820329_Inspection_20190621

xvis on of Water Resources
aeihtyjntnber .. �� Division of Soil and Water Conservation -
=z 0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: ��om��pliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: NTKoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: to+ Arrival Time: t�5-- De arture Time:
I A p a, County: c y-- ��Region: j��
Farm Name: Dclnrot— F-4L1,,713
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �, �-IV7zzr4_ Title:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Z . Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:��
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
SDesigo Current
= _
Design ,Current
= �
Desiign
Swine
Capacity -Pop.
1�1'et Poultry
Capacfy
Pop Cattle
,Current=g`
Capaejty�'op
Wean to Finish
Layer
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Wean to Feeder
Non -Layer
_Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Day Poult, i':
Desigu
Ca ae
'Cu,r ent'
Pop
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
- -- Turkeys
-
Ot6er_
Turkey Poults57
Other
Other
44
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?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
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)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes Q'No
❑ Yes []--N�o
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection: & •: /
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
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?
[j]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes [JNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ 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 ET'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �o ❑ 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 E3No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [] No ❑ 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): ��! fi l� �Dy�O✓ �z-,� �ClVL UJ��r- /�tkj6r
13. Soil Type(s): i)jaC-6 Ahj
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
Fato
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
[3-�Ko
❑ 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
Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required 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
[]-T�o
❑ 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
[i]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
EJ No
❑ 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:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [l] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes F3 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:
❑ Yes
[i]"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
/ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
2No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes [D No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes El -No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes
Irc"Ji ed— Cj_j+�b Z37F�tce_
Reviewer/Inspector Name: CD L-3�0 `_
El -No ❑ NA ❑ NE
L`J 1V ❑ NA ❑ NE
®No ❑NA ❑NE
Phone: 9/7j--63 cif curl
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date: c�j 44'
21412015