820100_Inspection_20200306

ivLsion of �4'_ater Resources
�� � l�r�u �.'� ��
Facih Nt�anber
�G
C%' of Soifl and Wafer Conservation
' ...
t
lf QUO
Type of Visit: ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 2outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: tt Arrival Time: Departure Time: ; j S County: 5— 114 f'-10—A) Region:
Farm Name: n s Owner Email:
Owner Name: eG�: �' y / �►©t�t�f G'i �e�7'js Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: t��wt� ��! �L Title:
Onsite Representative: 0
Certified Operator: l Z�l`'S 6 (VA's
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: Stitici ��t l 1�
Certification Number: 1,7 9,)(
Certification Number:
Longitude:
design
Current s
Design Cuirirent �:. esign Current
DUNE
Se
Caipacaty
fop g'et Poultry
_
Capacity I'mp Cattle Capacity'op
Wean to Finish
La er
= Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
t0
- Dai Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design , Current Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
�
oult-Dairy
l
Farrow to Finish
I
La ers
t
Beef Stocker
GIlts
Non -Layers
Fn;
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Turkeys
Beef Brood Cow
—
Y
i
Turkey Poults
—.
Other
Other
_
sNZ
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ff&o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No D<A ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes [:]No TA ❑ 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 �o ❑ 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 I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - C� G Date of Inspection: (�d
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes EfrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No �A ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
E No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(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
To
❑ NA
❑ NE
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
G)Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
ZpresEW
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
E], -
❑ 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
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
© o
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ 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): Gt,, l3 n C13 SIG
13. Soil Type(s): W4 j� Cc•� 2 /i�c� yyi�
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes Q-o ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes Oslo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes 21�_o ❑ NA ❑ NE
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
❑ Yes [5 N ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑ Checklists [:]Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Of No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ 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 jd'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:]Yes E:rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: Bj - t)ID jDate of Inspection: 4 141,pw, Z
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ©-`!o ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check El'<es ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
[TNon-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon e
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance: /tt— 2`('
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes D-N—o ❑ 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?
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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
EfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
eNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
D—No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[—]Yes
[ErNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ 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).
�j-t0-z.
k - 0 ._w 0 t�A(" 0 A-
�7- C-o I A I-C e. 4
C0 V4 rc� L-t o vimu n/kS F
S Lw 78, /k-
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatui
Page 3 of 3
Phone: �� V_-IJ " 93
Date: to hf t'✓v
21412015