090112_Routine_20220510

06-L5--
Facility Number
1la
Division of Water Resources
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: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:
rrival Time:
/.*0a
Departure Time:
Farm Name: F fl€i QtJd Qitfl(fl co f1UT)
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Rflfl1tp1 hQ1ter
Owner Email:
Phone:
County:
Region: fv
ENTERED TO
iASERFICHE
Vots4 La--#14
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
DEQ/DWR WQROS
FAYETTEVILLE RFCIfNAt :r)FF!CF
Phone:
Latitude:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
qQ
779-4
Swine
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
-
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Wet Poultry
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Dr v Poultry
Design Current
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)
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 Q''No E NA ❑ NE
E Yes ❑ No E NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No El NA ❑NE
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number: 9 - 110
.
Date of Inspection:
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):
Structure 1 Structure 2
0
31
Structure 3 Structure 4
n Yes
n Yes
Structure 5
nNo ❑NA ❑NE
El No ❑NA El NE
Structure 6
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 ❑ Yes
waste management or closure plan?
ENo ❑ NA ❑ NE
[]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? n Yes
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? n Yes
(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
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 To ❑ NA
❑ 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
12. Crop Type(s): G • N,
13. Soil Type(s): ()On-Lego6cIf1-
0 Application Outside of Approved Area
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? n Yes
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? n Yes
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes
the appropriate box.
n WUP ❑Checklists n Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Yes
❑ Waste Trans
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NA
LJ f\ o ❑ NA
®No ❑NA
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
[o ❑ NA ❑ NE
0 Yes r r o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ Rainfall n Stocking ❑ Crop Yield n 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
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ NA ❑ NE
fers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
Er o NA ❑NE
Er -NO ❑NA ❑NE
5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number: f - 11 °-
Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ri 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:
❑ Yes ❑'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes ErNo ❑NA ❑NE
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ❑ `wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? 0 Yes ©-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or docu vent ❑ Yes ❑ 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 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 ❑1 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 Ergo ❑ 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?
n Yes l_J "'o ❑ NA ❑ NE
n Yes [:]-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ErNo ❑ 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).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Slue q)\J
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
n
nfwPt
Oft7/ Pi-
f-0
Phone: /t7- 5t73 -a (5
Date:
5/12/2020