820309_routine_20210916

1
Facility Number
vision of Water Resources
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: (-Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: utine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Arrival Time:
Farm Name: lil
Owner Name: /t
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
6/41
Departure Time:
/,:3t9
Owner Email:
Q/'fl, f e , Phone:
County: - Region: Z__
Facility Contact: �,� f cat ✓'� �G
Onsite Representative:
Title:
YG/3//eG,
Integrator: Sm d
iZ
Certified Operator: (?—vi,v�
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Certification Number
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Swine
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
015`0
----O `�
Feeder to Finish
/3oO
—0.------
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Design Current
Dr v Poultry Capacity Pop.
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
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) fl Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? fl Yes El --No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there anyobservable adverse impacts orpotential adverse impacts to the waters Yes No NA NE
p p ❑ �� ❑ ❑
of the State other than from a discharge?
n Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number: - - 3'D
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) Tess than adequate'?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
Structure 1
11
n Y• es ❑" Io n NA ❑ NE
❑Yes No 7NA NE
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
l it;rJ
0 t LI I
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
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 El'Io ❑ NA n NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?es ❑ 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 n Yes ❑o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. n Yes ❑`No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes lalo ❑ NA ❑ NE
12. Crop Type(s):
❑ Yes drNo n NA ❑ NE
n Excessive Ponding n Hydraulic Overload n Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN n PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. n Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
e'ritUdi 7e
13. Soil Type(s): C
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
n Yes ❑'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
n Yes ❑''No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable n Yes 0'1.10 ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes [No ❑ NA n NE
❑ Y• es No n NA ❑ NE
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'? n Yes n No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check n Yes FTNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP EChecklists n Design n Maps n Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
E. Waste Application n Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis n Soil Analysis
n Rainfall n Stocking n Crop Yield n 120 Minute 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
❑ Yes ❑ No
n Waste Transfers
NA ❑ NE
n Weather Code
n Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
n Yes
n Y• es
No
n No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number: - oct
Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
la o ❑NA ❑NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ErNo ❑ 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? ❑ Yes Er -No ❑ NA ❑ 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 121-10 ❑ 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 lNo ❑ 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 6No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
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 IZNo ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ❑j No ❑ NA :it NE
❑ Yes Iio ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers andfor any additional recommendations o;
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
rtj—lYl a �> 77 @ v rs -r
7 tozov-
7,)D-re ido uu
(/ 7,7 I-70,-•L__ -76 5D A.J 1//-,7
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
w 7
tit i�1\, �'e'fi�
Phone:
Date:
2/4/2015