040036_Inspection_20191028

FaCl�l�y) UdlQbii' Q DIVYSIIYn Of Soi and w ter Conservatlon' s €
C7 &)theyAz
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: EYRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: a Bp Departure Time: J D County: Yi58�. Region:
Farm Name: ( 1'� 90c(c Put Owner Email:
t
Owner Name:/ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 00,/i Title:
Onsite Representative: L
Certified Operator: . 04,tL4 �rt�5i%`�
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: ,j�,
Certification Number: � t• 76 7-5
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design
r
Curren111, t 4 Desigxi
Curent - Design
8
Current
Swine Capacity
zz
1'op Wet Poultry -Capacity
Pop
Cattle Capacity
Pop -
-_ v
_
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Farrow to Feeder
Boars
Discharges and Stream Impacts
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turke Points
Discharges and Stream Impacts
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turke Points
D Cow
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑Yes �° ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑Structure ❑Application Field ❑Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑Yes ❑ No Q'1 IAA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑Yes ❑ No Q�lA ❑ 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 [�No ❑ 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 1 of 3 2/4/2015 Continued
Page 1 of 3 2/4/2015 Continued

Facility Number: 6r - Date of Inspection:
Wjj ste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
Ro
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0>k—❑ 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
Eg-N"o
❑ 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
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
�o
❑ 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
LJ'N`6
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
E]_Ns
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes © o ❑ NA
❑ 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): f ( l r
13. Soil Type(s): C l ey cNrl e 6al© i2t Vl c ��
❑ NE
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
®moo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
Eg-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
Eq o
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[7I0
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[j.No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reauired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 10 ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 10 ❑ 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 E2 <o ❑ 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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: 2 ' L^
24I'Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? I ❑ Yes [a -No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes 1V V EP'� ❑ 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 R I l�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? [:]Yes io ❑ 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 �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes EJ o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes K 'go- ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
E2-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[IrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
Ef-Imo
❑NA
❑NE
Cbmments:(referto question #}': Explain any YESzanswers andlair any' add%tional,recommeadations.or any ether eomments
Use dfkwings of facility to betterlexplann situations. (use additional pages as necessary)
-.
;
qesl
Reviewer/Inspector Name: Z l I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: V Crl"VW
Page 3 of 3
Phone: l"0- 933 - 3
Date: a r11 t CC 11
21412015