820455_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA J
Department of Environmental Qual
F

W
Type of Visit: O Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review U Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: Emoutine O Complaint Q Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: / Arrival Time: F/Departure Time: /�.` County:
Farm Name: �/`►1 ✓L {f'' p r ,ti /- G ,� Owner Email:
Owner Name:p/'11�^' �"%grot'�ii^- LLC Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title: Il z-✓ Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: :_-rte Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Region:
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
❑ Yes allo [DNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes R1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes El No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 214/2011 Continued
Design Current
�-
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
Layer
Dai Cow
Dai Calf
Dai Heifer
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish 0910 D Q
Farrow to Wean
D . Poul - __
Design
_ Ca aci
Current
P,o P.
D Cow
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Non -La ers
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Gilts
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
ether
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
❑ Yes allo [DNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes R1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes El No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 214/2011 Continued

' Facility Number: - S" Date of lus ection: //—/y
!/
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Waste Collection & Treatment
❑ Yes
[, No
❑ NA
❑ NE
( 4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
2CNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure t Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
❑ NA
Identifier:
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ' ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
Spillway?:
❑ Yes
fa No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Designed Freeboard (in): Z2: _
❑ Yes
Dg No
❑ NA
Q NE
Observed Freeboard (in): _ 3�I
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
[a No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
S. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
Q NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑'PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop
Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s): �Q
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes Jg No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Reauired Records & Documents
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check
❑ Yes
[, No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box_
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
EZ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ' ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
fa No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
Dg No
❑ NA
Q NE
Page 2 of 3 1/4/2011 Continued

Facility Number: IDate of Inspection: —
/%
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
Yes
[El No
NA NE
r
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
Yes
CB -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 structures) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
[]Yes
O No
DNA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
[:]Yes
12 No
[-] NA NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
[:] Yes
® No
E] NA NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
'
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
Yes
[Z No
[:] NA NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
Yes
allo
D NA E:] NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facilityl if yes, check the appropriate box below_
Yes
Co 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
KA 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
W No
NA NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES: answers and/or any additional recommendatitons or,any other 6iiiiniiii
Use drawings.of facility to better explain situations:(use additional pages as necessary} ; ., ;
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
214/2011

�r =acifity
Type of Visit Q<o_mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit &Froutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time:1,� O Departure Time: `. � County: Region:
10,
Farm Name: ��SLi"-a bis �es/�� _ Owner Email;
Owner Name: f..1 L :52 _ Phone;
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: .1.yR'`- Phone No: .'moi 7a_�3
Onsite Representative: &-e-et-f— AA1`V— Integrator:
Certified Operator:�`��'1 "� Operator Certification Number:/ 7 1101
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: E=0 0'= " Longitude: =0=1
001 0 u
Discharees & 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?
❑ Yes UNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes
El No
El NA
El NE
❑ Yes
DesignMe uffent
❑ NA
Design Current
Design Curren#
Swioe Capacity Population
Wet Pttultr3=
Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ NE
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ NE
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Nm -Layer
Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ NE
5d Feeder to Finish / D ffV
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ D Cow
El Farrow to Feeder
❑ La ers
[ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Turke s
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Other,
❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharees & 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?
❑ Yes UNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes
El No
El NA
El NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ Ni
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

t,
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?
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
❑ Yes [&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): f I
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes JqNo ❑ 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 PNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require [] Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are therc any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes M -No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes JR No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > l0% or 10 lbs []Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift [:]Application Outside of Area
12_ Crop type(s)-
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving; crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes Q3_No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes [ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments. (refer to question # •. Explain any YES,aoswers andlor=an recommeodatio_ns or' bier commentsa
Use drawings of.facility to better explain situatioiis (use additional=pages as necessary)
�w Wezoii_ 7L)
0
Reviewer/Inspector Name STz�
Phone: 910 J
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: J11— / 48
page 2 of 3 r - 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection:
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes B -No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ W'UP ❑ Checklists
❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below_ ❑ Yes [RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? .
27_ Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
33_ Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes 4,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
JgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
;,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
JaNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
5& No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
F*ENo
[INA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[-lo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
U2�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Giimatents and/or Dra►vrngs:. �;-
Page 3 of 3 12/28/04
Page 3 of 3 12/28/04

Yz H mss
Type of Visit ()-C-o-m-pliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: I2 -D Arrival Time: %' !f Departure Time: ���/O County: Region:
Farm Name: I" e5b'C_ lye 6b S �`�`"�- Owner Email:
Owner Natne: t e 5 r' <- ku b G' -S Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: _ •`� ✓ �N �� tom. Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No -
Integrator, M— i3em-i/✓
/79/_�
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = e =I = 11
Longitude: = ° =' = u
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Design Current
etlogltry Capacity Population
Design Current
Cattle G►apaci#y Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -La er
❑ Da' Calf
0 0
Feeder to Finish [l j '000
a_ Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Da Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ D Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Yes
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Brood Co
❑ No
❑ TkBeef
urc s
❑ NE
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turkey Points
❑ Other
Nutrtlier of Structures:
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes0No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a_ Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
['f idA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
81 A
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
�A
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
O'Tio
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
EM -o
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12/28/04
Continued

Facility Number: 92
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: 40-
Structure 4
❑ Yes dxo
❑ Yes 3 -No
Structure 5
El NA El NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): 15
Observed. Freeboard (in): 2-1 Er
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? El Yes Lr 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 Dio ❑ 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 L'1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8_ Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes l TNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) ,_,/
4. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes L� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
El Yes IJ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
El No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift Application Outside of Area
f❑
12. Crop type(s) ��f-.+,c._ l N,c. ►-.:..r lE�. S.l
13. Soil type(s) iJa B
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes
B<O
[:1NA [INE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes
E?<o
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination'[] Yes
L��, 1/Vo
El NA El NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
l�No
ElNA [:1NE
18, Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ElYes
2// o
❑ NA ❑ NE
questiiiu°'#)
c�
Reviewer/Inspector Name j—k'ic:k ;Zev igi:" ;$ ' . ; ;. Phone. qlO r 433,330
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:Date: 12 -9,01 '200 9
1.2128/04 Continued

• •
Facility Number: g2 —y5 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have 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 ❑ Other
❑ Yes
LI No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
L' No
❑ NA
❑ NE
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
E1 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 [I Weather
Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
[__1Yes
L7 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[3<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[:1 NA
El NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
ElD Yes
,ED
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes L7 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes B'%+o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
El'N'o
ElNA
E-3NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
E 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
�/
L� 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
El Yes
,—
I� 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?
El Yes
Lr'.,iN
El NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
8<0
❑ NA
[:1
❑ NE
Ad¢�ti aal ,CamntentsiandLor.Draw�ags:
1228(04
1228(04

�f ✓;�35 / - 0 8 - o 9 Re--
Facility Number
421' ivision of Water Quality
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit (ari cmpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit e'Ifoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 12-17-D Arrival Time: �'/S',, , Departure Time: %.� County:. _ �4"� Sa ^� Region: F2
Farm Name: Z e -S %i e. eJ�g�S 'ca r",..... Owner Email:
Owner Name: Ze-sli•z A465 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �rt 6400tom Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: 67o-,-cY /tad re— Integrator: &W �., �o�'J
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: =0 =I ="
Longitude: 0 ° = I = u
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
1❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Rg Feeder to Finish /Q
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
I.El Other
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et
Dry Poultry
❑
Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream im acts
1 _ is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
E]Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dai
❑ Beef Stockei
❑ 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 2To ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
2<A
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
ETNA-
❑ NE
311A
❑ NE
El Yes
❑ No
El Yes
E ivo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28/04 Continued

t
Facility Number: $2 — . Date of Inspection
Reviewer/Inspector Name %ti I,C_IC e lolls Phone: 910, V33, 33.3©
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: d'_� Date: /Z—/i- z6e 9
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes [3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ffNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:/
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 2-7
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
�
❑ �,No
Yes L•�
❑ 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 ETNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuetures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? 1:1 Yes ENo El NA [:1 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 Q<0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste ADDlication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ElD Yes o ❑ 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 Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) BerA4 /Gra �� 11 G r4 i .., C �•S.
13. Soil type(s) Na,,Zj
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement'?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
�No NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
ff-N. ❑ NA ❑ NE
ff -Nom❑ NA EJ NE
L�'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): c
Reviewer/Inspector Name %ti I,C_IC e lolls Phone: 910, V33, 33.3©
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: d'_� Date: /Z—/i- z6e 9
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: S'2 —# -
_4Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [Y<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes E] ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists
❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other /
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking [:ICrap Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections �E] Weather Cade
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ,E o El NA El NE
B
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
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?
❑ Yes
oo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�L—��
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
(31or
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CA WMP?
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
3 I. 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?
Comments and/or Drawings;
❑ Yes PKo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
B o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
D fqO
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
tsrvo
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:1 Yes D o [I NA El NE
❑ Yes
1 Ivo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
EJM'
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28/04

IP
J -
Division of Water Quality
Facility Number , Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint )q Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: l % b% ii Arrival Time: © Departure'rime: 02 � County: S � Region:
Farm Name: �ltn S -.L6" �Q Vl r� Owner Email:
Owner Name: UA k JL n�b S Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: jj� r )) __ II,^� -- II
Facilih, Contact: �t lk �drn f'ol, Title: f Qrfn C� —Phone No: ��� 1,e77.2—
Onsite Representative: ,Olr Integrator: i `) —!J
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feede
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =0
=6
Longitude: =0=, = "
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑_Layer
❑ Non-Laye,
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey1'oults
❑ 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 PopulaAygn: ;
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl I
Number of Structures: I )
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 1P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
`K NA
❑ NE
[]Yes
❑ No
!qNA
❑ NE
�.
KP4A
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
ITNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
\] NA
❑ NE
12/28/04 Condnued

Fat ility INumber: � -� Date of inspection
!�
❑ Yes
❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
ANE15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
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:
❑ No
❑ NA
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment'?
❑ Yes
Observed Freeboard (in):
❑ NA
)�?NE
5. ediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
`Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large tree vere erosion, seepage, etc.)
ere structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
�
❑ Yes `EtNo
❑ 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 ANE
❑ 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
❑ No
❑ NA
ANE15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
El Yes
El No
[INA
NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
El No
❑ NA
WNE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
[I Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
IDNE
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 V 7 Phone: 1� 10 3
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Z� p
121281W Con inued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection 7 O
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ANE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ATE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists
❑ Design El Maps F-1 Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [lE
❑ 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 'SkNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA XNE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA NNE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA qNE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
Other Issues
_qNE
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA IR -NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA KNE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
MNo
El NA El 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
O 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 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
% Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NIP
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:.
�- 40,1a cjy1 6 ac,% ,
v,
Mu S7( C.t0-� 4 art
'tr.e-er
j
+ rW �o i� [ �� � ►�-� ,-�
Ie
C
ak6u C� n
,
C'
rr
rylQ- 41� KA_ nte. e
y �fhaS e
11 -
S1-txJ d 6A f es u r v e
d r �� C c -p -d
.
12/28/04

r�
.r
inion of Water Quality
Facility Number ��j` O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region: /n 2
Farm Name: /"G; ' c 4 X s r,�.. r Owner Email:
OwnerName: Liu Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title. Phone No:3S:5�
Onsite Representative: 5 Integrator: ,zz�d 4a
Certified Operator: ` rf ep--k- D /` 7 7 Operator Certification Number:
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
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: [= e =4
Longitude: =TD =' E=],,
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑
Layer
-� ❑ Non -La ei
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ on -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑
Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Dischar es & Stream lm acts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Cattle
'Design Current;
Capacity ; Populaiior�e °,s
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stacker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Strictures:
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
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ,R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12/28/04 Continued

1
®-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
Facility Number• — Date of Inspection
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
&No
Waste Collection & Treatment
❑ NE
Reviewer/inspector Name
Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
J4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): �}
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
19 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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
(KYes
❑ 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
X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
C] Yes
®,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NF
❑ 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) ;&__e /D V rt/'
13. Soil type(s) 10Q
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes ,K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes 10 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
9 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):
/yZOG[J 4�zf�pp�'`- ��u- ���Jf%� ✓ yr��j�tvi '" `�' � ��
�1
ffDW 1►7 d✓G 7ro �7 z± /`�Yl2adre�
Reviewer/inspector Name
Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
12/.28/04 Continued

Facility Dumber. Date of Inspection 7
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 91No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists
❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ,.Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ,KMonthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
E No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
B No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
.0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
0 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
N 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
J3 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
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
�+
{� } lGu� �r 0
AL
12/2&/04

f
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 Q Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit I A0 =06 Arrival Time: 49:OQp-.i, Departure Time: J q County: s4LMP-'q0A1 Region: r -AQ
, r fmr,-
Farm Name; Les I le HtO�S Farm (C1art-. R+ cQ "lrnIer Email:
! Mt.
OwnerName: �f, �.[SEtt' r+06_ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 1r1A la es DqfL Title:
Onsite Representative: t(
IF
Certified Operator: 4(
Back-up Operator:
Phone No;
Integrator: Atwol��
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: ❑ 0 ET = Longitude: = ° = f ❑ u
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b_ Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes FNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
Design
Current
:3
Design Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity
Population Wet Paul#ry
Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
0 N
❑ Layer
0 N
❑Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ NA
❑ Non -Layer
[:]Yes
airy Calf
® Feeder to Finish
p$p
❑ Dai Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean;
Dry Poultry
s , ..,_
_ 5
_
❑ D Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood CovA
-
❑ Turkeys
❑ Other
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
NNumber of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b_ Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes FNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
IONA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
(9 NA
EINE
bNA
0 N
❑Yes
0 N
0 Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
bNo
[:INA
❑ NE
12/28/04 Continued

4f
Facility Number: Bxt
Date of inspection ! Z
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 P NA ❑ NE
Str�ure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: r
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
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(�
No
[INA
El NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 46 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
T Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
R3 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
J�jNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
ER No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes rpNo ❑ 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 Driifl ElApplicationOutside of Area
12. Crap types) x,nCW g S C.tRS � . Sr,ay )n Vftl=,o(
13. Soil type(s) VJggv-, ,,, — U)4
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA J" NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes 01 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA oM NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA A NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes fp No ❑ NA EINE
Comments (arefer.to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments a
'Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12/79104 Continued

f
Facility Number: Date of Inspection p
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 CA WMP readily available? If yes, check �b 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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes W No [INA ❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Q§ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[P 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
PNA
EINE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMF?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
PINE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ yes
❑ No
❑ NA
KI 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
3 L
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
KI 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
Fa] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
QwCaC_ CjR 2fl. -�o
2 �.o.. S Q$o' 00 v -CTorr% -r- ° —
r � r�
.) -
4045 oWoe, 4,,, eJD14, pl -
F -i -Ce
Page 3 of 3 12/28104

� Division of Water CQuality
Fgcility Nu>;nber $.T , SN971Dirvision of�Soil and Water Conservation
�MIMMQ Older Agency
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: $ / Arrival Time. / Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm name: _ clad( R", r Feat..,/ Owner Email:
Owner Name: G/a,/t 9"'r_ C�'r,�,� �n _2av yL_ Phone:
Mailing Address: 733 Rank' -di Anad_ 6,10E] NC. �83�1j
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Baca: -up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title: Phone No:
Integrator: La-,zid-L s
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
a° o° =I; =O=g o,i
Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
EWeederto Finish v
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder i
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
❑ Layer
❑ Non -La et i
Dry Poultry,
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ 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?
Design Current'
Cattle Capacity Population
❑
Dairy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures:
©.` . .
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If 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 21C
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
LliQE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑'NiE
❑ NA
❑_,'E
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
El No
El NA
C2'lE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
LTJ NE
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: 1 Date of Inspection Ef
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? 0 Yes fir] -Ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: /
Spillway?: rn 'Ao
Designed Freeboard (in): �
Observed Freeboard (in): 34r a
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes M -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 leo ❑ 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? 0 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA LI -NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 9 -KE
(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 [2<E
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA �1E
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA G?&E
❑ 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
❑ No
❑ NA
91N�E
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NAr�
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination`[]
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
PSE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[INA
J21TE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[:INA
2<E
k161 -S&AC
.2y
Om 1.t3cp,-n leve I. 4e*,4/ w,S 4/—
Reviewer/inspector Namefi%rTa�s Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: .. i Date: 0'-jA:2C
12/28104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19_ Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [2qE
the appropirate box.
❑ WLJP El Checklists ❑Design El Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA EaNE
❑ 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
❑ NA
ETNE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
DINE
25_
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
0 Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
D NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[21�E
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
❑ No
❑ NA
2NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
E3NE
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
El No
El NA
��
!!1 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
ZINE
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
,ONE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
OKE
Additional;.Corntnents and/ori)arawings,,,, j, ,
F.,
��x� ,.�
:�
. i�
12/2,104

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ' pQ Departure Time: County: -1:4-ono,kpi Region: %b
Farm Name: CInr-Al 4,'re _ _rf3_em Owner Email:
Owner Name: _ CI&PR 0L Mme. A'rr r .,�rt(_�s Fq Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 'Fitle:
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
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = 0 =I
= Longitude: =0=,
°=, =
Design Current Design Current
Capacity PopulationWet Poultry Capacity Population
[EllLa er
I 1i ❑ Non -La et
Other
❑ Other --
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkev 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 Heifer
❑
Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co.
Number of Structures: t
b. Did the discharge reach waters oi'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?
M
❑ Yes U-Iqo ❑ NA ❑ NE
0 Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
91�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Q.Ieo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12/28/04 Continued

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 9,NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 21�E
(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 Q0&E
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10_ Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ERNE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ["NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
I2. Crop types)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
Facility Number: q Date of Inspection
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
[I -'9E
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination',[]
Yes
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes [04o
❑ 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: "'J`
O'�E
Spillway?: h0
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate -threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
[3 -IgE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA
Oqh
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 9,NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 21�E
(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 Q0&E
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10_ Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ERNE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ["NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
I2. Crop types)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
U -ME
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[I -'9E
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination',[]
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[J T4E
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑'&E
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
O'�E
A 41
S�af{ os4l
Aar•.., Tu e,4,,k
a, 1-4e
;4a
}farm S:nrt Ar �s i
I[e'�7�
l.esf >�Qll.
I31 it frac%wr as
0 &alo
4o1 1,4e '00voer
.,,a -le idr
TAe
-servire rr+an j
Mr. 09lesiee- , is
At k;, 9
care of 14e
flops cn/ �/. of ,+fie
Reviewer/Inspector Name ��' ,�;1 Phone: 1/O• If A3o
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: LxaL gAa�= Date: f, - _'4 -05-
1212&'04
' g -o5-
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: —h Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA O<E
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? Ifyes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ®'1 f�E
the appropirate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA E2'9E
❑ 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
I -VE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
�' E
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
0'1�E
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
L3<E
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
EKE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
L2'1�iE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
P-IGi�
29. Did the facility fail to property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
CIN9
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
J'KE
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
[2'f1E
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/]nspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑,<E
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
0'1413
Additional Cptttments;aud%ar�DravtEiigsMIR
'
ryjoclAll done
3,c..a-#--
CV-CIe+�, yv.n,� job
S:n t e
14 r } {•c //, /Yl P. 09 les ie r .Sr ra/! 7F/r of
Rana/y
7yno%d �rrn !oa �po��oi
70 G+O
�4m1 oma/`e p�/w�d,'pp� Z2 wig 0%,rraTO!'f4v.tC
r J
aaw>, �G•�9•os,
/ict 1eacl aU S uCrss.
/e
11/28104

E
Type of Visit • Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
IReason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notfiication O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number yS� Date off Visit:
Q =Not Operational Q Below Threshold
D_rmitted "e ed [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ...
/f r
Farm Name: ...... County:......
'ql0 ~ :;
Owner Name:............�lA!'.�......._-�.»_�/L... �C.�_......._..._...................................... Phone No:.....1......--------=�3:....�3L.Q......................._............._.
Mailing Address: P uf! aCa: � .- kgs 1 .. ................. .._.
Facility Contact: .. !�!.�_..je� ......... „ ...................... Title:.............. Phone No:
Onsite Representative: , JQ_. s-�l�itx�.......... .................................................. Integrator-
Certified
ntegratorCertified Operator:,(�a �Q_ ��1L....... ....................... Operator Certification Number:%
Location of Farm:
_ J'W
wine ❑ ]Poultry '[] Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �• �� �'° Longitude �• �� �«
Discharges & Stream I_ mpaets
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes E314o
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes 01 o
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes [Tio
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow. in gal/min? �r
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes iplo
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 2"go
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes Q'FTo
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:............I....................... ........................... ..... — ................. ......... ..................
Freeboard (inches):
12112103 Continued

1 Facility Number: —
Date of inspection
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?
S. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancerimprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Aaigication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
5-
80
12. Crop type
elrnu�r� .Swyer// Gres; -
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?
Odor Issues
I7. 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?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
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
Air Quality representative immediately.
❑ Yes [�rNo
❑ Yes 6k;
❑ Yes To
❑ Yes <0
❑ Yes 0<
❑ Yes O No
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes 8140,
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [ 10
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes O No
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes O No
GOinm�t5 {refer t0 jues 10II ) any Y answers and/or 8ny i minl attOnS OT 8ny Other comments.
Use drawm oi£ city to betttr expta n stnatJto. (uset�ani�i pages a necsry) 2Aield Copy ❑ Final Notes ` z
TkS {Grw� .s e: y9 To 6C le.,j Ce,, ir} i00
-
T
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: AP4 Date: L2 -9.0 y
61
12112103 Continued

•
Facility Number: —[i �� Date of Inspection 6
Required Records & Documents
reA a
J3. M //
�n 41C, �6Al, All Rr[I f
L-A .0 I /�
4i �e 1A c T /a At a Ir
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?es
e_
i • [fir r
S /tBioaro iCCore4S Ae Quinol
22_ Does thefiacility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
A y �vaS C o r S e • I �v ws�y liS sr -204 '1, Ala
R6[artfS 0� Sr�� �Q% �ooY. /least Lo'��'nae 7e loe/60f F40A7
Rccar6/5. P�tas[ ca// �►+e AMW /ne..k '61-411 7$- 6p q10- 4f8t, - I5-4il r<f %30
whit �r rcc oto,,$
�iu..�/ pr r �,•,v i1.wt Q,ty 4vrs�`.o�5.
Q # g— {ar p Fe/
(fel , checHststs, de}t�n, OKetc_}
❑Yes
[�t�a
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysi�❑ Soil Samplin�
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
@-K4
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
M -Ko -
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
O -Ko
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
❑ Yes
QXo
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
M4O
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
[-Io
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
E�i_
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
❑ No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
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
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
iti6nal Comments andh Dranvtngs _ s , : ry 1 ='
J3. M //
�n 41C, �6Al, All Rr[I f
L-A .0 I /�
4i �e 1A c T /a At a Ir
e_
i • [fir r
S /tBioaro iCCore4S Ae Quinol
�p/ //
^[I°� Oar 'L�C
JAi Ant �/mTrr L✓p� C7ar/r. �or Ael
A y �vaS C o r S e • I �v ws�y liS sr -204 '1, Ala
R6[artfS 0� Sr�� �Q% �ooY. /least Lo'��'nae 7e loe/60f F40A7
Rccar6/5. P�tas[ ca// �►+e AMW /ne..k '61-411 7$- 6p q10- 4f8t, - I5-4il r<f %30
whit �r rcc oto,,$
�iu..�/ pr r �,•,v i1.wt Q,ty 4vrs�`.o�5.
Q # g— {ar p Fe/
12/12/03 '
S

Site Requires Immediate Attention:
Facility No. Z
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: 7- S , 1995
Time:
//a
Farm Name/Owner: K IC A f -:F-
Mailing Address: ,��,� /3r 'V �3y/ Z2 yea r-13-33/6
County: S tet/
Integrator:) s U S Phone:
On Site Representative: a N CO e' Phone:
Physical Address/Luca on: =-M• & !V A -Yd '/was. �c 4A6f e� `e' l }"e'&e X
c P, AI s O I/4/ ' A4 ,- rE E'sr o -_/ 2 --
Type
Type of Operation: Swine _4/ Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: Number of Animals on Site: Z 0
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: Longitude: "
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) Pagqp�(s).1)
r No Actual Freeboard:-1—Ft. Inches
Was any seepage observed from the Yes or •�J Was any erosion observed? Yes or
Is adequate land available for spray? i0or No Is the cover crop adequate? JN9 or No
Crop(s) being utilized: C, f , 5 rg
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings? &6 or No
100 Feet from Wells? je )or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or le)
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line: Yes or
Is animal waste discharged into water of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes or6d 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:. _ ....__
Inspector Name
Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed_

19ORTS CAROLMA DEPAcRnMgT OF E' rZR0*X--x-Ni, EZALTE & NAT CAL R=U-ft=S
DIVISION OF MWIROMM�AL HXQW AO=�'p'V'7
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Ca--pIia :ee Inspec`. i n Por--
-P�HIi"
C.AR1C R1 CCE 7 45
X]173+ZK{�DDRFS.S
�r-z �Brar, �5 �i cSa�c SLC. �g 34� 9 do - sd3�- 33 r o
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in Su_`fic=en= deta:,1 in
the Cosrr:sents Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the aparo=-ate
cors ec i ons :
� On I
inial Operation Ty -pe:
Sorses, cattle, poultry, or sheep
ragg-'ION 11
7 . Does the nusn3er and tyre of animal meet or exceed
the (.0237) criteria? (Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
systea)1 •
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal Operation RiEGISTRATIM.
3. Are animals confined ted or maintained
in this facility for a 12 -mantis period?
4. Does this facility have a CgEZIEM AMMAL
WASTE NAMG MMiT PLAM
S. Does this facility maintain wras4e management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific ac.=eage with
specific Cover =op)?
6. Does this facility meet the 5C5 minimum
setback criteria for neighbcri:_g houses,
wells, et-?
D21

TION
III
. �
•
,. Fr i� s3`a r��.�Cp.:,w�:
1.
Is azinal waste stockpiled or lagoa.
co.istractian wit-hin 100 ft. of at DSGS
Hap Blue Line St_e=?
2.
Is arimal vase land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USCS Mian
Blue Line Streaa?
3.
Does this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
4.
Does the land applicatior.'site have a
cover crap in accordance with the
CZRTIPICATION FLA -1q?
S.
Is arimai waste disc --barged into waters of
the state by man-made ditch, flush'_ng systen,
or other similar man-made devices?
6.
Does the animal waste management at this
fay adhere to Best Management Practices
(_:LM) of the approved [E.RTIPXCATTO T.
7.
Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approximately )
S.
Is the general cardition of this CArO facility,
i.cluding management and operation,
satisfactory?
5BCTION N
Cam.:.e_nt s
JuL �•
T I x ) C F_—_ z Ls,—L

u �V v