090151_Inspection_20201027

_ >__ a6ivision of Water Resources - a f flG ' t)1_ .a
Facility Numbere �� Division of Soil and.Water Conservation
' 0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: ereompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: /p 77.. Arrival Time:V/,31 Departure Time: 4;2 ! cD County: _filaeL,N.. Region:
Farm Name: ) .3 ,Fr-,.'S r r,,1 I Owner Email:
Owner Name: Fri?'S--r— fa_t',n, 1/cL Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: eu .7ar to i Title: 2-j_ S —e_ Phone:
Onsite Representative: ,�j ,t Integrator: , . 'a. hi
Certified Operator: ��_,f�. -/ (Ir Certification Number: Q-
8S7Sf
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
•
__Design Current Design Current ,Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle Capacity ,-Pop.
Wean to Finish Layer ' Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder Non-Layer Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish ei -6 Via) Dairy Heifer
_Farrow to Wean Design Current Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder . D Poul Ca 1 aci Pot. Non-Dairy
Farrow to Finish MEEMI-- Beef Stocker •
Gilts •Non-La ers -- Beef Feeder
Boars •Pullets -- Beef Brood Cow
Other El Turke Poults
Other El Other
Discharnes and Stream Impacts
1.Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State?(If yes,notify DWR) ❑ 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 DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No 0 NA ❑ NE
2.Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes To ❑ 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 2/4/2015 Continued

Facility Number: 9— - f S l Date of Inspection:/p 7`77(17.1a
Waste Collection&Treatment
4.Is storage capacity(structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall)less than adequate? ❑ Yes. Ergo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a.If yes,is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard(in): / f
Observed Freeboard(in):
5.Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [r 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 134 ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes,and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,notify DWR
7.Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes [l]rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8.Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ["No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits,dry stacks,and/or wet stacks)
9.Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes E No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10.Are there any required buffers,setbacks,or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes io ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11.Is there evidence of incorrect land application?If yes,check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes L No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals(Cu,Zn,etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN> 10%or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence
of Wind/Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12.Crop Type(s): l.�'h26cf c�G ®Gl��� l° / />t�c-,s / �ci
, u/F `�
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? 0 Yes L Io ❑ NA ❑ NE
16.Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes 2"/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17.Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes Er10 ❑ NA ❑ NE
18.Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes Q'lclo ❑ NA 0 NE
Required Records&Documents
19.Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage&Permit readily available? ❑ Yes Q'clo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20.Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?If yes,check ❑ Yes Q'1CIo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21.Does record keeping need improvement?If yes,check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [?]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Waste Application ❑Weekly Freeboard ❑Waste Analysis ❑Soil Analysis ❑Waste Transfers ❑Weather Code
❑Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑Crop Yield 0 120 Minute Inspections ❑Monthly and 1"Rainfall Inspections ❑Sludge Survey
22.Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ITo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23.If selected,did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes [E]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/2015 Continued

Facility Number: - /57 Date of Inspection: //7
24.Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes Ergo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25.Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes,check Yes g'i o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es)below.
❑Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s)and date of first survey indicating non-compliance: /I "
26.Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes []No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27.Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments(PLAT)certification? ❑ Yes Ergo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28.Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes Oslo ❑ 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 Quo 0 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. o ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit?(i.e.,discharge,freeboard problems,over-application)
31.Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?If yes,check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Er-go ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32.Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes []No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33.Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative? ❑ Yes [/]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34.Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes 12 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments(refer to;question`#):Explain any YES answers°and/or any additional recommendations or any otherco'mments
Use drawings of facility tobetter explain situations(use additional pages as necessary).,:
r„, /27. . /` ,07 �j' S iy� jvDt,J
Reviewer/Inspector Name: i/ `'C v �vtl" Phone: 93/ �T�3�/5/
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: �/ Date: /0 ,-;- 7:--„20,P0
Page 3 of 3 2/4/2015