620012_Inspection_20190226

tviskon of Water,Resources
Facility'Number Division ofSoil ?and WateraConservation
>0 Other'. Agency, '
Type of Visit: 0—Co Hance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visi - Arrival Tim�� � .Sa Departure Time: ; S"L� County: � 'cw/, Region: I 27--
Farm Name: &a eet Co eel c 'j V M Owner Email:
Owner Name: cI�CtL'Uo �. Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ovt y Meow Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: A/ �__ Pi.CcJVt,, j
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design . Current Design Current
Swine . ` 'Capacity" -Pop.. Wet poultry Capacity Pop.. • Cattle •.
Wean to Finish Layer
Wean to Feeder f00 1 INon-Layer
Feeder to Finish m
Farrow to Wean Design Curreut•
Farrow to Feeder :. Dry Poultry Capacity , Pop.
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
T key Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Heifer
—.Dairy
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes ❑ <eo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [—]No ETA ❑ 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
®'<
❑ 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 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection: 2
-77
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
Q_Na--❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Ej<A
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure
6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): (91Lf
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
[allo
❑ 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
LI]-<o
❑ 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
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
+jo
❑ 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
to
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
to
❑ 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):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
Q`lo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
]jNNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
ETNo
❑ 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
ENo
❑ 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. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 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 T No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? I ❑ Yes 0'N-"o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: tA- Date of Inspection: `
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [�� ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes LD"1 o' ❑ 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? ❑ Yes ❑-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 E3,W D NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ff No ❑ NA ❑. NE
❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[]Yes E 1 o ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes E]l ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes L _f 1V o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use dr/awings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
0 -- /� F- jo
- o - �-- /0-- -7, e
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
11
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:��*���7j` 333
Date:`5-
21412015