540080_Inspection_20220414

Facility Number
JLi
Division of Water Resources
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: d Compliance Inspection • Operation Review~ ❑ Structure Evaluation Ci I -ethnical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Farm Name:
Arrival Time:ICS-lUc v-- Departure Time:
7s15 Yfsn virtN -
Owner Name: '5- .3J%leS
Owner Entail:
Phone:
County:-"'
Region: L o ]
Mailing Address: o �esdr A s
Physical Address:
Facility. Contact:
Onsite Representative.
Certified Operator: v Vt-I" ' r4 z
Back-up Operator; D
t.ocaturn of Farm:
Title: Phone:
Integrator: 5r+n14-it(-+ C \ 4
Certification Number: }�
Certification Number:
Latitude; Longitude:
Swine
Design Current
Capacity. Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop,
Wean to finish
Wean to Pecder
X
Feder to Finish
'XD
3
Farrow to Wean
Rirrnw to Feeder
I'arrcnv to Finish
(lilts
Roars
Other
Design Current
Layer
Non -Layer
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pop.
1-avers
_
Non -Layers
_
Ilul leis
Turkeys
Turkey Poulin
Other
Cattle
Dairy' Cow
Dairy Calf
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
}airy Heifer
L)ry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Slacker
Beef Feeder
Bee 1Brood Cow
t)ischarees 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. Dues 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 front a discharge?
❑ Yes Ef/No ❑NA ❑NE.
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 0 NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA NE
Page i of 3
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes Na
❑ Yes No
El NA ❑NI
❑ NA
❑ NA ❑ NI
5Ii2/2020 Continued

jFacility Number: Sl•f - ' 0 -I
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:
Structure 1
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): _rram�
Observed Freeboard (in): l L)
Structure 2 Structure 3
Structure 4
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 markets 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. Arc there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance or improvement?
l 1. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? if yes, check the appropriate box below,
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
El PAN [ PAN > 10%or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drill ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
El yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes allo ❑NA ❑NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
13. Soil Type(s):
❑ Yes [ /No ❑ NA
iu
O Yes [❑ NA
El NE
0 NE
or environmental threat, notify EIWR
dYes Li No 0 NA
❑ Yes ('o 0 NA
O Yes No ❑ NA
O NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Yes El No ❑ NA ❑ NE
l4. 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. 1s 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?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
2 es record keeping need improvement? lfyes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard 0Waste Analysis ['Soil Analysis
❑ 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
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
ErN
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
O Yes
❑ Yes
0 Yes
❑Othef:
No
d No
'No
ErNo
Yes ❑ No
0 Waste Transfers
[2 NA D NE
❑ NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA El NE
❑ NA [� NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
El NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Sur%ey
El NA ❑ NE
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
5/1212020 Continued

[Facility Number:
- 5 o
jDate of inspection: (4- 14 - ) 1
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.
0 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:
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ NA 0 NE
No ❑NA ONE
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes j No ❑ NA 0 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 quatity concern? ❑ Yes dNo ❑ 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 No ❑ NA 0 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
❑ Application Field ❑ LagooniSlorage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes u o ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? E] Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? El Yes❑ t o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question 4): Explain any YES answers andfor any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
* 53% 1 1 1.02 1 ok rye
! s r f. r� c, 11,34,4 .
Sd�
.-t CIND_ , back Yv"- t.4 0 l DL,sYt " i•-e_lr"i 1-,, .,.,„c4 b v-e f• i O ,--.
4. ove-cry ,,t., S7 1I 3 Vicl «k .2 e.-Ie ct PPi't (. 11La
we b� --2-1 `64 -S.o' qR"DJv,
tuc..ek p , nicr ; , g
y r?( .: j ICI 5 0" •�v r> - 2.1 ,. rya 1 r r cw ate_
, �k,no r, Cft 0 04- 0�'T' .'J2 1
7 Jam" � Api [ (
50/22w5 Z02 1
Ce6.s.,1lvt-C.0,.., I - Lam- .-} 44 61(,,, prr
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
( lib[+.`- C7L Ph CI "7-0d3c
Reviewer/lnspeetor Signature: �i Date:
Page 3 of 3
2/4/2011