820632_Inspection_20190327

Int til' lI�
—�GFDivision of Water Resources
� Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Facility Number F -
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: *Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Rteason for Visit: *Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: / Departure Time: / Count Region: -0
Farm Name: 2— Owner Email:
Owner Name: Mel.✓/Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: (7 •.��i-r` �—y Title:
Onsite Representative: L^
Certified Operator:NLZI-"-
I
B
Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish q, 0 U
Wean to Feeder gboo
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other _.
Other
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: :En I A &O(
Certification Number: Ibi?=�e
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current Design , Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Cattle Capacity Pop.
10me ,
Design Current
Dry Poultry Canacity Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: p 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)?
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[:]No
M1 NA
E:]NE
❑ Yes
[:]No
W NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 2/4/2015 Continued

IFIcility Nfimber: VZ b3:27 jDate of inspection: ,
❑ Yes
[$j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Waste Collection & Treatment
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
P NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
❑ NA
Identifier:
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
1
[�j No
❑ NA
Spillway?:
Required Records & Documents
Designed Freeboard (in):
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[j1 No
[:j NA
e�O N
Observed Freeboard (in): J
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
[R No
❑ NA
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ 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
CU No
❑ 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
[To
`T��No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ 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
?L'Fmj No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
P] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.❑ Yes r No [:]NA
❑ Excessive Ponding [:]Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground El Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of A
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
❑ NE
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[$j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ 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
1
[�j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[j1 No
[:j NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
[R 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 W0] 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 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

Ilacili Number: -[6>:; 2. jDate of inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA F] NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check [D Yes TT No E]NA E] NE
the appropriate box(es) below. T
❑ 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes [P 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 M No F]NA E]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 rw ( 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 Og No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name: Q Phone: 0
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 3 of 3 21412 1 5