260064_Compliance Routine Inspection_20210406

112 I "0
Type of Visit: -Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit:G,[toutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: I i, (Q'a,d I ^ Arrival Time: /
Farm Name: Call p
31 `itricw pig nvrGeNl
FP 14- OM
Owner Name: LQI'hJ 6QGon
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: LQ i i eac5on
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
ENTERED TO
LASERFICHE
APR 19 2021
Title:
Departure Time:
ItNS I
Owner Email:
Phone:
County: CYmHllandRegion: fro
'110-2�-1-g,V15
Phone
DEQ/DWH W QHOS (J{ yy q /�
rAvrnFVIIIEREGIONAL OFFICE Integrator: i I��j
i
Latitude:
Certification Number: di 0 ] V
Certification Number:
Longitude:
LQSfi INQet ect by 6111 duniap
■
r�
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Pullets
Other
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No -RNA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 1SJ, No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes j.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes TNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ NoNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No 173. NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
2/4/2015 Continued

Facility Number: o((0 -
Date of Inspection: MIlrI;t?
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?
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA 0 NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
O :l
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 0 Yes NNo 0 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? Keep bqnKS mowed ELYes ❑No El NA ❑NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes "No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No 0 NA ❑ NE
O Excessive Ponding 0 Hydraulic Overload 0 Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN 0 PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. 0 Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift 0 Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(grettlefl COrNJ 1 01erceed
Structure 6
13. Soil Type(s): WO04 i ng ton, Na hun to
❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA 0 NE
❑ Yes ]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes No 0 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? 0 Yes IS\LNo 0 NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes <o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? 0 Yes `SI No 0 NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check 0 Yes "
' I o El NA 0 NE
the appropriate box. �
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design 0 Maps 0 Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0 NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard 0 Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall 0 Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes'No 0 NA 0 NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? 0 Yes No ❑ NA 0 NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/2015 Continued

Facility Number: ace - ce
Date of Inspection: 11(4 2,1
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes tS.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes b.No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ YesNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes NONtlo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
Contnients (refer'; to question (4) Explain:ahy DES "answers anll/or any addittona
flowdrawings of facility to Metter explain 't ' ti ` ( ddit 1
❑ Yes 'No 0 NA 0 NE
❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
r as ops use a Iona pages as;n$ee5sa;y)
tote, dive to covey! f4:rm cugGnfi INcbpec(d IN 2020-
Kcal, Lqgoon 6cifiN; rnGwed .
Nom CQf( bratfon
3 CivcJ9'Q qwi Vj dec t31 Q6;21.
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Wife fonteitt
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
OcALe._40-0-Ping"
Phone: { 1 1 • S I & Ill ✓
Date: ' I � LI
2/4/2015