820199_Inspection_20190221

i - Division of Water Resources = -
Facility Number ®-LLB 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
-0, 0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 4EYkoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:. Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region: �-
Farm Name. 6 l z-n 2 T) r S ct�^ ""' Owner Email:
Owner Name: C,I, ;2 ,2 �yp 7-0 n rs Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �-/�1� ,_, `7] 7D ��_ Title: 62-W i-L -ee— Phone:
Onsite Representative: > s� Integrator•
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design,
Current
=
=Design- Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity
Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
Non -Layer
Dairy Calf
eeder to Finish
©
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
= Desigri{ ; Current _
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
-
Dry Poultry
Ca'u aci Po'.
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
_
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
_
Turkeys
-
Other _
_
Turkey Pouets
=_
Other
n
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?
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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[]"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes
D<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection: 2k
p y <?
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
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): `a
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
ET<o
❑ 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
to
❑ 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
M`No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
ErNo
❑ 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
[]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes EErNo ❑ 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)=fm< �C/rs`Srr� �Q.^� z �d-tf> ifSr��J� /tv64-
13. Soil Type(s): 14/1&.15
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
[J No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
❑i 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
6 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
/
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
0 0
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
2-<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 D-lo ❑ 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 �lo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 0Ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection: — —
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes To ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes Q 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
En No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[3 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
No
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
EE
❑ 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
No ❑ 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
❑-N-o ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
E-`N�o❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer tw4uesti6n #): Explain any YES answers and/or-any;additional:recommendations or any other commeuts. -`
E
Use drawings of facility, to better explain situations (use -additional Mies as necessarv).
�/'r►'l ���'I �,^c', � 5jGCC� GU r�. � i? Y � �mr B---L- %/'�3-�"`'` V �1.CS'%� ✓t,�-
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur
Phone: 2%0 -__3V3- 016-7
Date:
21412015
Page 3 of 3