860028_Structure Evaluation_20180801

Division of Water Resources
_
'Facility Nur►ber' �p - g Division of Soil and'Water Conservation
xi .w 0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: I Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: -p - Arrival Time: ; p Departure Time: L�� County: 5u r r Region: W5 R-0
Farm Name: W + F&x-ryL5 Owner Email:
Owner Name: 6- . L . N,\lVl�l-Fe— Phone: W 3,3 & — ,36 & — tt t f [l j
Mailing Address: L{ 19 �A) cis , r C 1 14i n r N� oZ "F5 aZ f
tl
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Sb e y W h \ fie, Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone: 3,3 & —3 6 6— O 7/ 7
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude: 3 6 O o27 r a 7 1 r Longitude: gd o q
_ -7 -1 ZePhv'f- (? ,� )2 1 win dc�l<S 12 SQ1-e m FarK �� 6ri
Design Current ,
Design Current :
Design Cu rent
Swine
` Capacity Pop.
Wet Poultry
Capacity Pop.
- ,
Cattle A,Capacity
«....
Wean to Finish
Layers
Non -Layers
Turkeys Turkey Poults
Other
Pullets
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?
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?
Cow
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes
❑ Yes � No
❑ Yes � No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 2/4/2015 Continued

Facili Number: jDate of Inspection: 17--D 3 — oZ.G 171
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[M 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: i.a oan
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): _ 2
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to�eua* 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
R] 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
R(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
X 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
CR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [A No ❑ 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):
13. Soil Type(s):
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
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
,A'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes rX No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 1A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 10
� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. 7�
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21Des record keeping need1provement? If yes, check t e appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No RIA ❑ NE
Waste Applica ' n eekly Freeboard- Waste Analysis0onthly
il Analysis n �" +� T_.�Weather Code
[ 'Rainfall Stocking Top Yield [�20 Minute Inspections and V Rainfall Inspections Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? [:]Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No J'NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - 7-19 Date of Inspection: V -63
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes )dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes JyNo ❑ 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?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
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?
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
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes
.ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
(;�Ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
['P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes tRINo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes 8rNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes JNNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
I . So 1 I-es4- re_Q u i r in ;20 1'9 o201%, Due_ cxdO, 07 'A 6L049-0 a
a CC'Il bra_7hon d ue- i n ao1 , ComO te-d
Slvd�� SvrveY tit0 r uir0-j un4- 1 der 3(�
U
av-CU -�J.aACA-P 4AA r
Reviewer/Inspector Name: �iv,114�a �ZoS�b f 6L1� Phonej3&-W6 — q %9 9
Reviewer/Inspector
Page 3 of 3
Date:
21412015