420032_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20190409

k g W.* Y 1-tiv 7 c_—
Facility Number
-
ZJDivision of Water Resources
'0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
0
Type of Visit: 0 Com a Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0i1outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 114 30 Departure Time: _O County:
Farm Name: PC,d /6 A>,- Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
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
Boars
Other
Other
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
El Non -La er
llrx Yy OUI
_Layers
Nan -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Pou
Other
Design Current
Longitude:
Region:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dai
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Dischames and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
[_—]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)? x,
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ YesrN
❑ NA
❑ NE
?. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes❑
NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
E] Yes❑
NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 2/4/2015 Continued

Facility Number: LIZ - y 7/ 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?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
i
Observed Freeboard (in):7 • . 0
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
Structure 5
Z��"-IFJNA ❑NE
gNo ❑ NA FINE
Structure 6
❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA
❑ Yes No ❑ NA
[] NE
❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and -the situation poses an immediate public health or environment /threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �Na ❑ 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 FZ 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 .Jo ❑ 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): '`y
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes 6
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ YesE:]NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ YesVNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes❑
NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yeso
[:]NA
[jNE
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 QdNo ❑ 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 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 2/4/2015 Continued

Facility Number: V4 - 3Z I I Date of Inspection;
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ YesN
❑ NA
E]NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
[] YesgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Yes ❑ No
[] NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
25No
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours andior 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)
31. Do subsurface the 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 review/inspection 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 #): 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 necessarv).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 134 -3 —(&W
Page 3 of 3
Phone: _? j I Ir Z ori
Date: I/ / I rj
1/412015