820204_Routine Inspection_20220714

Facility Number
onLi
Division of Water Resources
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit:4
Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: -6 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Farm Name:
ff 2-7-
Arrival Time:
dat4en Poem finf'ieP
Owner Name: Anmond Q. dardeN
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Departure Time:
0115
Owner Email:
Phone:
County: Sa111 ROri Region: frO
ENTERED TO
LASERFtCHE
JUL 1 5 2022
CU1tiS birwI<
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
omhony ai4etv
Title:T-e(f) 4
DEO!DWR WQROS
FAYETTFV:•LLE REGIONAL OFFICE
Phone:
Sa rn e Integrator: Gin ifhfield
Latitude:
Certification Number: 1 S ? lO
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Swine
Design Current
Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
"ALIO
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Layer
Non -Layer
Design Current
Dry Poultr Ca . acit 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?
❑ Yes X]No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No [] NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
No
No
No
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number:
- o9
Date of Inspection: 1 . ILI '
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): gi) j
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
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance or improvement?
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
V(1iye/
dog c•li
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes 16 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
1;g4si Yes
No ❑NA ❑NE
7]No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes []No ❑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
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): C: LUG C 6, &C'tTh(}dCt , C9, WA
13. Soil Type(s)OgId rn , NO tfoU
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? rr t \`
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? 7 ?I Q 7 ,O�{
lfe
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable gig
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?
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
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 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
tl Yes
❑ Yes
J No
❑ No
g] No
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ Yes [I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [ ] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Other:
❑ Yes I No
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
E Yes
❑ Yes
KJ No
I] No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
5/12/2020 Continued

Date of Inspection:
Facility Number:
(Y-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.
❑ 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: 10 IC i q
❑ Yes
CX Yes
tl No ❑ NA
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
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?
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
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ 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 i No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes kl No 0 NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes &] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ YesK-_, No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [t No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendation;
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use a
-vCciIi'bra,ll.on ? Soo qVe
ac;.cludge i'g hugh
io. GFiay for off NPe urc in fieic/.
+r( le(Wing clog Go x orl tIOU � ; dog bbX
leaK thcft nernain/erjce,
The butterf►y valve al- 1-fe rump Cihnws
Ci---ods of leni<inq 1 hqs evic►ehce of Q
rcx�Ke cute valves are hut downpq � �'� �� � n Ke re parrS +b t-ne
and eYpSion.
•3� O hod S�?igir
�l g ng o F Icrgj
ivcit)ti
re t'tic
Mln f 41i
cIu(.e: I o- Lill 6B/-
wcat, ; 21 2.2 1. 2.2
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
N
Phone: lig- C39(0(111D
Date: 7 jLf.a-
5/12/2020