820539_Routine_20211022

fyrgiop of WaterRes0S
o1 o
.a
Type of Visit: C pliance 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:
Farm Name:
lc 3a•;1
Arrival Time:
G: L to
? ne. t d q-e Foci LLC
Owner Name: Ti rn an d I l 11 i l r
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Departure Time:
r40
Owner Email:
Phone:
County: SQli)PSOfl Region: "HT
Facility Contact: Cuttisj FA I J U`
Onsite Representative: `iq mQ (� In n
Certified Operator: J a C�i et Sa I to e r
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Iew ;pc,
Latitude:
Integrator:
Phone:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
lFt'Swine
Design
apacity
�tii'topt $ ' � * z
1'bp x fi Wet Poultry
f
be6lgn CnNrentDesign
Capaottyt. Pop.
Cattle
a
Capacit
,(Sut`tent
k at'
op
lct
Wean to Finish
Layer
j
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non Layer
"
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
;t� E
T
D' � 1?oq� '.,
1 r l
Destgn Cuur reht
j { 6 i 1
Ca"iag? ^ ° � HQ1
G'�
Dairy Heifer
%y µ,
Farrow to Wean
X
; ,p
n4,
A
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
s p==
Non -Dairy
!h m.
Farrow to Finish
'r`�[�--,
i;,•Non-Layers
--
Beef Stocker
Gilts
?
Beef Feeder
#"?
Boars
� Pullets
--
Beef Brood Cow
4 q
F i
,
Turkeys
{
�Turke Poults
Other
--
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)
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 1 1No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
No
NI No
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
No ❑NA ID NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
0114 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number: Eta -i39
Date of Inspection:
oaaa�
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):
Strpucture 1 Structure 2
LI
NO
tip
Structure 3 Structure 4
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
Structure 5
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
(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
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
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
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
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground 0 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 0 Application Outside of Approved Area
12.CropType(s): COq�tO A �etmud a1 i\
` h �Ce
o ❑ NA 0 NE
No ❑ NA
13. Soil Type(s):
norfDiK
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? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? 0 Yes
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ['Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ['Other:
❑ Yes "` No
❑ Yes?Silo
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes lallo
❑ Yes lallo
❑ Yes NNo
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
1allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
'NV° ❑ NA ❑ NE
6No ❑NA ❑NE
LkNo ❑NA ❑NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 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?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
Page 2 of 3
❑ NA ❑ NE
['Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ Yes -SI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes `El. No ❑ NA ❑ NE
5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number: In - Emil
Date of Inspection: ID as a
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes
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:
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes No ❑NA El 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?
❑ Yes ❑k No
El Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
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 pages as necessary).
Note
e
getting 5l u1ge eytenciibn for lggooN
lagoon butts LoOY at&)esorr'Q,
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Kat to fintenof
Phone:
Date:
cm. b% 77+5
to. -ai
5/12/2020