030033_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20180927

ivision of Water Resources
Facility Number 0 - 33 O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: Arcompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: koutine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: /� I ,ZQ Arrival Time: ( Departure Time: County: t4 (�pQi)Q�►y Region: V)S P-0
Farm Name: a-6,306 � 10.1 f �� Owner Email: KD---T
Owner Name: .� 1 3 pal l n e-, A+ WZ64 Phone: L-2�31p) 3 % 7- — % 9 & -1
Mailing Address: 7e3 1 G ( - 0{-�
Physical Address: p (r t7 O v r- S 60 OLT+,dL , C, 02 $ (o -% S
Facility Contact: A-L l)ne4 Title: Phone:
Me_Onsite Representative: IV\ t Ike— �1+Vj OOd Inteerator: � (1 1431116
Certified Operator: '" E ( lz,pi A+v-j6c3d Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Certification Number:
o
Location of Farm: Latitude: 3 49 311 ti S` Longitude: % ( e 1 M a J ti
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -Layer
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Dry Poultry Canacitv Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
-Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
Design' Current,
Cattle Capacity Pop
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes [�J/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ 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
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
(��l�lo
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
7�
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

[Facility Number: - 31 jDate of Inspection: Cq Ig-7/
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
Yes
9Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: \ljQS�� o
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): l�G
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
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
No
❑ 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
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
pj Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ 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
[XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ 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): J 4
A rT -
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
Dj o
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
0 CO -No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes o ❑ 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. oes record keeping need ' provement? Ff�+es; el�eei - ❑Yes No NA ❑ NE
Raste Applic ion Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis eather Code
ainfall Stocking [Crop Yield 120 Minute Inspections Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections g u ige. "'
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? []Yes P;TNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No rjq-I�A ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection: 9 ';Ll 7
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
113'<o
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
❑ No
DJO&A ❑ NE
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:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ 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
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal? 4- 3 '
IT
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ 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 ❑ 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 ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
r*S - -
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
P�'No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a� aota 0-aI1 6ira,-4 on fxe, V" i sc !-
O
CPU. reed ,2otg 56
i B u r r 0 Ino les 7 �Q,tiv� to o ve_4" , C o o v a LUe,6-)j
�ku 5�- 00OA-a-rn e,o tq e-
Fe aaWr a,A&P_A ? Not je,+v
VLe-ff- a- an e- daA k5 Ir, na--rA, in 6-we r
V1615 LU0,5fe�ju5 'L ri b�lo� P �� awl 5��au(
�AOC4 le-V V d o 4- r a y �' /b�i� �� -l��J o-F d any
(\to.t+- -} s e G L a,l�.ern-
b� �� Lo
� , -d-� o vt_o �
� ��-
l� 5 a-R 110 -�'e r Co s+ S h q.f e— 13
U P V- et e,0 VI\'T'� Ot.�✓^l o nZ
_A-P — c U VLAO 15 c 10
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
PN<j-533(o. 776;q/�99
b
Date: -1 A
21412015