330002_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20190624

Facility Number ©-
tO uivision of Water Resources
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: 0 Cance Inspection Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Fallow -up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 7 —1 Arrival Time: j j f1 Departure Time: L=County: Region:
Farm Namc: Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative: Y% ; ry
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Phone:
Title:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -La er
Wean to Finish
❑ Yes No
eanto Feeder
❑ NE
Feeder to Finish
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
arrow to Wean
0 7
Farrow to Feeder
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part ofhe operation?
Farrow to Finish
❑ NA
Gilts
3
Boars
❑ NA
Other
Other
Pullets
Other
Poults
Design Current
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?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes 2No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes N " ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State's (If yes, 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
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part ofhe 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 1 of 3 214/1015 Continued

F'acili Number: - 7_- Date of Inspection: - 2-
—�
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ YesNo
NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural Freeboard?
❑ YesgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
❑ NE
Identifier: /b �t:7.L p - � } 5�1} I
N
Spillway?:
❑Yes
] ❑ NA
❑ NE
Designed Freeboard (in):
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Observed Freeboard (in): i0 ft
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.)
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
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
eat, 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?
0 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 0 <NoZNo
❑ - NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes❑ 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): �'l 7 Gtr n C� �Ir✓
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑Yes
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
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
N
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?
❑ YesV;
[] 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? I f yes, check the appropriate box below. [:]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yeso ❑ 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

Facili Number: 3 3- 6 2 Date of Ins ection: 6 - Z-
—/
❑ No
❑ NA
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ YesN
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
[:D] Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ 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 andior document
❑ Yes
�o ❑ 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 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 reviewlinspection 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 racility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary),
5 )1, Suvv��' cur 1939P -t b�-j Dec2-0
CA, r', 4, U5)i d-1c�Z 'qj'a;�7 Xc7l q
Reviewer']nspector Name:
Reviewer'Inspector Signature; ;� 16-11 C-1
Phone: * Zd,�
Date: 6 - Z (-/` /! C�
Page 3 of 3 214/1015