090039_Inspection_20191029

Division of Water Resources
Facility Number - ® 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: ��omp�mpliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: ETKoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: — Arrival Time: Q .. Departure Time: � County:
Farm Name: t` T7a�� ����'�'� i� Owner Email:
Owner Name: � r C-h0 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Cl�s.�s�/iJf�F\ Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:�r/`i�r
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
can to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Latitude:
r Phone:
Region: F5?—y
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity 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: ❑ Stricture ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes [r] 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 [DNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes [3'1'Vo ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: -.3 /- Date of Inspection: ZP ; ` /
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 2-IN/o ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes E2-lqo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): c%
Observed Freeboard (in): _-52
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ZNo ❑ 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 [1'*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 environmentalthreat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ! sN Yeo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes Q 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 Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �2rNo ❑ 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):�-G -'_���
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
0 NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[/]No
❑ NA
0 NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
h10
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
2 N
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
E14o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes R] N ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes E5"'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 [3<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 l No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes E31<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: -3q jDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes EEKo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ 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?
❑ Yes
Ea<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
JD<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[]`No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes [�lo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ZN ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
["No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[2]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
G
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatui
Phone:
a
Date:
21412015
Page 3 of 3