470024_Routine Inspection_20220815

Facility Number '11 I -
2:1
•
Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit:
Reason for Visit:
ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Farm Name: J\Jti 1 V b 11
OwnerName: J\< fQ\1T)'
Mailing Address:
Arrival Time: 6-6Departure Time: [CI; L-4 U ] County: HOW Region:
Owner 1.'nzail:
Phone:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: cl
�Jj W h �(�� Title:
Onsite Representative:
same
Certified Operator: me . U Vl 1 N "n t eg
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Integrator:
Phone:
m�=�fil�d
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
1 hCp
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Design Current
Cattle 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 I I Other:
P1 Yes
No r] NA f NE
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?
1 I Yes
Yes
No NA [i N E
No fl NA U NE
riYes
[—I Yes
Yes
No E NA fl NE
No flNA ElNE
No NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of'3
5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number:
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
b
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 or environmental threat, notify DWR
n Yes
n Yes
Structure 5
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No El NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
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?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
n Yes
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ISI No ❑ NA fl NE
❑ Yes IN No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes nNo ❑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): COQ21tLt t much.
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?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑WUP IChecklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps n Lease Agreements
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard n Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Trans
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking n Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes
Page 2 43
No ❑ NA
No ❑ NA
No ❑ NA
n NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
ers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number: tri - 27
Date of Inspection: ,- tG-22
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
Yes No [-INAENE
25. is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ® Yes N- No NA 0 NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
7 Failure to complete annual sludge survey [] Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
1 Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? Yes No 1 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
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 No NA 7 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 ESN o ❑ NA n 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. n Yes No ❑ NA n NE
n Application Field 7 Lagoon/Storage Pond 7 Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP'? 0 Yes No n NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? 0 Yes No 0 NA 0 NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? 7 Yes NIS1 No 0 NA 0 NE
1-1 Yes
NtS No flNA 7NE
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).
ma11on dve t5l3
*SIv49e Snivel dUQ 1a31 a3
+-1--c\rm 1WC good,
f(eAt (qoo'r. Ioo 900q/
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/inspector Signature: o
tLej
NIA)
Pho. 919 M9l I
Date22
Page 3 o f 3 5/12/2020