820466_Inspection_20190304

1, K Mauk-� t < 1,5i J
� � ,� _ � _ � � Division of Water'uResonrces - -
FacilityNumlier��3� O R vision o So' and Water Conservatio P°
ti
17ype of Visit: (D<—ompliance 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: Arrival Time:: Departure Time: County: S Region:
Farm Name: '-a 04t Z�O 3 1/— 20 3 j Owner Email:
Owner Name: tV W iJ/D t✓AA Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: A ,
Facility Contact: N(,�, Ivd 11pt`s Title:
l
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:bc
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number: �L', a L3
Certification Number:
Latitude: Longitude:
- 4
Design Current
Y _ i J�z T i 1� .y ! �•..'K 7 � - Yr � �Y¢i�T- i �•
,' n Designs iCurrent �' t3 Design Current:
E 4r*k s s r a E
Swine Capacity 4P.op� Wet.Poultry t t:Capacity� Pop—,' Gattle4`apaeity aI?op
y
^Layer
3
Non -Layer
=g
y
Designw;Current
Dry Poultry>y,Ca
ac�tyo
A zt s
1.;{
w
y
1_11_,____�L._;���
ther
Wean to Finish
'�Yf•3�.
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
;
0
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
#,
Boars
Layers
G
Non -Layers
[`
Pullets
Turkeys
�
Turkey Pouets
Other
'
' �
3-
ry Cow
�
?
Try Calf
#
Dairy Heifer
D 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?
�Et-?45`6�
es NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
[]Yes
0�
❑ lA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
�o
TA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
IMP
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
D es
❑ No
TA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 2/4/2015 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ❑'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? [:]Yes ❑ No Ej4A ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
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?
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes E5No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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 klo ❑ NA ❑ NE
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)
❑ Yes 046- ❑ NA ❑ NE
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes Egl�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes E No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes LJ 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): C 4 f' CAS 0 H if F
13. Soil Type(s): M�t. S
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes E3<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes F-4-1�o
❑ 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? ElYes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes E N ❑ 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 ❑CIO ❑ 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 ❑`No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued
l

Facility Number: -tit, IDate of Inspection: q ft-r-x
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 9,N`6­_ ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes QN-6-10 NA ❑ 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?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
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 Signatui
Page 3 of 3
01,
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
®�4o❑ NA ❑ NE
M-<o-- ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes MN-o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes> `" ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E9<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [tl'No
❑ Yes E3 <o
❑ Yes ©-N-o
es as�necessar _ ,:
�-7-i7
Ll
(4 tit "
G
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Phone: Vo- q-3
Date: L' 1W f
21412015