820681_Inspection_20190227

t-- .s._ tI I ` -
R1
Type of Visit: U Compliance 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 Visit: - Z % Arrival Time: : 3 Departure Time: ; ©© County:
s
Farm Name: �a,r-J�� c, � h `� '��ql,� Owner Email:
Owner Name: av uLn—_& ,� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 0 Title:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Region:
Onsite Representative: 4�z��
r
Certified Operator: 61%,_Y
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
_
Design Current
)[IesignCnrinTDes�gt Cuxrent.:
Swine
Capacity
Pop
Wet Poultry Capacty PopCaitle Capac�tg�
am..
....-
Pop x ,rE s
t -
Layer Dairy Cow
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
---------------
-Non-Layer Dairy Calf
_ Dairy Heifer E
g a' Current Dry Cow
Feeder to Finish l�1
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
D Ponit C� ici Pa Non -Dairy
Layers Beef Stocker
-
Non -Layers `` Beef Feeder M,
Farrow to Finish
.,: Gilts
Boars
Pullets R Beef Brood Cow r;
'
Mgg
Turkeys
Other K=
Turkey Poults —
Other
Other EE
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?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes Er<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes P-No ❑ NA Q NE
21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - Date 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:
I_ 11V o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑No ❑NA ❑NE
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): /-
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes �To ❑ 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
<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
eN
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
El N' 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
EEr<o
❑ 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
4`f2/.e�
12. Crop TYpe(s): L�YaYL �� / �. W_AV G✓,—,p yv
13. Soil Type(s): %/Uc�6 A1t?�` & Z
14.. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
L`J NV o
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
0 Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No
❑ 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
DTq—o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
El<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 D 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 [3'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: — 7—
y 24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
EfNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
�io
❑ 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
ff No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
E3<o
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
Q3lo
❑ NA ❑ NE
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?
❑ Yes
El N
❑ NA ❑ NE
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
❑ Yes
ETo
❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
To
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[3 o
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
[:]Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
7, 6��dr ' a)-y I-
Reviewer/Inspector Name: Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date: a=J�
21412015