EfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Zj No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 •{, 4. 21412011 Continued
,

Facility Number: 7 7 - Ds ection: 3 oZ
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes ZfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
[:]Yes EfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: '
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): r%
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes 0 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 ONo
❑ 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 0-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes PfNo ❑ NA ONE
(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 ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes F/fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
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?
❑ Yes 9�_0
YesNo
❑ Yes �no
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [ffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 2fNo ❑ 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 ZrNo
❑ 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 ZNo
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:]Yes ,fN
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

_
k` .1+ :.�-- .5 : _. i a., o-. - «-{.' o _'�.^ . rY. a +i.,.; _r ..�,..r
, n 7 - c.""
--•_-d._ c
� . _,r ' , r,. r
Facile ` Number: - Date of Inspection: 3 U, (4
1 �
N4 a`ste,Eofiection & Treatment
r
-
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
ff No
❑ 'NA
❑ NE
' a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
[TNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure �1 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
"
Identifier: n ..
Spillway?: I
k f a" t,
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
.A
'
(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
RfNo
❑ 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
S..
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
ENo
❑ NA
❑ NE
u
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
[ffNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
{,
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
;.
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): „
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ErNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
•
16, Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
oNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
.
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑Yes
/[�
J�fNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑Yes
ONo
❑ 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 ZrNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
S
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis D 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 ,[�f No
❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑-Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412011 Continued
•3
�.,..,. �?S.. i�',.-.. !..... .. M<..,.. w.,.. - ._`d-�,. r_:Lf_ .. �,., _.. -1+. i _•+t_�' ., - ' .;k' .- .. ..x4.
._. e.�-_.: !'.. ,. _,.. .. .x.
.... _ .. es i.-, i. _.,. ,.�'.

Facility Number: Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit. ❑ Yes E�No E3NA NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check Yes eNo NA NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
Failure to complete annual sludge survey Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
Yes XNo
Yes R No
NA NE
[� NA NE
Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Yes
No
[—]NA
NE
Yes
No
E3NA
NE
[:]Yes
[D NA
NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? Yes No ❑ NA NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes EfNo NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes VNo NA [] NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date:

Facih ° Number: - 7 Date of Inspection: '� /„2 Q
t
-- 24`"Did-the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
0 Yes
EfNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
,6No
❑ 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:
t
' 26. Did the facility+fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
P7fNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
' 31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
?No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA ❑ NE
• 33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
r
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
'
Comments`(refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments. b '_
Use drawings of facility to better explain., situations (use additional pages as necessary).
h. Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Phone: 1101
'
r
N
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date: 3/� Ll ff

vision of Water Quality
a"cility Number y O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency �' : .. _ •.. _,.
Type of Visit I2rCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for VisiteE�rftutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: I l U CCzkeparture Time: . Od M County: h Region:
Farm Name:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: A Title:
Onsite Representative: AdI4 &11-1r.
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine ' Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other, r
❑ Other
Owner Email:
Phone:
Phone No:
Integrator: 41 /Jov _
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = c = ' = Longitude: = ° =' = '
Design. `- Current Designs
Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle',�"Capacity"
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Pouets
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?
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dai Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non-Dai
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowi
Number of Structures
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facili umber: -
Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No❑
NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
IV
Vo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
2,—
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:_
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): Z,
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
6 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
9No
❑ 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
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
10
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
T
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
[DNA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
)ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
/N(o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 tbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12, Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes E No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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 gNo
[—]Yes (7rNo
❑ Yes PTNo
❑ Yes EfNo
❑ Yes 4 No
❑ Yes :ZNo
❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weckly 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 K,VNO
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued
[DNA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
[] NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE

cili umber: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permi . ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes �jNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes 2fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? [:]Yes PIN. ❑ NA ONE
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 jzf No
❑ Yes ZNo
[-]Yes M/No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
ko
1 0
0
VNo
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #i): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments. :-
Use, drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary). e
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
�- Phone:
CI1 Date:
Page 3 of 3 f 2/4/7011

ivisi©n Water Quality
Fiicthty Number
of -
0 Division of Soft and, ,Water conservation
0r
Other Agency
Type of Visit []gmpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit-a�outine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: aZ fI Arrival Tide: / UO eparture Time: County: Region:
Farm Name:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: TPle:
lz&Onsite Representative: X/e�_"
Certified Operator:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Phone No
Integrator• till-e-15
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine Capacity" :Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
El Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other w
❑ Other
Latitude: [= o [= r Longitude: = o =, =
Design Current
WetPaultry '" "Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
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?
".`Design Current
Cattle Capacity ,1?opnlat�on
7 Dairy Cow
7 Dairy Calf
V Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number::of Structures J�
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?
Ar
❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes XfNo
❑ Yes ;No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

r=FF-iatcilitLyNumber: 3 — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes /❑ No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �� -72
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes O'No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes ZNo
❑ 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 RrlVo
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes ;" No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes �No
❑ NA El NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste ADDlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ['�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? /
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes J2No ❑ 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)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
'LAo
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
T"" No
ElNA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
.Comiiients (refer to question }: Explain any'YES'answees and/or any-reco'mmend`at ons or:any o'the"r�comMents
Use dra�Engs of facility to better explam'situatidn5 {use additional pages as necessary) M
ez-
Reviewer/Inspector Name ry K Phone
Reviewerfinspector Signature: Date: lv
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection G
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes E:IiVo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1 " Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
VJ No
❑ NA
: ❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
2(No
❑ NA.
0 NE
Other Issues
2&
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
dNo
❑ 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
Uf 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
o
El NA
El NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El Yes
7No
❑ NA
❑ NE
AdditionalAComments and/or Drawings
Page 3 of 3 12128104

ivision of Water Quality
I'iacility Number Z2O Division of Soil and Water ConservationV .1
M 0 Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0116utine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arr' al ime: Departure Time: County: Region: 1a1�v
r�
A'z
Farm Name: -)` Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Title:
Phone:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ❑ o [= g 0 Longitude: ❑ ° ❑ t ❑
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
__ �, ❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Dischar es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes
❑No
El NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
1212"4 Continued

Faciuty Number: — Date of Inspection t
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier: Z
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ 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 ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus [:]Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
IT Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
/6, Sal/cAVOh/ -Z--17 0 yZ,S o z
�Lvr GUrI21r7
p '
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone:
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: �o f
12128104" Continued

Facility Number: eY2Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ VVUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

;Facihty�Number..= � r Q�
Divi§ion of Water Quality =r
Division of Soil and Water-Coiiservatio"n'
)Other Agency
Type of Visit ?Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit (IRoutine 0 Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: D Arrival Time, Q; f J Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: 57 Owner Email:
Owner Name:.iQp� ��m S - L� f� Phone: _
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
&�� Region: A)
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
G-IOAI L
Onsite Representative: G f�a�/1Z5 Integrator:fc'�uJi✓
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o = . Longitude: ❑ o = 6
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
11 ❑ Non -La el
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes VrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
R�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 13 j — 2 Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
;ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Struc re 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: sue+ 10 G�
Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?: W'o
Designed Freeboard (in): V`T
Observed Freeboard (in): 2 ? La 3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
)� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
00
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any oft he stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn,
etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > l0% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) u(j �/�¢ � .L)LA5,44 Cevaf
S
13. Soil type(s) TGYJ
- s �
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination: ❑ Yes ff No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #) E lain any YES answers 41
and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings ofstacilityobetter e�cplam stttiattons(yse additional pages as necessary,):
/5) 2N 46Ne4-5 N&,e,* 'd t9w V.I;e-I Ar-,e-fZ05. &n 'iqfi#lx
W,4,Pv2T Zj &A- ✓f h M Foy it�nuor� is t,os /gi4i✓�,�4 O�ry L/ 3
Reviewer/Inspector Name fL e..� , Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
121128,104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 0No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists El Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crap Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
V No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
JoNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
ONE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ yes
�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
ONo
❑ 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
)z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
,�4z,v6f,' ���� y �E-�S�ST�,�;
12128104

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number Z Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
- n Other Agency
Type of Visit compliance 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: rrival Time: �� Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: t Owner Email:
Owner Name: _
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: / ! / % 4L� 4h2���
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder l
Fceder to Finish
El Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phone:
Phone -No -
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Region:
Latitude: = o = 6 =46 Longitude: = ° = 6 0 «
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population
:]Layer
] Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
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?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures: E'
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes []No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

acility Number: , Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
S ture l Structure 2 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?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not property addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes ❑ 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 DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ 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 l0 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop WWiindo, ❑] Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) NJP�//L/ll wI., / v v / Ci ". ,
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name I / y� Phone: rlU_ Z
Reviewer/lnspector Signature: — Date: �[
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

'Facility Number: 131 — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the 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 l" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Cater i 4640, /�i�/ � Z ,q le�i�/s //-7
lveLs Qs h9A 4�7s /iq�l elzz _ _7' ) r_
'' �✓eircu�a �rIGPS /� �e� c�/P2o� C�o�r Rio �
Page 3 of 3 12128104

e
Type of Visit Qotompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 'Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: S Time:
FFacility Number
1 0 Not Operational O Below Threshold
�Peranitted J� Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ......... __.... .
Farm Name:/..._. ViEST(Al, 1.. 4. Z'...................................._...... County: .. ........ . DUE .............. � ._ .._.._ ....
Owner Name:
Phone No:
MulingAddress: -. �.�._�.._. �...� .,.�............................ .......................................... ............... .
Facility Contact: ............ Title:.. _.. _...... ..... Phone No:
Onsite Representative: ..-M- c�`MInZ3 Integrator:
Certified Operator ......................... ...... � .. _...__ ...... _ ._ .W_ ..W .., Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude * ° " Longitude • 4 "
Wean to Feeder
21 Feeder to Finish
El Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
❑ Boars
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 9<0
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)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: . _ _ ....... ......._. ......
Freeboard (inches): 23 q -)
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
�To
❑ Yes
0'No
❑ Yes
No
Structure 5
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 31 — g�� Date of inspection
• 5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes [�No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ yes W N* O
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? 2fYes ❑ N
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancerimprovement? ❑ Yes N
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level El Yes CO -
elevation markings?
Waste Aanlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑Yes No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type i& -Q U Q CS 0
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management PIan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes IN¢ 1V
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ' ❑ Yes
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes NSy
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes No
16. Is there a tack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes 2 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 mlo
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes /No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ yes
Air Quality representative immediately.
:Camrnents (rimer to uestion # Fac lawn aII YFS answers and/or aII recommendations Oran other comments.
�' y
.� W
iUse drawings of facility to better explain sitipatioi� (use ariditzoaai pages as necessary} Meld Copy ❑Final Notes
3 x s {
T G)OILL ON 50PA6 WAS u 0VT � IJ F?.E 4f I
�
U p"TE E 2.t'Lo(U 1,0 -rc Atr r_i4jJ Fag- � op,
000sr'-s C t'k + 7 �00_. 4si p.0 CJ00 3 .
-
7
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 2 ' u
12112103 Continued

Vacility Number: _ Z Date of Inspection $ S bq
Required Records & Documents ZNo
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes ;`N�o
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �:�O
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes No
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes o
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes o
28_ Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes N
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35) Oles ❑ No
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No�
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes LSNo
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? ❑ Yes y'"0
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
12/l2103

Q Ihnsion of Soil and Water Conservation •'- �� �"
Type of Visit 9 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 9( Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
FFacility Number Date of Visit: 2 Time:
Not O erational Below Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditional) ertified gRegistered Date Last Operated or hove Threshold:
Farm Name:
6 2 County ��r�.✓
Owner Name: Phone No:
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: itle:
Onsite Representative: �/ g
Phone No:
Integrator: . im/
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
/swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �o �° " Longitude o ° 0"
Design Current
awioe capacity ro uianon
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Po ulation Cattle Ca acity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy I I —::i
❑ Non -Layer ILI Non -Da'
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW I
Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area ID Snrav Field Area
No Liouid Waste
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?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
❑ Yes
IZNo
ElYes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes �fNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes/No
Structure
Continued

Facility Number: — E Date of Inspection L
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Aunlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? , , ❑ Excessive Pondin
12. Crop type � %446zdAtZ!S� 6( ,f/
0. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified
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?
M. 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 o_ f 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 Ld No
❑ Yes No
Cl Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
YNO
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
)LJ No
No
�,N o
❑ No
No
No
❑ Yes F NT
❑ Yes P(; o
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑.Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes o
El Yes No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
'Eomments.(refer.,to question #):' Eapiain any YES answers,and/or..any reco`mmendahons or any o w r eomments
Use'drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use adddanal pages as3n cessary) field Copy ❑Final Notes
Aws
Dz1 s � ,�o1 .� 47,-' � 1,� _�'O F� G��, , •P
S �j
z
��
G Ld—s. .-D,
f�L �
ReviewertInspector Name % , "
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: — 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
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
❑ YesNo
❑ Yes X').o
❑ Yes No
/P"
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
05103101

-
ro' Division of Water Quality
0 Division,of Soil and Wate-,Conservation
w�O Other Agency
Type of Visit 9'Compliance Inspection O Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint 0 Follow up Q Emergency Notification Rf Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Z3 OZ. Time: 3D4
Facility Number �� Z
Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
© Permitted ©Certified 0 Conditionally] Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold -
Farm Name: V eS"�R �e, + 't r Z County: �p l'
Owner Name: Al v ►" P4.1 Fit ✓ r- S Phone No:
If
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: v Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: I� r'CU�'�-� G1JG5 �e r��g� Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑Horse Latitude ' 4 " Longitude 0 °
Design Current
twine Capacity acl Population
n Wean to Feeder
U Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Da'
❑ Non -La er ❑ Non-Dai }
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons I ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 0 ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System -
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ 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 ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 Continued

�. Facility Number: 3 Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
[] Yes
❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
El Yes
El No
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
❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ 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
❑ 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 or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ 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
❑ 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 J�mo
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 violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Nw.i rawr igs of fa arty to bet
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
t'►'W c.,,1A ke-L-9 tVe`4z,-bee% 4o 1ev;ew innPol4'Ve ATT-sljql
54e—, . A
S;'V7 ' t,-" S .s4'z r ,r beih i� J �a1 Je �! v, -one Rode ' it ge�q ►
�+id GLteSer Coda aid j
�-+e 1.,/iaL. J..D.�s4e,r Roe,'9 L.
_kQ9,6na1 0A'1 GQ a`t' /'eV1eL-)e'/l -rs46wL k"'A li%e54,,4eek,
ReviiewerfInspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
05103101
l/
S
Date: S z o-zr
Continued

Water u_ality
m
Q.`DrvistonofSoeland'Water-Conservation
-_
Q-Other=A enc :
(Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit: 6/28/2401 Time: 13:50 Printed on: 7/3/2001
31 82
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted E3 Certified © Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: Y..kstAUFarm.#1A.#t2............................ County: 1).Wiu ------------------------------------ ]?YW1iQ......
Owner Name:.------------------- - M4I1�1Y_Falriily_FRxDI�----------- Phone No: 9JQ294_.437_-Qr_9-tQz289-.Z1i1L(MY-F---
MailingAddress: $9Q.N Q.. Ql�tll.................................................................................. magulk.Ac ....................................................... 2.8453 ..............
Facility Contact:...........................................................Title Phone No:
Onsite Representative: d9hu-$�7dS_-----------------------------------------integrator:Marp]<xyamilvyJ"atvm-_-_--------------.
Certified Operator: Mighogl................................. Norris ................................................ Operator Certification Number: XQ�(1_ ......... .......... .........
Location of Farm:
South of Kenansville. From 1-40 west take the Hwy 903 exit. Turn right on to Hwy 903 north. Go straight through ;
ntersection with Hwy 11. Road becomes SR 1959. Turn right on to Hwy 50 east. Farm is 0.3 miles on east side (left).
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 34 • 55 6 48 lL Longitude 77 ' S6 6 12 {f
Design Current
Swine Canacitv PODnlation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
9792
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design „Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle._-- C . apacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity %792
Total SSLW 1,321,920
Number of Lagoons 1 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
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?
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 ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
n/a
❑ Yes ® No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑Yes ®No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ------------- I------------- -------------•-----• ----•--•--•------
Freeboard (inches): 54
neinlin. i-__.a_...-.

v3iv�i1� c.ununueu
•Fa�.ility Number: 31-82 Date of Inspection 6/28/2001 Printed on: 7/3/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Anolication
❑ Yes ® No
❑Yes No
❑ Yes ®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 ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
®No
12.
Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Coastal Bermuda (Graze) Matua Graze Small Grain Overseed
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
®No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
®No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
®No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ 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
®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?
(iel 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 violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #) Expla�p any YES answers and/or any -recommendations or'any other comments
Use drawings of facility to better ezplam situations (use.additional pages as. necessary)-
WT Copy es
y. q Field C Final No a e ❑
19. Need to use wetted acres for calculating the IRR-2's. Need to recalculate 2001 bermuda applications using wetted acres.
Note: The zinc and copper levels are elevated on the sprayfields. Specifically, Field 3 Hydrants 2,3, and 4 produced a soil test result
from a 12/2000 soil test report with zinc indices of 2961 which is an excess level (>2000) which requires that alternative application sites
e sought and is nearly at the level of 3000 which requires that application of waste cease. Alternative application sites should be sought.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Stonewall -Mathis - -
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: % 3 ZoO]

`. 051103101 Continued
t
facility 1Vumber: 31 82 Date of Inspection 6/28/2001 Printed on: 7/3/2001
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 ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ®No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
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 ® 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? ❑ Yes ❑ No
AdditionalComm ents-and or` Drawings:-... "` - - °

`o�OF wAr�goG
0lii�Y
July 23, 2001
Mr. John Bizic
Murphy Farms, Inc.
PO Box 759
Rose Hill, NC 28458
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Subject: Copies of Inspection Report Forms
Sands, Waters;M&M Rivenbark, Vestal, Bostic
Facility #'s: 31-466, 31-35, 31-82, 31-102
Duplin County
Dear Mr. Bizic:
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
Please find enclosed copies of the inspection report forms for the Sands Farm and the Waters I-
5; M&M Rivenbark Farm for the inspections which I conducted on June 27, 2001. Please also
find enclosed copies of the inspection report forms for the Vestal Farm and the Bostic Farm for
the inspections which I conducted on June 28, 2001. Thank you for accompanying me to the
farms. I think that we discussed the noted issues at the time of the inspections. If you have any
questions concerning these matters, please do not hesitate to call me at 910-395-3900.
Sincerely,
Stonewall Mathis
Environmental Engineer I
enclosures
cc: Wilmington Files 31-466, 31-3 31-8 , 31-102
S:IWQSIANIMALSIDUPLIN120011inspectionformsmurphy
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 6128/2t101 Time: 13:50 Printed on: 7/3/2001
Facility Number 31 82
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted [3 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: XcstalFarmAJI.&A2............................................................. County: D-01ju........................... .4'JR0...__.
Owner Name:.------------------- - MurAhY_FamilY_Fa�tnsPhone No: 9JQ-29jk-J431_ Qr_9..Q_2$9_.ZIll(MFF
Mailing Address: S9-9.lvG.. Q.SO4l1 1.................................................................................. 2.83
.................................................................................. 45 ..............
Facility Contact: ...........................................................Title: ............ Phone No
Onsite Representative: .j9h0�J71C------------------------------------------ Integrator:
Certified Operator: M.l!hag.l................................. NAX:CIS................................................ Operator Certification Number: XQS6I.............................
Location of Farm:
iouth of Kenansville. From I-40 west take the Hwy 903 exit. Turn right on to Hwy 903 north. Go straight through
Intersection with Hwy 11. Road becomes SR 1959. Turn right on to Hwy 50 east. Farm is 0.3 miles on east side (left).
A
®Swine ❑ Poultry []Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 34 • 55 48 « Longitude
Design Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy
® Feeder to Finish
9792
LEI
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
9,792
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
1,321,920
Number of Lagoons ILI Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ® No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) El Yes ®No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in cal/min? n/a
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ® No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑Yes ®No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 5
Identifier: ............ 1------------- --------------------------- ...................... ----
Freeboard (inches): 54
nein ainr

rncilihy Number: 31;-82
Date of Inspection 6/28/200I Printed on: 7/3/2001
U urrunueu
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
N No
�1
❑ Yes
N No
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Coastal Bermuda (Graze) Matua Graze Small Grain Overseed
I3. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CA WMP)? ❑ Yes N No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes N No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes N No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes N No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(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?
2I. 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?
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes N No
J0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #) Explain anyYES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments -
Usedrawing's of facility to better explain situations useadditional pages as necessary) -`
- Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
19. Need to use wetted acres for calculating the IRR-2's. Need to recalculate 2001 bermuda applications using wetted acres.
ote: The zinc and copper levels are elevated on the spraytields. Specifically, Field 3 Hydrants 2,3, and 4 produced a soil test result
om a 12/2000 soil test report with zinc indices of 2961 which is an excess level (>2000) which requires that alternative application sites
sought and is nearly at the level of 3000 which requires that application of waste cease. Alternative application sites should be sought.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Stonewall Mathis
Revicwer/inspector Signature: l-a^-[wQeT�_ ,� Date:

.
'111
05103101
- Coq;inued
Date of Inspection 6/Z$/2001 Printed
on: 7/31200 E
1~acility Number: 31--82
-
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge actor 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
® No
28. is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
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
® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
® No
1
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
❑ No

O5103101
Facility Mrnber: 3t—$2 Date of Inspection F&M2001
Condnued
Printed on: 7/3/2001
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor 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
® No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
❑ Yes
®No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
24.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the Iiquid 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
® 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?
❑ Yes
❑ No

10 Kouttne p c;ompiatnt 0 rotiow-up of uwq inspection p rouow-up of uawi- review pytner
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection © 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Permitted p Certified p Conditionally Certified t3 Registered in Not perauona Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Vestal_FarmA1.&.#2............................................... ................ _............... County: Duplin WIRO
Owner Name: ................................................... Murpray!F.amily.Farms..... ................. Phone No: 9111-29G-143.7...........................................................
Facility Contact: ........... .................. .Title: .... Phone No:
Mailing Address: 899AC.50t.S.outb...............................................................•- .......... MagnoUaAc ....................................................... Iwa ..............
Onsite Representative: Jabn.Bizic......................................................... ......... --............ Integrator:Mtuphy..F.amily.Farms.....................................
Certified Operator . .................................................. .... Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude ®• ©4 ®� Longitude r • �• ©�
: eslgn ,�� urrent -. . -_ , esign -- urrent - n _ -.,Design ., urrent
Swine r-Capif actty'wPopulation , Poultry . Capacity .Population -Cattle .Capacity Population .
[3 Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
13 Farrow to Wean
rl Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finish_
p Gilts
p Boars
r
13 Dairy
p on- atry
Other r. _
Total DesigniCapacity 9,792
- Total SS LW 1,321,92a
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes 13 No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p 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 ¢allmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notifi DXVQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? p Yes p No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway p Yes p No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structtu-es observed? (ie.1 trees, severe erosion,
3/23199 seepage, etc.)
p Yes p No
Continued on back

her; 31
Date of Inspection
Are there quctures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
cloi we plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? p Excessive Ponding 13 PAN
12. Crop type
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
Yes p No
p Yes 13 No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? 13 Yes p No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? p Yes (3 No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? p Yes p No
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?
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes 13 No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes ® No
p Yes p No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? p Yes p No

J"ivision of Water Quality
Q,Division of.Soil. and Water Conservation.
0 Othcr Ageocy =
(Type of Visit ACompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation j
Reason for Visit *Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access I
Dale of Visit:
Facility Number 3 � Z
Permitted [3 Certified [3 Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered
Farm Name: ...... vq.4n 1....F .... .1...b.# ..........
Owner Name: UrA.P-1111... ! tt'l
Facility Contact:.............................................................................. Title
Mailing Address:
1 Z1 DO Time: �5 Printed on: 7/21/2000
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
County:.Dua %l"Y,
Phone No:
Phone No:............. ....................
Onsite Representative:. n.i.c!ae.....dr1 ..... ....... Integrator.y%
.! 'rr
CertifiedOperator: ................................................... ............................................................. Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location 'of Farm:
swine ❑ Pouttry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �' �� ��� Longitude �• �' �"
Design Current Desigo Current Desrgn ,.. _. C�trreat
Sw€tse CarinaCarinaty Po ulation Poultry Cavacity Po elation Cattle _-
.:Ci p `; PO elation`
Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean =
Farrow to Feeder ❑Other =
Farrow to Finish Total Dell Ca act y
Gilts � P . Ty
Boars TOW SSLW
Nttwber:of Lagoons -. Z ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lague Area ❑ Spray Field Area
HoMing Ponds I Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System _
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes 0 No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'?
❑ Yes 9No
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes 14No
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
ki A
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
❑ Yes 07No
Struct re 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: ..AQ,f6l ...............Q..
................... I......
Freeboard (inches): 36 Z Z
5100
Continued on back

1Facility.Number. 31 Date of Inspection Q QO 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 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 ❑ No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ) Yes 1
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? �JaYes ONo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? On ekYes AWNo
S
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes 91No
_Waste application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes Q§No
11. Is there evidence of over application? lj ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload El Yes J9 No
12. Crop type �Q('ynUdA 41A t DerOnyXrt 6y,4 2re� MRI uai Qye✓ reeA
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes J-No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? OYes ❑ No
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?
�; Nd-yi6iatioris:oi-• deficiencies were p6ted- during :his:visit;- Y:ot#'%iil-teeeiye trio fufthkt ..
rorreS�etiCe.a'bb*fth' 'Visit''.'.'.'.'.".'.'.'.'.'_' ".'.'.". ". -.
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes No
❑ Yes 19 No
❑ Yes 1WNo
❑ Yes ,® No
❑ Yes J.No
❑ Yes '`No
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes ]] No
❑ Yes Rf No
❑ Yes 29 No
❑ Yes j4No
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):
r7. -T'tjE' SO).'d S Aoeaoe 6tre.oi nC4d.$ ;--, f roVe►'�' e-nf : Ere q✓'e r_e-Ac ? In,
black well? le�alz1.,� was�'e;eretekr x�A tld be relq;reA. �vr�e r�l�'ds Owe
on .jev and ot4S�G�2 �t r�prc� ��erc
a, josh OVer Ike W,0%11; need ID be
recr ; , vl e al Gl &nd ce' n1et; +1 cd, is a rly f robl e.•-, � ss�G,`a �eL� w-A
44; .r are, ; srhAe sorb off % �a� �►'I'tie+'l/ h sf s Io �e i t le►�eh�ed.
�11e df J.� -��o 1�u end a�" - '1re sparc�� afeu, is tSl�c cd w;��sdr��s�
c�✓Gti--7 $I'lotdd be kEp� t^ree W block r
eJfp Po
5 P Y
Reviewer/Inspector Name S e W q
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
5100

Facility Number: Date of Inspection 1!j 31 Q 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 ` 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 IgNo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes $ No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ONo
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 No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes J'No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? XYes ❑ No
Additional omments and/orDrawings:
1 1
�c'qk�v� 1 hi-f belkcd -ror►, h dretm+914,r Vert s 2-� 4
A'
in i 'I Z , S TD �''e �L�/'.- rrt19rove ro47 col ezj ovl 1�u]I is it't
F7; eld
io. rn'C'-11'+7 heed s' A w e#n ble acres Mee-Y?;na
iq. Ee sure -fie vse Prp�e`-lr '444e-4 1,,-14e 014 pis o;i
Aleecf -�0 1�a►Ie morl-}i�I , ►�s�eG�j;pr, to �Ferz G q>1 es to
eA tid sel Q-f eLpf roveat f
,i�s�OeG;,an•
5/00

[r D�ns�oin of Soil and Water, Conservation Comphaace Inspection �* z�>��'
$ �TTDmsEbn Of Water Quality `COmphance Inspections ca#:
r ©`Other.Agehe Operation Reveew �~ r
0 Routine O Complaint Q Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number 31 B Z--
Date of Inspection 5 LI00
Timeof Inspection JOSS ?4 hr. (hh:mm)
© Permitted 0 Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified • 0 Registered Not Operational
Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Y,s f a I y7: r,- t -9 14 # 2 County:...�U9 ....1.r.✓ .......... ................................... ......................
Owner Name: ..,,.,,,,,,,,,.,t/ !' Phone No:
...........�5 �:.etl—c..............................................
Facility Contact:
Mailing Address:
........ Title:
Phone No:
Onsite Representative: ryi►(..�Q e..... ........... Integrator:%`'s ...............................
a�r� s h
..................... .......... ........�.....�/.
Certified Operator: ................................................... ............................... I ...... I...................... Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
Latitude • =' =LC Longitude 0 =' =11
= Desr Current Desi
� c- ' _ l;n �- .- :.urrent : _�... � :..•:.;• estgn _ :: Current �.
.Swine =- _ Capacity;,Po ulatian Poultry Ca acity .Population !Cattle> -.Ca aci "Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑Layer T JEE31Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish JE3 Non -Layer I I❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other - - _
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts Total Design Capacity:
❑ Boars Totai'SSLW
Number of Lagoons
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area
❑Spray Field Area
V
_
Holding Ponds /; Saltd Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
A
_..
Discharges & Strearii Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ 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
❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
❑ Yes
❑ No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure fr
Identifier: A ere, t-i z-
Freeboard(inches). ......... g .................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
❑ No
seepage, etc.)
Continued on back
3/23/99

• Facility Number: 3 J -- 6 Z Hate of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closulre plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type
5 8 �
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
B. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This -facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
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?
0: �10 yigla> i�otis'or &ride di-_5 were ho ecj- d&ifig �bis'visit. • YO :WW •reeerye Rio iru. tther
. • correspondence: aboTit: this -visit_ • : ' ' ' ' ' '
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Conunents (refer to question #) Explatii:any:YES answers and/or any,recommendations or:any other comments: n -
Ilse drawings'of-facility: to _better explain situaiions (use. addition- A pages as necessary)
C. o f cl v c4 c d 4,o 01-3 a s cj C/ a S V r e ra r, ¢ S S in, fta( •
h,lo ny'4ol- otcrok:, Otgoprl, CJonurz process qpQCls gr-�o be
GVrrc� l Jy/ GJOs ih6j -the /ems �r A c 5 Ia y'OOM s GCOrd`^g �a i1 ✓
it�7tSert�at�'r/'t'r�� J
�. Maw ker' saws 1(0 inches °f Freeb��rd, A�, ,'M��d ►^��'eescnjaI;re
-M,vt -i<L Cre i s 'Pf"obef 6/ 1 rin 0l cV' 12 , nGt-,et) �e4r,/eGn 40,0 of
.+.,�rke.- -G 4vja 01d1'ke, MjrIe,,- nee-ds 40 be svclq 4-1-vt+
�ap v-' roe%,-ke✓" el-lvals 4-0 Z-e" irtGtteS �'�e��Qa�d �nc���bi� be's;n.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Sr l�."� 1'1r, s -: -,
0 2 v"e '
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
0

11
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection ©24 hr. (hh:rom)
E Permitted p Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered 0 of perationa Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Yesta1Fax'.rfx.#1.&..42.................................................................................. County: Duplin . WIRO
Owner Name: ................................................... Mur{Illy.F.amily.Yarm ...................... Phone No: 910:29&1437..........................................................
Facility Contact................................................................................Title: .......... Phone No:
.....................................................
MailingAddress: R99. C.SII.South.................................................................................. Magnalia..NC ........................................................ 28.45.1 ..............
p ...... Integrator: Muxpha:.Family.Ea rnm........................ Onsite Representative: deba..l�i�ac.............................................................................. .............
Certified Operator: .................................................. .......................................................... Operator Certification Number:
.............................................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ®•©4 ®66 Longitude ©• ®©u
esign urrent _
esrgn urrent esjgn urrent
aP004la#16n PoultryeN Popc�lat�on Cattle �CapacEty Populat'on
_Capacity
:Capacity
airy
p Non -Dairy
~--k : is
Tofal Design Capacity; 9,792
"
TotaI.SSLW 1,321,920
A Number of Lagoons
� p 56
su ace rams resen p agaon rea p pray ie rea
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps _ o
�qu� Waste anagement System =
p We9792 an to Feeder
® Feeder to mis
p arrow to Wean
p arrow to ee er
p Farrow to Finish
p Gilts
p Boars
Discharges & Stream Impacts
p ayer
p Non -Layer
p Other
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes p No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes p No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) © Yes p 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) p Yes p No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p Yes p No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? 0 Yes i] No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway p Yes p No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard(inches): ............................................................................................................ ............................
5. Are there any immediate threats to'the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, 0 Yes p No
seepage, etc.}
3/23/99 Continued on back

(Facility Number: 31-82 I Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
p Yes
p 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?
p Yes
p No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
p No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
p Yes
p No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
p No
11. Is there evidence of over application? p Excessive Ponding p PAN
p Yes
p No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
p Yes
p No
14. a) Does the facility tack adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
p No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
p No
e) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
p No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
p Yes
p No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
p Yes
p No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
p Yes
p 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.) p Yes p No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) p Yes p No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? p Yes p No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? p Yes p No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) p Yes p No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? p Yes N No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? p Yes p No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? p Yes p No
CC :1Vo•vioratioils or.-de�K&e �cies•were_n-nted -durilii this visit. •Moir will-reeeive no f_ urther
corXespvndence aboirf this.visit:•:................................. .
ReviewerlInspector Name
LL
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
1

Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted p Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered 10 Not Operali"o—na7l Date Last Operated:
Farm Name. Ves1a1.F.arm.#1.&,.#2.................................................................................. County: Duplin WIRO
Owner Name :.................................................... 1�urphy.FamiE,y..Farmts...................... Phone No: 20-:29h.-.1.43.7 ..........................................................
Facility Contact: .......................................................... ...............Title: .. Phone No:
Mailing Address: 8991YC.50..Sauth.......................................................... ................. Magnolia. -KC ........................................................ 28453 ..............
Onsite Representative: Kraig..Wtstarbeek................................................................... Integrator: Murphy.F.amily.xarnm.................... :................
Certified Operator:............................................................................................................... Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude ®0 ©6 ®1i Longitude
- esign Current,:: esign arrant'- _ :. m esign Current.
Swine -Capacity Population. Poultry Capaclty_Population Cattle Capacity. -Population.
E3 Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
[3 Farrow to Wean
[3 Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finis
13 Gilts
p Boars
p Layer
p Non -Layer
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes p No
Discharge originated at: 13 Lagoon 13 Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? 13Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): ...................................
[3Yes [3No
13 Yes No
[3Yes [3No
13Yes [3No
? p Yes 13 No
p Yes p No
Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, 13 Yes p No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/94 Continued on back

Facility :Number: 31-82 Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? p Yes p 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?
p Yes
p No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require in
p Yes
p No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
p Yes
p No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
13 Yes
p No
11. Is there evidence of over application? 13 Excessive Ponding 13 PAN
p Yes
p No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
p Yes
p No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
(3 No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
(3 No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
p No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
p Yes
13 No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
p Yes
13 No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
p Yes
p 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.)
p Yes
p No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
13 Yes
p No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
rl Yes
p No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
p Yes
p No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
p Yes
13 No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
p Yes
p No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
p Yes
p No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
p Yes
p No
Q ' No .viotations-or- -deficien-cies.were woted .during. this visit. - Ym will -receive no further. • . . ....................... ... ... .........................
:.•�corkespirQdeAce:aboufthisvisit:•:•:•:•:�::::•:•:•:•:•:•:�::........::........ .
,4i -
Reviewer/Inspector Name Stonewall 1Vlath�s w
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: j� ��-�f�� Date:
Reviewer/Inspector Name Stonewall 1Vlath�s w
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: j� ��-�f�� Date:

[3 Division of Soil and Wafer Conservation 'Operation,Revrew
[3-Division of Soil and Water Conservation Compliance Inspection y
,.
tee, a
Division of Water Qiiality =_Compliance Inspection t
Other Agency Operation Revrew_'
s -
W R
m
a
0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow -tip of DSWC review Other
Facility Number 31 Z late of Inspection j
Time of Inspection :1 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted © Celrtified{ Q Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Q Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ............1,1. ` .L...._-.. GY..hr�------. + .4.....f...A.z..... --- County:....7t�J.(lA.......................-----......_.._...._................
Owner Name: .................i`� f �1�1� ....1-GN5a1.1�.......!'�t libn. ................................ Phone No: /�- rl....��.-..............................................
FacilityContact: ............................................................................. Title: ... ............................................................. Phone No: ...................................................
Mailing Address:....... �Q.......... .�$. [�QSe_...:.�.�.�r .....11�� ............................... ...n_........
..................................................................
Onsite Representative p L\e.aY\....... ..�.............................................. Integrator:._.... A LA, ...............
........
...... ..........................
CertifiedOperator: ................................................... ............................................................. Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
r........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
............� .
Latitude �� �° Longitude �• �� ���
y Design Current = Desrgn Current
Design _ . Current
Swine ,_ , - y - r Y Ca aci Population ulah .:_ Capacity Population- - PoulE - _ �
- ty ty 'om ;-.Cattle.
Capacity Population '
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish Z ° ❑ Non -Layer -'"; ❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
❑Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
-.
❑ Farrow to Finish W -- -
Total Design Capacity
17
❑ Gilts
El -: Total SSLW
Z RZO
Number of Lagoons.. Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JE1 Spray Field Area
_ --Holduig Ponds / Solid Traps _, ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
r.
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes PNo
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. Dees 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 fANo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier:
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

Kacilitj ,Number; m_L, Date o1' Inspection Z
6. Arc there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ 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 ❑ 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 No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pending ❑ 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
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
Yes
❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Wo
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?
0; N,6-yiolafithis ;or• def deneies -were no(ed• d&ME! 4his;visit: • You wiil•reeeiye fio further ; ;
correspondence. ahouf this visit • . •
�mments (eefer`to question#}c=Exp
eArawiags..of facihty;io better expl
U i Sl \ 11 re S an W_.
Kw- 1 i is t r �V-Vo-SS of
srve,yn, 1r�PU S ino.s
situations (use additional,pages as necessary)
❑ Yes ❑ No
M Yes ❑ No
14 Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
(to5Ir,S C,t� (' Ve_ kac{ s assaciaW cJi`�L. '�trarJikoidat
p \ t , �.w CoiA Uka 46 reamov-e r,.c � o A,P� SIu� .
L-�r`Ct 6<- O�PP,ICG.� 1GY� IAGS 6SCA ok�*v0?Cl" $SAL. M-Vt_ (Oca�c. 00-
W e-si -s% e o k 14rol 5_0 "p� ox • 6 m4iS Lot . a( Ve S tr k 1p, yn
K. No Groff iS ��&Yk e!]. as o� �c4 , (4,bw f 6_v\i � ��ar` S"Ik �rr�'tn 0,,• �� boo
1
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
3/23/99

P RT Number: 3 —'N7' 1?ate of Inspection
Odor 1sstles
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 ❑ No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ❑ No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ❑ No
A 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 ❑ 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? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional Comments an oir rawiings: _
rw
for o,p�Ma .]A-0 toe i n C.ow.plkAce, fj i kt-, \OU "' NA� �o�cLC
N o �0 k�� j� or Y't1Y�o bJOtS o�psehlP�• r�� i r� Wt�3�c a`{ o��ipYox. (0000 go,�/a,
�$• Na t✓1a-,u-yf- plw, k)cxs o,, sJi�_ . No Base- nyt moJ- �T- 60 ate( sik,
l�• � LJ0.5� Sl��� A.�.L�� 5;5 1M-5 �D2.t.1r� ��h �v� � Y'CSU�TS V�v� v�0�

Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted p Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered in Not Operationa Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: -Vesta1.Farm.#1.&..#3.................................................................................. County: Duplin WIRO
Owner Name:
Facility Contact:
Mailing Address: H99.XC.50..S.outh....
Murphy-Family..Farms...................... Phone No: 910--29.6-.1437............................
Title: .............. ................................................ Phone No:
............................................. Magaulia-KC ........................................................ 28453i....
Onsite Representative: JabirLBWc..Kraig.l i� ito.beek,,.Michael.NAuris....... integratoi•:Murpih.y..Family..){Arms......................................
Ccrtilied Operator: ....................................................... .... ......... Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farin:
rQIIt. :. .HeSI. e. e. Ylx. Pit`.. Ura.rl iln. lY�.. U t> suraig rntig .in>ierS�GtAA�t..W. 7cY�'. .............. i
Raa�d.��com,es S@ X9 9�..Turp.xighx;lan ta:Hw ; S easG;;Farm.i .03.mxles.on�.rasx side.�l fit�.......................................... ....................
:::::::::�
Latitude ®0©_ ®°� Longitude ©• ®° ©�°
Swine
Design- Current, -; esign Current Design - urrent
Capacity Population.:; _'Poultry. Capacity Population_ Cattle.. Y Capacity Population _
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
p Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
p Gilts
13 Boars
❑ Layer ❑ airy
❑ Non -Layer I JE3 on- atry
❑ Other I I
_
Total Design Capacity 9,792
Total SSL_W 1,321,920
Nurrlber-©f Lagoons' 1 4_ ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 11[3 Lagoon Area 113 Spray Field Area
Bolding Ponds 1 Solid Traps - ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
?ischair-zes & Stream Impacts1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑Yes []No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gat/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge.
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches): ................................... ..........................................................................................................
❑ Yes []No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure G
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
3/23/99 seepage, etc.)
❑ Yes ❑ No
Continued on back

Facr y Num er: 31_82 Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? p Yes p 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?
p Yes
p No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
p No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
p Yes
p No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
p No
11. Is there evidence of over application? p Excessive Ponding p PAN
p Yes
p No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
i] Yes
p No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
p No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
(3 No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
p No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
p Yes
p No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
p Yes
p No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
p Yes
p 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.)
p Yes
p No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
p Yes
p No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes
p No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
p No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
p Yes
p No
23,
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
p Yes
®No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
p Yes
p No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
p Yes
p No
C� X4"66tations:or.defi'eienv'res4ert:-ta-'ted:during.thisvisit.:Yau.will're,ceivetitifurther-
_ • irorrespo.,idekce aboir# this:visit................................... .
Corn ments'(ref&7,jo question'#) _ExplaiWany YES answers and/or airy -recommendations or an other comments. T
_ -
Use dra:s of facility to•Tbefter explaen s�tuat�ons (use additional pages as necessary)
This inspection was conducted as a follow-up inspection of the 11/8/99 inspection to determine impacts from th p p p p p e observed r
discharge. Estimated discharge of approximately 5,000 gallons impacted an estimated 0.1 acre wetland. The unnamed tributary
that the waste entered from the wetland area was walked to the point where it ties into Persimmon Branch.
Reviewer/inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu

Q Division of Soil ad Water Conseii'vatEon Ope aeon -Review
-
ti -
D,DiAsion of Soil and Water Consetvatiob, .Compliance Inspection ,
_ ® Division of Water Quality Compliance Inspection :.
_ y
_ _.
.D Other Agency,- Opmitao :Review . � -
10 Routine O Complaint gEFollow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number
Date of inspection I 5 L
—_-_ --- ---- Time of Inspection 4=/ 24 hr. (hh:mm)
® Permitted © Certified [3 Conditionally Certified © Registered JE3 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: yc.7w....... &fv .........U:-L�� .¢..A.z............ ..... County: ....... ,h.•. i ....................
Owner Name . ............... R... ! ....._.................... _.._ ........... Phone No:10)
Z�II
......:....1
FacilityContact: ........................1._..----.............................................. Title: ................................................................ Phone No
Mailing Address:..........13. A....... �~� �. ... ... ..... ..... ���.....!�!�� ��....,N�........................................ . Z�.� !;;s.........
............... ...... .......... ......................... .
Onsite Representative....... 4rI+��.........&Jd Integrator: U ..............
Certified Operator: ................................................... ............................................................. Operator Certification i 7umber:..........................................
Location of Farm:
............. 0tn........ i'1451..... 51k... 61.......i-. 0r. ...... MI.G&........ .............. D.......... .................................. ... �
..............................................................•.---.._...........................................................................................................--••--------..--........................................................................
Latitude • 4 �• Longitude • 4 46
Design Current r ='Design ;Current Design. Current
Swine p ty Poultry Ca achy -Population Capacity Po ulation ._
Ca aci Population Cattle .
❑ Wean to Feeder 1E1 Layer I I❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish c, ❑ Non -Layer - ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Destgji. Capacity -7 9 Z.
❑ Gilts w
❑ Boars -._T6ta1SSLW.
Number of Lagoons _ ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
�=
Trap --Holding,
Solid Trap Pondss El 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 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. Dees discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If ycs, 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 I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: t'-? q _5,
Freeboard(inches). ...........d................ ..............t? ��.............. ... ................................. ................................... ...........................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
❑ Yes ❑ No
Continued on back
3/23/99

:- r-00jity Number: 3� — g"a- 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 ❑ 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
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenarice/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste lkpplication
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)?
14, a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17, Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit 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?
:: NO •viWati6iis;or. di! it:i6n� ies •mere natea• during this;visit: • You :wiil•reeeive irio further • -
corres�oiidence: ahutit this .visit_ - . - ; .. .. ... . .
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments (refer:to question #) Explargany YES answers and/or any recommendations or=any oilier comments
Usedrawings.of faciLty t+i better explain srtuations {use additional pages asnecessary)
m _ -
tt. �rec. z� s�r°`"1 Re�� �} w�[L� �o►1t�et� waste. �.ts o•�c� Sho�� {�e a��
N'V1 -
tva�i� on
�9rea��.e� �q.-5ao—
kag
'ke� rlo`GJ )a-,)
mse'AA
0 -,\L, Qom
�U .0 1e--Yt_*'k
*
Reviewer/Inspector Name j _ "r
M
m mom: _ = 4dn- .
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: TAB/qq
3/23/99

Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
■ Permitted p Certified p Conditionally Certified 1:1 Registered in Not Operatiana Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Y.eshaf.Faxux.#1.&..f2.................................................. __................. .......... County: Duplin WIRO
Owner Name: ................................................... lY.lurPhy.F.amiily...Farms...................... Phone No: 91fl-.29.6-A431 ...........................................................
Facility Contact: ............................................................. .....Title: .... Phone No:
iMailing Address: h99AC..SO.S.otuth ................................................................ ................. . Magnolia..lYC.......... .............................................. 2845a ..............
Onsile Representative: Kr.aig..W.ect .b.aek,.Michael.N.Qrrits................................ Integrator:Murpb1y..F.ami)y.Farxns................... ............ ...................
Certified Operator: .................................................. .... 11 ....... I ................................................ Operator Certification Number:.........................................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ®•©� ®�4 Longitude ©• ®& ©46
esign urrent Design. Current m•, esign-e urrent�:
Swine Capacity -Population ,- Poultry -Capacity Population --Cattle . _ Capacity Population
❑ can to Feeder
11 Feeaer to Finish
p Farrow to can
p Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finish
❑Gilts
p Boars
p Eayer rr3 airy❑ on- ayer on -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 9,792
Total SSLW- 1,321,920
Number -of Lagoons "
_ [3oldmg Ponds / SoEic1 Trap§
0M 6surrace 13raiWPFFsen7jj3
Lagoon Area CI Spray Me rea
❑ No Liquid Waste Management
System
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? 1M Yes No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ® Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes IN 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 ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection $ Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway p Yes p No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S Structure G
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches):...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/94 Continued on back

Facility Number: 31—.82 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 ❑ 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?
p Yes
❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
p No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
p Yes
❑ No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? p Excessive Ponding p PAN
❑ Yes
p No
l2. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
p Yes
❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
p No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
p No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
p No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
p 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.
p No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
p Yes
❑ No
20. is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
p No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
p Yes
❑ No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
p No
23. Did ReviewerlInspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
N 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
11- Rio.violations:or -deficieffeites.were noted -during. this .visit, : You- will -receive no. further.:.: .
... .. ..........
. . .ckr6pi)-6denCe. a'holtt #bis'visit. .
(Comments (refer to_questton #) Explain- any YES ansi+ers and/or any recommendations or any other comments
[lie drawings of facility to -better explain sitnat�ons (use additional pages as iecessary} `r
1. 1 was visiting the farm to observe the innovative treatment system and lagoon. The aeration basin was being dewatered by AL
irrigating onto sprayfields. While inspecting the sprayfields where waste was being applied, it was observed that waste was running
off of the sprayfield from Pull 13 of Field 1 B. 1 requested that the pumping be stopped and it was done. The waste was observed
running off of the sprayfield into an adjacent wetland area. The waste was observed draining from this wetland area into an
unnamed tributary of Persimmon Branch. Water Quality samples and pictures were taken.
w
ReviewerlInspector Name
ReviewerlInspector Signatu

0 1
'� ivision:of Soilan Water onservatron a0 eration Review x
d Divisionof Sailand Water Conservation Ciimpliagce Inspection
_..
p Divisionpof Wa#er Quality Compliance Inspection
Other Agency UperatEon Review. t g �.
LKoutine 0 Complaint 0 hollow -up of MVQ Inspection 0 P(
r iPIY
1�:Icilit�° Numhcr
0 Registered p Certified p Applied for Permit Permitted
Form Mime: VesW.F'a.tart.#1.&A2...............................................................
Owner N:line:................................................... Murphy..l:•.art4,.Farms....
:Icifity Conhlcl:........................................................ ........................ hide: ......
w-up of u�)wt_ review 0 Vtner
Dale of hispectioil
f inie of lnspi[:tion 24 hr. (hh:mm)
In Not 01eratioiia Date Last Operated:
............. County: Duplin WIRO
............ Phone No: 91p-2Qfi-143.7...........................................................
................................................... Phone No:............................ ........................
}Mailing Address: 899.NC.NI.Sou h.................................................................................. MagnoWL-NC ........................................................ 28.451 ..............
(.)nsite ftepresenlative: H.arrey..LaWer........................................................................... Integi-ator:Murpthy:.Famlilh.Farms.................. ....................
Certified Ober:ilor:110hert................................... Ma llwws......................................... Operator Certiiicalion Number:2.1.5.1.2.............................
Location o!' Fariw
Latitude ®a ©C ®11 Longitude ©' ®4 ©11
Design CurrentDesign Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
p Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to inis
p Farrow to can
p Farrow to ee er
p Farrow to Finish
p Gilts
p Boars
r1133
;on-Layer
ayer p airy
p Non -Dairy
p Other
Total Design Capacity 9,7
Total SSLW1721,9=
�
■IYII��I�IY�i i
YI ,
Number -of Lagoons/ Holding Ponds 1 4
JE3
p
u
o
sur ace
iqui
Brains
aste
resen p
anagement
agoon Area p Spray Field Area
yytem
GeItern I
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. if discharge is observed. did it reach Surface Waler? (Yves. notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated tlo�v 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
maintenance/improvement?
b. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No

r �
Facility Number: 31_82 t)att..uf Inspecriorr
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Largnons,l-loldin-, fonds, Fiush fits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 SlrrrCturu 3 Structure 4
Identifier: ........... ...................................
Frcchmrd (ft): 1.9 1.6
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 Application
14, Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
EI Yes N No
(3 Yes ® No
Structurc 5 Structure 6
15. Crop type ...... Coastal.13mmudEL.GGass ....... S.nt:al)..Grain..(.W'heat«.$arlr-y,. ...........................................................
Milo, Qats)
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated tote moral Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
1�or Cul-Olied or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified A WMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
R..o.vw tlons.or i�cfenoies•were.note . uringthis virsit.-. You. will -reeeivena urt er.:.
-.,qortresponjJerief �Wtit tt1�S YiSilt:. . . . . . . . . . . .
Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
M Yes p No
p Yes ® No
p Yes N No
p Yes N No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes N No
p Yes N No
M Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
Comments (refer tci;guesttonr#) Explat�i;any YES answers and/or an y_recommendatiuns or any of er comments
Use d;rawtngs of facility to better explainsituations (use additional pages as necessary) W;
o W.U. Plan - Farm is not yet CERTIFIED.
12) Need to mow! Reviewer could not adequately observe all lagoon walls. If lagoons are to be closed it may not be necessary to
remove trees on outside walls. However, until lagoons are properly closed they may need evaluation by a qualified technical
specialist for lagoon design as to whether trees must be removed.
If old lagoons are closed follow sludge application closure plans and keep records of applications of sludge.
2) No copy of soil test report on the farm.
W.U.Plan amendment (March 1998, MFF) allowed additional 30 Ibs.N for rye (total to 80 lbs.). However, total applied 104 Ibs.N
us overapplication of 24 Ibs.N even with W.U.Plan amendment.
Installation of new treatment system permit will require several additional monitoring requirements.
Reviewer/Inspector Name 1J6hn N `Hunt7- _
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

Dn�,o[(osvocUvx
[Additional Comments and/or,.,Drawino�.
'W|

Corres pondence.Histor Reason for Exemption 2H .0200 Certification
Letter Date Type of Letter Additional Comments
Enforcement History
Case Number Central Office Log In Date Penalty Assessed Penalty Amount Amount Paid Case Closed Date
I
:. '3 E.: _` .:8. r ' ".. ,. � i tX f( Y, t 9 IE £ tE: i
ff
E ':I. •, ,FE
Tat
-. €,.. :�_ r: E_�.=rsE<`f .F. .r.-. ,:. _�. „—.,.y is u-.<•::aY �' _�, .,
sr'E°-:: .€,e .*k::.- �:: 1, „'�:.. ;>"-. 'ai9. ac.:.,. '^•.l «. �': ,..,r., "k -.. .f as .n -,,. 7P h. �E,. + .i ,�.:.. <€ F3+` Ft y.
J-i '_.... x. .iii ,... �. .. _•.:..':, .-.: �..fi .....� ..:.'.-.', ." p:l. w.:a. -. ,. .,a F , .. . kry .lV y < N
dw
�:. +5 .�,.. ,4E - �:E:E as - �d
.�. - i. 1�-"'.
.�':" •Ef I ,V s. :, t3 'y¢_ it 6€i
'-.4.".- � F .,}.',, L"iWE"
<E.aEF s+ "� <
I� i
;i; ➢aaSti?i$3i,,,.J�
:yyisY _
E4°B 6 Y.i. 7
:,#f,,:$:.,�:,,..4,°i� hs�a� �SC.i;�;1 s �:9:€€sa€f 1.. #s� i, :,`i:st§ ,I99 #9'9 1 ..i: t�i<3a{d�A?,4,4Ea�Ef�
Site Visitation History

Division of Soil and Water Conservation [3 Other Agency
Division of Water Quality
77
119 Routine O Complaint O Follo%v.UD of DWO insucction O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
• Date of Inspection
Facility Number •
Time of Inspection / 2.4 hr. (hh:mm)
Registered © Certified [3 Applied for Permit 0 Permitted 10 Not Opera Date Last Operated:
'f i�L rf;lLtrh Z— Countv:....I...1✓Y.
Farm Name: .... ........ . �...........---................---............ ...................................... .......................
OwnerName:........ U. .... ..:i fl1..(!..................................... Phone \o:........'. I ........ ................................................
Facility Contact:�,rre, �a......flQ.�� ... Tit le: ..... ►!11�r.,....f ........... Phone No:.. �f..`x..'..�,r`T.........
Mailing Address:......�J....1..... ........NL J<:.0 ...... . ....................
.................................... _ ...................
Onsite Representative:....L .4A:,7ft`".....34"L/d..- ................. Integrator:-...-,(.K.F..U..e ....
,,//�
Certified Operator// ..S..?.....................�................ ... A..�.._...'�7..-...........------ Operator Certification Number .........................................
Location of Farm:
c
Latitude =9" i ii . Longitude 0• 6 " -
- �ilesign tiCurrent - Design 1
aSwme Capacity, Population `.'Poultry Capacity(
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
(Jz
;H ❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
i ❑ Boars
MIN Iwo 1Z
Catty
Design , Current
e aCapacity;'Population
❑ Other` -
Total Design Capacity v
Total SSLVV
Number of Lagoons I Holding I I0 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray F geld Area
v
f �� No Liquid Waste Management System
❑ w
e , . r
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. 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 Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what'is the estimated flow in aaUmin?
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
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
❑ Yes
K No
❑ Yes
& No
❑ Yes
ELNo
❑ Yes
.® No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
0 No
& Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
[l No
❑ Yes
91 No
Continued on back

FacilityNumbcr: ` —
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Structures (Lapoons,fioldine_Ponds. Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
tK Yes
❑ No
Structure 1 Structure. Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (ft). ..........L.L................... '... ........... �DJ2t?!r�!
.............
10. is seepage observed from any of the structures?
El Yes
19 No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
Yes
❑ No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
tg Yes
❑ 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
MNo
_Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
A No
(if in excess of W MP, or runoff entering waters of the notify DWQ)
_State.
j� 15. Crop
type .............�.J.....r.1................................................��.............................. .................................................................._.._...........................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWIVIP)?
❑ Yes
Q No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No,
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
ZYes
❑ No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
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
UNo
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
0 No
For CerttGed or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes ❑ No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑
❑ No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
Yes
❑ No
0 No violations or def ciencies. were noted during this: visit. 'You.will receive no further
;':-correspbndenct:ab:out'this:visit:-:�:':'��:':• '.�� :'� : :��': .•�•.���:�. :':���:���:��•,'�
r_ > >.. x
se, rawings of fac►hty to better expiatn?`sttuahons {isse additional pages as necessary) v I
�`,�.--
��,�� �a►gTct�—�—r 7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name =`
f Reviewer/Inspector Signature: h-f{�6ff-- Date:

]o Division of Soil and Water
p Division of Water Quality
=1
E4P I<atrtrne p t-ornplarnt p Follow-up nl I)Wll rnspectton p Fe
I-acilit.v Nnniher
M Registered o Certified 0 Applied for Permit N Permitted
Farm Name: Ves1a1.EarmA1.&..#2...................
Owner Namc:................
p Other Agency
w-trp of I))WC. revrew p l)tuer
bate of Irrspcctiurr
I inre of Inspecdolr ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
0 Not peratrona Date Last Operated:
County: Duplin WIRO
M.uirVhy..Fznt ly.Earns...................... Phnnc No: 910 296-1411(farm).................._........................
Fneilk.v Contact: Aotlu).uy-Piercr............................................. .Title: Manager ........................................... Phnnc No: ....................................................
.
M a i l i n n r% d d ress: A99.IYC.50..S.euth.................................................................................. MagnuJ.ia.AC.................... .................................... 28453i..............
Onsilc Ireprescntative: ..........I ............................ IIII egralor:�'lut rft.Fatmily.Farms......................................
Ccrtilicd t)peratot- nthan}.l........................... Pier= ................................................ Operator Certification Number: 109.0.............................
Location of Fnrm:
Laiiiiide ®�©®j: I ongiludc. ©• ®
Swine Capacity Population
p Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finisfi
13 Farrow to Wean
p Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finis
p Gilts
p Boars
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
p Layer JE3 Dairy
p Non -Layer p Non -Dairy
p Other
Total Design Capacity 9,792
Total SSLW 1,9ZU
Number of Lagoons / Holding Ponds
JE3
Subsurface
Drains
Present 11r3
Lagoon rea p Spray Field Area
p
o rqul
as a Management
System -
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? p Yes ® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes R No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'? p Yes ll No
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (Ifyes. notify DWQ) [3 Yes ® No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in galhnin? Not Applicable
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system`' (li'yes. notify DWQ) 13 Yes ®No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p Yes ®No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? p Yes H 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? p Yes ®No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? p Yes ® No
7/25/97
i

tacility Number: 31-82
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
W Yes
[3 No
S11-110111-es (L'1(_'wP11S.H0Iding fonds. 17111,01 Pits, etc.1
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
[3 Yes
U No
Structure 2 s1ruclure 33 SLJ'JJC1 Ll N 4 Siructure 5
SII'Lldurc
6
lde'161_10': ...... V.Lpximaq... ... ..... U.Sacondary ... ....... V2.-Primary ...... .... V2.secondaly ... ...................................
...................................
Freeboard (1[): 2 ft. 2.3 ft. 3 ft, 2.5 ft.
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
[3 Yes
lZ No
II. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
E3 Yes
N No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
0 Yes
13 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?
[3 Yes
I& No
Wnsit, A pplieaiion
14. is there physical evidence of over application?
[3 Yes
M No
(if in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type CaastaI.Bexmuda_Grass.::_hay .................. Ry.e.:-.graze ................. ......................................................................................................................
& Lraze
16- Do the receiving crops crifffr with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
M Yes
E3 No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
[3 Yes
IM No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
[3 Yes
Ig No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
[3 Yes
®No
20, Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
E3 Yes
®No
21. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
(3 Yes
®No
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
M Yes
[3 No
For Certified or Pennilted Facififies OnJv
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
[3 Yes
[3 No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
[3 Yes
[3 No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
[3 Yes
j3 No
a .!�.oyiqLations - ordeficienries'were noted during this visit;. You. will -receive no: further. -
.......... 11 ............ * ............. ­
........ ..................................
...........
W ................... ..........
"ricespooOiie� �Wtjt t -�Wt; .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...................................................
:Comments (rg.-fer-,t-6•069tion,-.#):--Exolam itiy'YES-.answer!iand/or ,ail "y':-r-c-co ii-m-enidatiorig i)iiinothercomments-
e ti
t6i, explain f-sittiations., (uw,�additional :Use drawin2sof, aci itvAd b-:pages ais4ecessarv).
8. In order to meet certification Murphy Farms is considering alternative treatment technology (sludge/solids separator). if this
oes not work out new lagoon to be constructed and existing structures closed. If lagoons closed maintain sludge and waste
application records as necessary,
12. See comments for item #8 above. Swine house #2 at Vestal #2 discharge pipe to lagoon has broken and should be repaired as
soon as possible. As part of repair backfill erosion that has occurred on inner dike wall from broken pipe. Discharge pipes at Vesta
#1 extended as directed by NCDWQ. If lagoons remain active all trees and shrubs should be removed from outer dike wall and all
ike walls stabilized and vegetated (grass cover). Contact the Murphy Technical Specialist Staff for assistance with this project.
16. No waste plan or certification fro facility at time of review, Certified Animal Waste Management Plan and all components to
e in Dlace and implemented by 12/31/97.
Reviewer/Inspector Name SC—Ott7O_ne-S"'_'_--- �7-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

s - a
Facility um pr: 31_82 Datl of inspec Jinn
Additional Comnients'and/or.Drawings
W
,r
wt7
2. Correct irrigation records. Use up to date waste lagoon samples in calculating nitrogen balance. Soil samples to be pulled by w
12/31/97 to meet sampling requirements. If samples have been pulled then obtain these results and include with on -site records.
7/25/97

°❑ DSWC Animal Feedlot Operation Review fi
{ DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection �
�Q
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of I)SWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection
E - .. ...... . .... Facility Number Z
Time of Inspection :Oo 24 hr. (hh:mm}
19 Registered 0 Certifiedd 13 Applied for Permit [3Permitted 13 Not Operational Date Last Operated:....,._ ,
Farm Name: ........vt:.�`�-ft,L......... FG.um.........�1---- 7-itz.......... County: ........Qu�l��........................................................
Owner Name: ....... m.Vlf.,k .......F( �U.......... .. M.S........................................... Phone No: .... k.•�1.�.�.�`f�S. 143.1 .........................................
Facility Con€actp �t I ;. Title• ..,..� Pltane No:. . 1.. - y 7
t............t°.�'t..2........................... .................... Gi �....1....�...............
Mailing Address: qq.... �W.•....I..... ......................... .. ... ... ..1.1 L..... ..j.......r-.�....... t.........................................i,'�a d .rs...�.N...C... ( ? 5 ........
Onsite Representative :..... "01,....... �ICir.Lt?.................... ..................... Integrator:........ Uf�k
Certified Operator,........................................................... ........ Operator Certification Number, .........................................
Location of Farm:
......9..
.i.��ec�.on..__.w.►.�:...1.-1�r..�l-.:i�tt1.....��.... sK..�.kS..4..1..r�rxn...r�� �...Q�....:�a.....�...tfl�..�..,easf-..._..4�..is.._.D.:..�i
� _ _.a_ t-�� I��� ��r� ■ _ __a� ��� I��• ��« �Yl �Q�t' $1 L � lQ
una�auua. 1 1 1 1 I I a.vi�tyiiuua, 1 E r- 1 „J
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I❑Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons / Holding Ponds 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JC1 Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement'? ❑ Yes Q No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes RNo
Dischar-e ori«inated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, ww; the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? tlf yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in M[Irnin'
cf. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system`? (If yes, notify DWQ) El Yes No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes allo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes V No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes E'No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes No
7/25/97 Continued on back

,s
Facility Number:
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Laeoons,tioldine Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.l
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
''Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: ......�l.ti...- �.......... Nls. -.. #.Z.
Freeboard (fty ........ :.&................. I............. :.%...........
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
Structure 4 Structure 5
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 Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(if in excess of WMP, or `runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ..........crosi .l........be.y.y.b da........... ........................ ..............sma(Lg.Y.k;a...............................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did ReviewerAnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
0-No violations or deficiencies.we're noted. during this.visit..You4411 receive no ftirttier
-' - correspondence afloat this.visit:� : � � ; - �. � : '. - � � ; " � � . � - . • � - - :. • : .: • � . � � ; -. � ;
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes E4 No
Structure 6
❑ Yes 0 No
OYes ❑ No
tR Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes MNo
❑ Yes E�No
❑ Yes 5dNo
❑ Yes allo
Rryes [:]No
❑ Yes [R No
RYes ❑ No
❑ Yes C3�No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes RNo
Comments (refer to question O Explain. any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments
Use drawrrt" of facility to better explatn situations. (use additional pages as necessary) x
..........
A
iItI1Z� [�YbS)O Ys v��{n� i+�1+1.tr tuaE�S bok la-TD 15 I Shodd he Gi1�t wi — el&y 1^eSe OW, /cure a, -fa
Sr�o `1� e_ Se�PJ f n r � 04w ow V!, S6u1J toe, ►n0Ajed Oh )jA t, ,vA s axe wees ev
Crrm t" �� 1 G r r assess co,l .ec� vice bf J� 3 (goo& Dr V f
z 5 «>lJ bt~ MaSe 1 r�lcae�J. Free�orct� c� M& o�• U e� ` au � a{ # '5 a
b Sin�)E� b �} 1 A�s+�ic! 1tY ah vfSta1 Z ( a;4�
Ek,rikt� �e
14. I�c>ree ran `('++I..rhe+Syy � S��t - �� rtwds W t A kow elms -
i�• S ` G�� St�wIU P �� or- W`n (�li?Y t,
z2 k�pek.�ctj �p I � 1 � sa 0�4,.T% s,Luu be Gr . 1Vo c wsk t4i rr;Ai A at n.
Q'. I' -1 h.,,r L <i/ —A .i _ .. 7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signati

Site Requires Immediate Attentifi,
Facility No.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
. DATE: , 1995
� Time:
Farm Name/Owner:
Mailing Address:
County:
Integrator:
On Site Representative: __-_
Physical Address/Location:
Type of Operation: Swine V - Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: k / Z Number of Animals on Site: 94T6
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: '' " Longitude: -77 ° _/ 7" Elevation: Feet
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour
//storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches Ye)r No Actual Freeboard:'% (o Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes or No Was any erosion observed? Yes 00
• Is adequate land available for ray? Yes or No Is the cover crop adequate Yes r No
Crop(s) being utilized:
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings Yes No
100 Feet from Wells Ye r No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or No
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line? Yes or No
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes No If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific eage with cover crop)? Yes or No
Additional Comments:
Inspector Name SiV-wure
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.
Phone:

Site Requires Immediate Attention: �r_'/
Facility No. 71- k2—
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: g ; 1995
Time: icy pol
Farm Name/Owner: V e54e l 4 1, V e - i
Mailing Address: Po e o-Z _1-6Z Ken-2nsV''1 Ie_ Z S 34 C(
County: t1201t/1
Integrator. � Ur h e'5 Phone:
On Site Representative: Phone:
Physical Address/Location: Ao I 4 Ken -.7*i'5V j10., 5o az-5 ,
4-5 m opt i e-Ff.
Type of Operation S wine Poultry Cattle F 'e7 1, 5)') -
VR'Z Design Capacity: ► Number of Animals on Site: (0 ��-
El
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: 3 d- ' S(p ' (Alp-, Longitude: J0 - `(,P '1*9. 1 qr" Elevation: Feet
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) Oor No Actual Freeboard: 2 Ft. Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagaon(s)? Yes No as any erosion observed? es r No
Is adequate land available for spray? Yes or No Is
Crop(s) being utilized: 02Sf2l 6ermu
cover crop adequate? Yes or No
D 62. S ac
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings? Yes or No
100 Feet from Wells? Yes or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes o No
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line? Yes o No
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes o No If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? e or No
Additional Comments• • '` Qt7 e_3 51
C—rb510n ar c4i'ke5. Pv ,*� Ie •5ee
man -ire 2jon bQc L of C4, !cam . S 1'n 1
otxi- fD Lercm -- he ke-e.OJ re f a-F
Inspector Name Signature -
cc: Facility Assessment Unit
Use Attachments if Needed.

Site Requires Immediate Attention: >�5
' Facility No. 34-V_ # 1)
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT -5143 O#Z)
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: g`3 , 1995
Time: i C-0 .1
Farm Name/Owner: V o4e I 1-� 2, V e— ' $ V 1
Mailing Address: eon ( t �; Z Ken-W7sVJ [er
County: _I,Aj,y)1 t/1 T
Integrator: �Urpk _ Phone:
On Site Representative: 1-4 Phone: (4
Physical Address/Location: Ke►? _�_5y� III, ;�o C-25f Fznn
4-5 nit On e-F+. f_
Type of Operation: Swine ✓ Poultry Cattle r -el 1 •sr ]
1j7g2 Design Capacity: 44VIV—Number of Animals on Site: (01 F �
•
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: 3 4- ° Sio ' Ui•P" Longitude: ­0 ' 5 (P 11114 " Elevation: Feet
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) Oor No Actual Freeboard: 2 Ft. D Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes No as any erosion observed? es r No
Is adequate land available for spray? Yes or No Is the cover crop adequate? Yes or No
Crop(s) being utilized: C2S
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings? Yes or No
100 Feet from Wells? Yes or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes o No
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within,25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line? Yes o No
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes o No If Yes, Please Explain -
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure. land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? e or No
Additional Comments: G�r� OR e �J�` s 1 V qqk 12CfCC�wl Rf—
o��'�Cp 5
1'r a-n rr -V i2 S 2�Or� rIrJ `G1L o-rrr c�� iC� - 5 r
lt�li`IY N C7E� 4D I _Prr*11 t-t�,l — Y1P lCP_•Poj o:_C f �T
_I_(�2,L,
Inspector Name
9:0�
Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.