820466_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
820465 Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS82D466
❑ Denied Access
tnpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit:
Routine County:
Sampson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
0912212016 Entry Time: 08:00 am Exit Time: 9:00 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Farm 2037 and 2038
Owner Email:
Owner.
Murphy -brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
779 Old Goodson Farm Ln
Turkey NC 28393
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
35' 00' Longitude:
78' 13' 19"
On the east side of SR 1913 approx..8 miles north of its intersection with Hwy 24.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Bradley Devone Herring Operator Certification Number: 26545
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Nike Norris Phone
On -site representative Mike Norris Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s)-
Inspection Summary:
Lagoon levels
20283A = 34'
20283E = 146"
20373 = 36'
page: 1

Permit: AWS820466 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820466
Inspection Date: 09/22/16 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
SvArv, - Feeder to Finish 20,992
Total Design Capacity: 20,992
Total SSLW: 2,833,920
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
2537
19,00
Lagoon
2538
20.40
Lagoon
2538A
19.00
Lagoon
25388
19.50
page 2

Permit: AWS820466 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820466
Inspection Date: 09/22/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na NO
1 Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ N
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ N
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
E ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na N_e
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
[[
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e.1 large
❑
N ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property addressed andlor managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
E ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ so Cl
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AVVS820466 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number
820456
Inspection Date: 09/22/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for visit
Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Nay, Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Cum, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Norfolk loamy sand. 0 to 2%
slopes
Soil Type 2
Wagram loamy sand. 0 to
6% stapes
Soil Type 3
Johns Fine sandy loam
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14_ Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ ❑ ❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yos No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily avaiiable?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Wt1P?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ N ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS820466 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820466
Inspection Date: 09/22/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
N2 Na No
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
[]
120 Minute inspections?
(]
Monthly and 1" Rainfall inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
M ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24, Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
■ ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility?
❑
E ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

f
It
Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
820466 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS820456
Q Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inaclive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Sampson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
11/0612015 Entry Time: 05:00 pm
Exit Time: 6:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Farm 2037 and 2038
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
91 D-296-18W
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
779 Old Goodson Farm Ln
Turkey NC 28393
Facility Status:
Compliant Not Compliant
Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 35" 00' Longitude:
78° 13- 19"
On the east side of SR 1913 approx_ .8 miles north of its intersection with Hwy 24.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream impacts Waste Col, Slor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Bradley Devone Herring Operator Certification Number 26545
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Norris Phone
On -site representative Mike Norris Phone
Primary inspector. Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

r
*1
Permit: AWS820466 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820466
Inspection Date: 11/05/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 20.992
Total Design Capacity: 20.992
Total SSLW: 2,833,920
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
2537
19.00
33,00
Lagoon
2538
20.40
Lagoon
2538A
19.00
36.00
Lagoon
2538B
19.50
95.00
page 2

r
i
Permit: AWS820466 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820466
Inspection Date: 11/05/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
M ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
EDD
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑0
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
■ ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
00
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN n 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS820466 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
Inspection Date 11/05/15 Inpsection Type. Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
820466
Routine
Waste Application
Yes No No Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Corn, wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2%
slopes
Soil Type 2
wagrarn loamy sand, C to
B% slopes
Soil Type 3
Johns ring sandy loam
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Management Plan(CAWMi
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
determination?
1 T Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of property operating waste application equipment?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yas No Na Ne
19, Did the facility fail to have Ceri of Coverage and Permit readily available?
[} N ❑ ❑
20 Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
[J 0 ❑ ❑
If yes. check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
(�
Lease Agreements?
Other?
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
El N ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS820466 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820466
Inspection Date: 11/05/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No No No
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
M ❑
❑
23_ If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑M
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Nan -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑M
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
M ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No No_Ne
28, Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
■ ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewerlinspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑
M ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
ME]
❑
page: 5

t t
0 Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
820466 Facility Status:
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit:
Routine
Date of Visit:
1211612014 Entry Time: 01:00 pm
Farm Name:
Farm 2037 and 2038
Owner.
Murphy -Brown LLC
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Active Permit: AWS820466
inactive Or Closed Date:
County: Sampson Region:
Exit Time: 1:45 pm Incident 0
Owner Email:
Phone:
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 779 Old Goodson Farm Ln Turkey NC 28393
Facility Status: 0 Compliant Q Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35' 00' Longitude: 78° 13' 19"
On the east side of SR 1913 approx..8 miles north of its intersection with Hwy 24.
❑ Denied Access
Fayetteville
910-296-1840
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Other Issues
Certified Operator: Bradtey Devone Herring Operator Certification Number: 26545
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Norris Phone:
On -site representative Mike Norris Phone:
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS820466 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820466
Inspection Date: 12/16/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 20.992
Total Design Capacity: 20,992
Total SSLW: 2,833,920
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
2537
19.00
43.00
Lagoon
2538
20.40
Lagoon
2538A
19.00
44.00
Lagoon
2538E
19.50
119A0
page: 2

I
Permit: AWS820466 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820466
Inspection Date: 12/16/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Dischames & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Ne Ns
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ ■
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
0
❑ ■
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
00
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection,, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Nj! No
4. Is storage capacity Tess than adequate?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
M ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Me
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11 _ Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS820466 Owner - Facility Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
820466
Inspection Date: 12/16/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit
Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Corn, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 3
Small Grain Qverseed
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Norfolk loamy sand.
0 to 2%
slopes
Soil Type 2
Wagram loamy sand, 0 to
6% slopes
Soil Type 3
Johns fine sandy loam
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ M ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ 0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ M ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of property operating waste application equipment?
❑ M ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ 0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
[]
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21 Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS820466 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: ' 820466
Inspection Date: 12/16/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No No No
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
�]
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility flail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
■ ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
■ ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No NllNr
28_ Did the facility fail to property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
■ ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
■ ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30, Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Applicaton Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
■ ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑
■ ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■ ❑
❑
page: 5

Facility Number: 820466
0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Permit: AWS820466 ❑ Denied Access
lnppection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date'
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Sampson Region: Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 12l1212013 Entry Time: 10:30 am Exit Time: 11:30 am Incident #
Farm Name: Farm 2037 and 2038 Owner Email:
Facility Status: Active
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC Phone: [phone]
Malting Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 779 Old Goodson Farm Ln Turkey NC 28393
Facility Status: NCompliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude:
On the east side of SR 1913 approx..8 miles north of its intersection with Hwy 24.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Cal, Stor, & Treat
S Records and Documents Other Issues
35' 00' Longitude: 78° 13' 19"
Waste Application
Certified Operator.
Stephen Wadsworth
Operator Certification Number: 989W
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name
Mike Norris
Phone
On -site representative
Mike Norris
Phone
Primary Inspector:
Robert Marble
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS820466 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 820466
Inspection Date: 12/12/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
❑ Shine - Feeder to Finish
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
2537
19,00
Lagoon
2538
20.40
Lagoon
2538A
19.00
Lagoon
2538B
19.50
page: 2

f
Permit AWS820466 Owner - Facility - Murphy -Brown LLG Facility Number: 820466
Inspection Date 12/12/13 Inppection Type Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges $ Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na Ne
1 Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
N ❑
❑
Discharge originated at
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ ■
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached walers of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
EIN
❑
2 Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
3_ Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na Ne
4- Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
N ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Led large
❑
E ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7_ Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
N ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
E ❑
❑
to rooted pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ N ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11 _ Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ N ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

7
Permit AWS82€1466 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
82G466
Inspection Date 12/12/13 Inpsection Type. Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit.
Routine
Wasta Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 3
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Norfolk loamy sand, D to 2%
slopes
Soil Type 2
Wapram loamy sand. Q to
6% slopes
Soil Type 3
Johns fine sandy loam
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑ N ❑ ❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑ 0
16. Did the facility fall to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ ❑ ❑
determination?
17 Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ N ❑ ❑
1 a- Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ M ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na N
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ E ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all Components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ N 0 ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Wl1P?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ E ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS820466 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820466
Inspection Date: 12112/13 tnppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na me
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below_
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
(]
M ❑
❑
Otherlssues
Yes No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
M ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
01111
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface file drains exist at the facility?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
❑
❑
page: 5

Type of Visit: 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 40 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up Q Referral Q Emergency O Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:Arrival Time: I I rTJ!!�'J Departure Time: ,' County: Region: r--{41D
Farm Name: /Z.Oj r%�J , 2b 383 Owner Email:
Owner Name: ( ytjv�, Phone:
Tr
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
t
Facility Contact: M I �9 fVS Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Design Current-
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Pop.
V1Wet Roultry
Capacity Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
nish Layer
DairyCow
eder
inish
-Layer
DairyCalf
DairyHeifer
ean
WtoFinish
Design CeirrMG . °
Cow
eeder
D
Ca acti'o
-Dairy
inish
.FI?aut
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Broad Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
-
Other
Other
Discharees and Stream ImDaCts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? Q Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No [ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: ; jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes JZ No 0 NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No [� NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: 203R-#- Zak 2037
Spillway?: _
Designed Freeboard (in): _
Observed Freeboard (in): Y3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc_)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes V3 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 9M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes V] 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 [] Ev,Wpnce of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): J
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes [0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
0 NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes No
❑ 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 ® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
r
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below_ ❑ Yes IX No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on imgation equipment? [:]Yes (�� No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Faeili Number: jDate of Inspection: IDWI 11
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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 P
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes PNo ❑ 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?
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 0 No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA [3 NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes IR No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
lComments (refer to question•#): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations ar3any oth comments.
us-e.drawings of facility to,better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary),. _
e�pcwiJs re
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
ReviewerAnspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: g/D 33-33�
Date: b
2 ),2011

Type of Visit *Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit a Routine O Complaint O Follow up Q Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: I t J/C] /f (JJ Arrival Time: 0� ' Departure Time: ��Q County:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name MuAz / w Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region: r1W
Facility Contact: i1r Title: Phone No:
14
Onsite Representative: f� Integrator: A l� ,[ L
Certified Operator: �(aOperator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [= e = = 4i Longitude: = ° = ' = u
Design Current
Design Current
Design C►urrent
Swine Capacity Population
Wet Poultr.} Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to finish
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to FeederIIIE]
Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
Weeder to Finish
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
El Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ farrow to Feeder
❑ Non- Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑Beef Brood Cowl
❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Other
❑ 7 urkc Points
❑Other
Nurn of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does 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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No [ANA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No �INA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 1 .No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes T No ❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes tpNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a_ If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA [INE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 tructure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
r� N �
Observed Frceboard (in): Z�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes lNU 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 M No ❑ NA ElNE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
S. 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 rV No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ElHeavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of a
,� �i ,�_� : oe "Sf
12. Crop tYPe(s) �144'J► c � 1�1 c s C1� �CQ M a
13. Soil type(s) 04 I tj Q$, S6
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
[P 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?
ElYes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments refer to uestion # Eaplain;an YES answers and/or anirecomimendations or<an toter comments.
� q ) P Y Y
Use drawings of facility to better explainsituations. (use additional pages as necessary):
t P4 C,,A / I- S_::210 f
ReviewerfInspector Name _ Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature M_ /1410 A , Date:
1
Continued

lFacilit, Number: Date of Inspection
Rewired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists ❑Design [I Maps El Other
2). Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections [:]Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
PNA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
IYQ No
[INA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
ElNA
ElNE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
ElYes
99 No
❑ NA
[I 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
El 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?
ElYes
,Iy
No
ElNA
[I NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
rrr
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)
1
32,
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 1228104

� Division of Water Quality
IETZ-HiMN.Ump-eral 0,2` O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit • Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit • Routine O Complaint 0 Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: t'2. County: P � Region: FAO
Farm Name:O 344 3 , Owner Email: ..
Owner Name: rALA Y� tam U-Q Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Qp—rc Title: Phone No:
�f Onsite Representative: ` Integrator: L.(CQk%1 r oCe3 I)
Certified Operator:ys �'� Operator Certification Number:�
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: E__1 o =1 0 " Longitude: 0 ° [= [ [� u
MDesign Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish ❑ Layer ❑ DairyCow
to Feeder
❑ Non -La er
❑ Da Calf
Ean
der to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Dry Poultry
❑ Dai Heifer
❑ D Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ La ers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑Beef Brood Cowl
❑ Turkeys
Other ❑ TurkeyPoults
❑ Other ❑ Other
Number of 5truetures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
LUNI-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
�NA
I1�NA
El NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
El Yes
El No
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
T No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
to No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

Facility 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?
❑NA ❑NE
IR NA ❑NE
Structure I Structure 22 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 tructure 6
Identifier- '20A �s e> 3'7'
❑ Yes VINo
❑ Yes 1❑ No
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
u y M
Observed Freeboard (in): Q
5. Are there any immediate threats to the i rity 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 W 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 R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[P 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
§4 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or ] 0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Bence of ind rift Outside of Area
(❑Application
r
12_ Crop type(s ` a "a Q r t1`szt� t/
.—
13. Soil type(s) ..1 p '�VD !u® — p M
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
qj No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
f6 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
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 recommendah as or any other Comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary)• ; -,�-
Reviewer/Inspector Name a. r Phone: D� 3
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12128104 Conrrnued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection ( I
Reauired 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 CAWIvIP 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 El Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
WNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
i❑
No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[:)No
O NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes �'No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes] No
❑] NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes (hNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additi)ual,C4taft4e— ariillvi Dra irEgs y
a
12128104

Type of Visit 9 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine Q Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: -7 a8 I Arrival Time: l Qc., Departure Time: n? Fes, County: 21»!LV2/V/ Region: FRO
Farm Name: t"t.t_ m 075311 , f��530 Owner Email:
Owner Name: �'Or.�r��Uc Phone.
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: u
Certified Operator: 142gs a. t + Iorp _ ..
Phone Nn:
Integrator• fll �rr1
Operator Certification Number: IV055�
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o ❑ I ❑ 11 Longitude: ❑ 0 0 I = "
Bill
Design
Current Design Current
Design
Current
Swine Capacity
Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -Layer
Cattle Capacity
Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Dairy Cow
IQ
Wean to Feeder
❑ DaiEy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dry Poultry __
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ La ers
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Beef Stocker
Gilts
❑Non -La ers
❑
❑ Beef Feeder
B
❑Beef raod Co
SPullets
Boars
LiTurku s
Dther
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
r No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a_ Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
M NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
to NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d_ Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes. notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
[—_1 No
NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
[]Yes
o
G] NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
T No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a_ If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
?9 NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
S
Structure 6
Identifier:'( 3�
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 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
$3 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
IgNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�] No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
'P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
PINo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
EANo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or I 0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
V
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
1$. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
1p No
❑ NA
❑ NE
„�1M"'i Si 3.r -_+F"f.. �.. .w -
Commes[efer to questiion#}Expfatn any�YES�auswers aad/or�anyr�omnLe�nd+ations or any othe�rtcomlm .
Use drawings 6tfaci ity, tometter e p1 ations'�(useAaddiho alsp )as �sary). 1 �
L
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Phone-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: o
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Reduired Records & Documents 77 jjj
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 M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes @5190 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes q1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selectcd, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipmeni? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
�9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
T9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
b No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
t)No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
29 No
❑ NA
❑ NF
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
'Cl 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
M 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
ES No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
hNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
��
Addr#ronal Comments and%i Drawings
,Page 3 of 3 12/28/04

0 Division of Water Quality
Facility Number 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit 0 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: r1 01
1 Arrival'1'ime: [t o� Departure Time: -3 ht! County: 5QA/
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: w✓b6M gt'10t✓t^ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: `-' ' Title:
Onsite Representative: f
Certified Operator:04' ' L
Region•_A22
Phone No:
Integrator: Aw'Q L, 6"D"i "
Operator Certification Number: rx'6
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
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
Latitude: = o = 4 Longitude: = ° = , 0
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ La er
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Lavers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design .."Current.
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
E]Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: ®j
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
ElNA
ElNE
❑ Yes
❑ No
P NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
V NA
❑ NE
® NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes [� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104 Continued
j

Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
$ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No A NA ❑ NE
Structure l 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 Structure 6
rS�trruuccture
Identifier: 3 ;LG
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �0 G o 131 y
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
N 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
qj No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
V] 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
DdNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload [:]Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or I0 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
jp No
❑ NA
❑ NE
IT Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
IP No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[D 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): I
Reviewer/inspector Name v Phone: L710 .3
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Ey& Bate:

Facility Number: �L— Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes JA No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CA WMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ip No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes t4No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
?No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain minbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[0,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
EP No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
44 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
9 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
q9 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:
12128104

Type of Visit & Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit :S Arrival Time: Departure Time: 3'� , County: C01 Region:
Farm Name: 2.453:25-38 n3`I 34 2 o 3 83 Owner Email:
Owner Name: MU-y10 �rrD�%� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: i Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator, imujge„Ll c'iPk-t1��
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: =' =' =" Longitude: = o ='
= v
;esign CurrenDesign
Population
❑ an to Finish
Wet Poultry"
❑ La er
Cupacity
Capacity Population
Cattle C►apacity Populatian
❑ Dai Cow
❑ an to Feeder
❑Non -La er
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish o2D f
❑ Dairy Heifer
.7J3
❑ Farrow to Wean
-
Dry Poultry
:_
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
, ,R
Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turke PouIts
ther
Numberkdf Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
r No
❑ NA
ElNE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[�DNA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
[?;NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
[�PNA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
T No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number:
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
EpNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level intoot�thh}e structural freeboard?
`S1'ructu Structsuv S&Jre`V +S Structure 4
El ElYes
Structure
ANo
5
El NA El NE
Structure 6
e 1
Identifier: 1539 2538 A~ .2536-6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): _ 3 ,3
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
P 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
F-1 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes (8 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit'? ❑ Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [j5No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > I0% or I0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Hare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
❑ NA ❑ NE
�5No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
qNo ❑NA El NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name �'PF
';'�-
.,� Phone: ��0 3 r3,�3DD
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: S I �- Co
rage z of s 11/ldvU4 uonnnuea

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Reaulred Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 09 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Desig
n El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes EP 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 E�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes W No [:1 NA ❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
92 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
ff] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
'91 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
(8 NA
[:1 NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
IN No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
D 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
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
R] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
EJ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

M :r�mm
Type of Visit 40 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit (P Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit; L1. Arrival Time: [ Departure Time: County: !^ C-^ Region: F7eQ
Farm Name: „ ._ Edrnl 2 637 1 2.55'O_ Owner Email: 7
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:.
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
"Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: Lc= _ 402tEe_= _
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ❑ o ❑ ' = Longitude: ❑ e ❑ ' ❑ "
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Laver
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
[.Feeder to Finish
ZO
5 T
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
i . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
Design. Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:.. FLI!
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 VJ�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No 9NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
KIA
❑ NE
PNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
[ . to
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Date of Inspection f ��
Facility Number: P)1 — y b1ia
Waste, Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
f 9.No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
ONA ❑ NE
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:BA '-2s-3g F.
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
a No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
[,2,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
Q 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
KNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
ElYes
kNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) Lr7KK . +�'a'�` •�rtt • ri rrtiK - ti chi
Y
"_ r
13. Soil type(s) �6�u, r�� 1JJfu1c1- -
T-�
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
�&No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
g,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
bNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
1, c a{:.� �Y� t �s , s �4 a sy^aj� (iec1r-. 6,e_� U l a h6ve +t-e
r�_;F1CC_j
Reviewer/Inspector Name 72 M,` Phone: IlQ—
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: I:;--
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: � z — `t(p(p Date of Inspection Z" L►
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ,KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check 91Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. P9 WUp ❑ Checklists" ❑ Design -❑ Mapg` ❑ Other .
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste ApplicatieC ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis' ❑ Soil Analysig' ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification---
❑ Rainfalls'❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield❑ 120 Minute Inspections' ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections—❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30_ At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
�? No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
SNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�]c No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
LU No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[)!No
❑ NA
❑ NE
'A�,Elflltll0�lal�tyD�kfllentSTa�F��4rliTAi�V1It�S� .y `'�T,..
WU P ; S r iz �dCt� l`r:.�ru� c� -t� rt : f1 ��i''e - •1 sure �,J
20T 1X -Ce-ed,,- a'x
47C 1 ve_ C71— 5.4c
.26 `Tt e w L11z&1vz,— fit) u P does vwrt'- a,^1
-jL.Q.- 37 R-1 L �vf'Y{t s Ct rt- r-V ' • �G
;��..�; Pta.vk... tot, . � aka:.., , �crc e uc<�+,�e TrZoe-Z
l2/28104

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ®Routine 0 Complaint 0 Foliow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit: .7A d Time:
10 �� G
Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
13'Permitted 13 Certified © Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold-
s
Farm Name: —4 r A 2-7 ' 3 g County: S r Ko
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone No:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: n - Integrator•
Certified Operator: e- m v e C- Operator Certification Number. G SSS"-
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' 0 �" Longitude ` 0' 0"
Design . Current Design Cnrrenfu Design Cgrrent
S�sine` Ca actty ..Po Mahon Pnu _ C` )acrtv.'Po elation Cstde�_ .� _ ` Ca =Pn-tilatron .`
❑ Wean to Feeder 4 ❑ La cr ❑ D
❑ Feeder to Finish _ © Non -Laver _ ❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean -
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
Farrow to Finish .ZOoo L Tatal llest Ca gciK' -
Gilts
❑ Boars - - Total'Ssm
.-'Number of Lagoons ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oou Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Haldiag Ponds ! Solid _T raps JE3 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges d: Stream impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon [D Sprav 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 gallmin?
f1/,G7`
d_ Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
? 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 S Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
❑ Yes
No
Structure 1 Structure ? Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: - 3 $ a = 7
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
Continued

Facility Number: fr — 44
Date of Inspection 7 10 0
5. Are there arty 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?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes W No
❑ Yes 5No
[3 Yes P No
❑ Yes f�] No
Waste Applica .9.n
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes R No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pon/ding [I PAN El Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes P No
12. Crop type C. O F 1 /, ter,• � •s a�ci r o t l s G �cJ h c 41(- I J 6 4 !a U X) S. .
l
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes Yu No
14_ a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ED No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes q No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes [T No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes [,j( No
16. is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes 19 No
Required Recq&ds &Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ 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.) ❑ Yes [M 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 q No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes [Z No
22_ Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes El No
2.3_ Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes [ j No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes JE] No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AN 1NP? ❑ Yes f�j No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit
t on ients� (refer to question' #) Ezplaut any YES Anse a' ttrllor:aoy recommesidattons_or anv.other mmeats. x s
_ _
:Usedrawittg5 of fariltty to letter e7tplatn srtitatioas. (nose additaona! pages as netessarv) _ [] Field C ❑ Final Notes
pv N
PrvL7��^1�l Cl4c+n�C G'LL<_ +t, rw. ry 4_�21 'SC�CI600
�l01 - Q_ Q„ T \'^`\d�,II
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: (late:
05103101 Continued

Site Requires Immediate Attention:
Facility No.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
r
DATE: �-" a J , 1995
Time: 7-'1 /U P_41
Farm Name/Owner: C d 5 O C�� 3-7
Mailing Address: wry SS'b R5 le- ae 3fg Af glU ;.-93
County: s on
Integrator:_ Cd'= 1 Foods Phone: --
On Site Representative: Don LaCoe Phone:
Physical Address/Location: O'Y 51z # / g 0
Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: Number of Animals on Site: 1470 c� 50 >r�l��h�7`.� f rwr
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number. ACNEW
Latitude: o Longitude: e R
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon hvt} sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm a nt
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) lYe�or No A Freeboard: �- Ft. Inches 2/�y6c� �'
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes or�as any erosion observed? Yes or
Is adequate land available forspray? �p or No Is the.covej crop adequate?f°X �es�or No
Crop(s) being utilized:C
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings? or No
100 Feet from Wells? a �or�.Np
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes orfw
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line: Yes or 1
Is animal waste discharged into water of� state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes or � 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)? Igor No
Inspector Name
cc: Facility Assessment Unit
Signature
Use Attachments if Needed.
r1

JUL 14 ' j5 11 : 4E r,M
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTM T OF MV7ROMCENT, HEALTH & NA=LkL RFSOURCES
rayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance inspection Form
NiIKSr vr`�ISPEC�'I
3iATS "S: FI�FiI�L •
ww
=
Cocci! 5 RPC*s SKr-
-71 zs
37
j
,LP- e6L WAZSAW Fl -_C.Z39bI
- 4-342
All, questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Ccmments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perfoz= the appropriate
corrections:
�crirnv r
Ar.imal . Ooeration MZ2e:
Eorses, cattle lain , poultry, or sheep
SECTION II
i. Does the number and type of animal meet or exceed
the (.0217) Criteria? (Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
Poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal Operation REGISTRATION?
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12-menth period? .
4. Does this facility have a C�AN3ML
WASTE KANAGMENT PLAN?
S. Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
6. Does this facility meet the SC5 minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
Wells, etc?
l4-
A. i

1L� Ci �'J V'u LV c�L
JUL 14 '55 11:46nM
Field Sites Mann em mt
1. Is animal Waste stocl;-piled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
Map Blue Line Stream?
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Man
Blue Line Stream?
3. Does this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
4. Does the land application'site have a
cover crop in accordance with the
CZRTIPiCATION PLAN?
S. Is animal waste discharged into waters of
the state by man-made ditch, flushing systen,
or other similar man-made devices?
6. Does the animal waste management at this
fay adhere to Best Management Practices
- (EMP) of the approved =TTFI N-'
7. Does animal Waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? flow much? (Approximately }
e. Is the geneyaf condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
SECTION Iv
Comments

Site Requires Immediate Attention:
Facility No. _
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: i-- �'� , 1995
Time: 2 dh
Farm Name/Owner: /�'�i j� ��
Mailing Address: �7/1,���'� _ C(C, VVA AW IVr, Zk3,7W Gt 9/G—, 9 -3 ,
County: Sampson
Integrator: Carroll Foods Phone:
On Site Representative: Don LaCoe Phone:
Physical Address/Location: 5 /
Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: Number of Animals on Site: 1 D'D a„ I-W—,Co w 71 F,—? S�
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: 0Longitude: "
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) 6�s or No
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)?
Is adequate land available for spray? 9dT No
Crops) being utilized:_
Does the facility meet SCS minimum
Actval Freeboard: / Ft. 6 Inches
Yes or Was any erosion observed? Yes (SU
Is the cover crop adequate? 6Vs or No
rAn ,--T'a t /Az�luPA—
criteria? 200 Feet from
or No
100 Feet from Wells? 6Yee or No
T' w+a
Is the animal aste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or N�e1
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line: Yes or(a
Is animal waste discharged into water of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes orA 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)? De )or No
Additional Comments:
Inspector Name Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.

` JUL 14 '35 11=46-M1
NORTH CAROLM DFPARTMMC OF BfVT-R0 M iT, EMUS & NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ZqMONKEWM ISANAGMENT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal operation Compliance Inspection Form
_ FAi�f 'Ml4:
ION°-
CAM oils v$
��/�''!� 7�
asfll.iiLil�T.. M�•�ti:�r+~�'Yiw.'
F�T.r .r-�?. F2SC+iJAJr�i ��lfi\b"-[►iJlSi3�G.:v.F !-....� .�'k••
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Comments Section to enable the deened Permittee to perfo= the appropriate
corrections:
SECTION I
_mal Qipgraticn T
Horses, cattle, sss , poultry, or sheep
SECTION Ifi
EM" �• 1 iL
Z. Does the number and type of animal meet or exceed
the (.0217) criteria? (Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 bird with liquid Waste
system)] •
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal Operation REGISTRAT:r
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12-month period?
4. Does this facility have a C n7M ]IM AL
WASTE NaMG M" PLAM
5. Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
6. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc?

j UL 14 ' 55 11 : 4o^ni --
�'^Tzc*1 III
Y N COMM22f TS
Field Site Managempnt
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
Construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
?lap Blue Line Stream?
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25.ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream?
3. Does this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
8. Does the land application'site have a
cover crop in accordance with the
CZRTiFICATIDN PLAN?
5. Is animal waste discharged into graters of
hhe state by man, -made ditch, flushing system,
or other similax marl -made devices?
5. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Bert Management Practices
- CBMT) of the approved C Q77Y1CAj=1
7. Does animal Waste lagoon have sufficieat
freeboard? How much? (Approximately
8. Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
SFCrIflN IV
COTme-lit s

v-, .ate r