640072_Inspection_20210820

()O
Facility Number
EMI
o Division of Water Resources
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other 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 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:
rk I MMO
Arrival Time:
1cf. 00I
Departure Time:
Farm Name: 1 c-c w~ ra Owner Email:
County:
Region: CYSO
Owner Name: 0 1 f kQ / C e eC Phone: r `r' -342 Q„ / p { 5
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
e ec6 { 1 ki 1 God
Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
i'"a6c13 © irk ei-
1)
Sort
rn dd
acoc
Swine
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
iiker
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
1ot0
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
'Layer
Non -Layer
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
gag
ya9-
q
Discharges and 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 DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes IZINo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Zi No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
No
No
f71/No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
5/12/2020 Continued

(Facility Number: 0 (I r IDate of Inspection: 42.0 I
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
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate th gr ty y --true u es observed?
F-/ �- t
❑ Yes
El Yes
Structure 4 Structure 5
LeahtsaLi
reats to the into i o an of th t r
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
1-0
Ga-ge091
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
10 No ❑ NA
No ❑ NA
Structure 6
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ Yes LiNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes El No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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 izrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ff 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 rNo ❑ 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?
1 1. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑i'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
[] Yes ErNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes It No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes []}No El NA ❑NE
❑ Yes [r No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If ycs, check ❑ Yes IA No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements pother:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes J No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? 0 Yes
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes
Page 2 of 3
❑ NA ❑ NE
0 Weather Code
El Sludge Survey
ElNo El NA El NE
0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2/4/2015 Continued

'Facility Number: l p I Date of Inspection: IQ.l0/rr2 l
24. Did the facility fail to alibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? tt ❑ Yes c2i No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3--11- .
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. 3 - a 3- Q 0
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? [] Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? D YesIZI-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes No E 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 INo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes 1No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewrinspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes 2-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ONE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pares as necessary).
eat it br1 3.4 � 3 - 17 , a o ' a� 3 0 p rY\ r dcia,o(Ic rr {r1
. , or as q p m /, p vvi Lodes
5locly Survey 7-I5.a + rui o= 5,5
/I F, v: 1,13 p--- t/,€
ohbs��eLokr p1- 31-10 _v5O 0 = 5, P= 50,sam
coed qc -15 -) /10WEa5 a,07
LcO-D00- )-a6-ay Ft�-O,I`� F1 1,a5 Fa
(-1900561� y-q-al Re)_ot51 fl: 1,95 F=0.0?
co o a F410 41a ', - 1-53
5cia 5 axNcy 7-1 D- a 0 S C..0000 LI q `FOk-eL e-fie c5 Ir+h' n L I+rn / 45
'i tAtos� � rcc�p �ci sFile 1 / affsliN o-v doix_QA- 10.4or_o / a k),m
VEi-t oY1 Ne_ed-e__6 c i,\ 51 d o-Q 1. roYn-s6 11
,
L 4-0 ��r-�- S- a . K �' c�-�a s - o�./ ac (o. I le
ReviewerrInspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
S• 31- Jb
Phone:
Date:
1
j q
5/12/2020