680017_NOD-2019-PC-0074_20190321

W .,�_ tp I6 u VI t
Facility Number ® - 0
NO _.401`1-PC—UO-1
G�Tnivirflon of Water Resources
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: 0 Com i cc Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 2rRoutine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1 Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: %nj f� j /}r 12 Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative: I !� e 5rT0 t;
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Other
Other
Phone:
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
ro
Pullets
Discharges and Stream Impacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Poults
Design Current
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow S
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
,Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes6
❑ NA
[-]NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (Ifyes, 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
o NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
o ❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑Yes
No C] NA
F] NE
of the State other than from a discharge'?
Page I of 3 21417015 Continued

['acili Number: - Qate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA, --E] NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No EKA ❑ 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 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ 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
❑ No
❑ 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)
3 I. 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
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewnrispection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft 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).
2 4 ✓&J- I= J // J_eL"n "I tl_cI -it a Seo 07 4r/�-_rt,r,l7 &,-, fih pen J cutn ice -
PLG 11 -pi N C U_4 'I .fJr 1
Cc,�V(S ;L-� � -i �i t S � h 5� nG-�� d� !_�% j� w- �1 IY'J�i • c �* � I� � � J %c ; �...c � i
1=Ii✓ � Zl.
Revi ewerA nspector Name:
Phone: 79 ( V Ze n.
Reviewerl inspector Signature: ' —k�tDate:
Page 3 of 3 214/1015

Facility Number: - 42 jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ N E
NA [3 NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):Tj
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?
❑ Yes�aTo
IAA' ❑ NE
❑ Yes 040 ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental teat, 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 ❑ 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes P -<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN [—I PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs. ❑ 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): a -5'4rp
13. Soil Type(s):,
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes ;Z�o[:]
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes
NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
I7. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ YesPoEo]
NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ YesNA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ YesNA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP [D Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. J241es ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application [�eekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers [] Weather Code
❑ Rainfall E] Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ MonthIy and I" Rainfall Inspections 'Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes N ❑ 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 2/412015 Continued