820430_Inspection_20190521

"'4 'f `>1 7
Division of Water Resources
Facility NutoberElUl
- 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: 0 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: jtj
, /Arrival Time: Q�=y ,y,,- Departure Time:/D�L�� County: -SQ. o -,-Region:
Farm Name: Ptts �Y�[ Owner Email:
—�
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
u
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator:.S
Coe
Certification Number: f !F?377
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Dischar¢es and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Design Current
10 No
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop
❑ No
Wean to Finish
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
I iLayer
[]No
rM NA
❑ NE
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
Non -La er
[]No
W NA
❑ NE
Dairy Calf
❑ Yes
® No
Feeder to Finish
f2AJO 13oJ3Dairy
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
D§ No
❑ NA
Heifer
of the State other than from a discharge?
Farrow to Wean
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Dry Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
ILayers
I Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
jBeef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Dischar¢es and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
M NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
[]No
rM 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
W NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
D§ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - 9so Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure 1 Structure 2
Identifier:
Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Spillway?: _
Designed Freeboard (in): _
Observed Freeboard (in):
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?
Q9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No �5 NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
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
❑ NE
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ Yes
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?
❑ 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
T9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraalic 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 ❑n Outside of Approved Area
Applicati
Gqg�
um"
G'*'l
12. Crop Type(s): n
13. Soil Type(s): 8Y' — rj-4
L 7
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
�p No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes�]
No
T
❑ NA
E] NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
KA No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
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 No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Tra sfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes [] No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes N No
❑NA F] NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/2015 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ® No
the appropriate box(es) below. T�
❑ 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:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes(� No
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?
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑YestM
p No 0 NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes fp No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 05 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes `t-' No ❑ NA []NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Phone:
j(�
Date: S4 l -/
21412015