420010_Inspection_20211108

III
swine capacity
r I 1
t
Fatah
Wean to Finish
•
111
Wean to Feeder
EXIMMIMI
•
Feeder to Finish
MUM
"g1
Farrow to Wean
Mn
.
Farrow to Feeder
•
Farrow to Finish
•
Gilts
-_
•
Boars
Other
AW
Facility Number
LJ
I
C
t!]'vision of Water Resources
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: 'Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review
0 Referral 0 Emergency O Other 0 Denied Access
Reason for Visit: ?Routine 0 Complaint
Date of Visit: Arrival Time:
Farm Name: fa c
Owner Name:
0 Follow-up
9;10
0 Structure Evaluation
Departure Time:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Mailing Address:
0 Technical Assistance
County: tit-ri'Y Region: �(
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Title:
Certified Operator:�j [-'%1 irc i atik5D{
Lc3. c r Bcc j
r 4 rx
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Integrator:
Phone:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
gee no
t 9 13
_ T c)ci#cks acYYN : SCo+ f Nec
Design Current Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Design Current
D Poultr Ca aci Po
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)
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?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes eNo ❑ NA El NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes IZINo El NA El NE
❑ Yes ,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number: �}{ Q y aono
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
Date of Inspection: / // f
❑ Yes 21 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey El 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 F2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes yr No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes 12No ❑ NA El 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 VNo ❑ 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 El Yes U No ❑ 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 (7'No ❑ NA El NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond El Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes t No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer.Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes 7.No ❑ NA El NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawin s of facili to better ex s lain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
G ), bte14-10 '7 / O so l lfd
way. Su" ey 31 aC) iv- 3,50 O; 3,5A
yee55 i ve Fie 1 as
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer..lnspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
trr + 7h4thK yOd
'(\k Wc‘ (\nsrl
22.1.LA,
Phone: / 99/ W
Date: i /dQ
2/4/201 S

(Facility Number: c1(135 iv mid)
'Date of Inspection: /) J'J1 02 /
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 I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?: jL
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
Structure 5
2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑No ❑NA LINE
Structure 6
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
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
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?
. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground El Heavy Metals
❑ Yes J No El NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No El NA ❑ NE
or environmental threat, notify DWR
❑ Yes n No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes []' No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes [No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Ef No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus El Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
D Outside of Acceptable rCrop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s) t !
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 ❑ No El NA
❑ Yes VFNo ❑ NA
❑ Yes No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ Yes 12 No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ yes 2No ❑NA El NE
❑ Yes af,o ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check Yes ❑ No ❑ 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. El Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard El Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis El Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall pfStocking ❑ Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections El Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes l+io ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? El Yes 'o ❑ NA El NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/201 S Continued