090138_Routine_20220509

Facility Number
9
4.74
Division 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: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Fr--,60—Arrival Time:
Farm Name:
3.00
Departure Time:
Owner Name: Fe1-aoe ftTfl Cj, I n C
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Coun
RE!$eli6): frO
LA ERFICHE
JUN 01. 2022
DFO/DWR WOROS
FAYETTEVILLE REGIONAL CFFICF
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
7----e,247ofJi n✓ en —
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: vrerc qe
Certification Number:'i5-7,57)
Certification Number:
Longitude:
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
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Dry 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?
❑ Yes ®< ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 12'1\10 0 NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number: C - 138
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 7 Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
on -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
❑ Yes �.�No n NA ❑ NE
[I] No El NA ❑NE
7//ir (5-r
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes L a< ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? n Yes la<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document n 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? n Yes �o 0 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 n Yes ❑ 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
n Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? n Yes [ 10 ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes 12-"o ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes [ Io ❑ 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).
57;7( 5,pe cer7-4-77-7
1,7-07i// P4'.n_ %11 Pair_ frrids ct< 74-fr-fr-L_/
),7_3
fog toa,F
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
1 Steve g U
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
ton a gllie fOflteflO1
-Katiuu
�1'1Dt
Phone:
Da e: 317��D / I
5/12/2020

Facility Number: C - ?J 8
Waste Collection & Treatment
Date of Inspection:
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Identifier:
Spillway?: NO ND NO
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
!9 I q l9
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?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ 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 ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8 Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? n Yes �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 ENo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes I�Io ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Er<o ❑ 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
E Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): CO1tC1 }7 6lel.e
1._Soil ,,,,,,,, LG<1t'] wanee, Ceh iJt'J1 CQFfO
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? n Yes Er<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes [E] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes [No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes Et< ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ['es ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design Rraps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. Q Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Vaste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall E Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 1211<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 2-1C1, ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 5/12/2020 Continued