640072_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20190730

Lk
U Division of Water Resources
Facility Number - 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
PC of Visit: Com nce Inspection Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
3son for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: -3Q " i Arrival Timer Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: / Title:
Onsite Representative: C� q -r L L
I
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm: Latitude:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Fecder to Finish Lr;'d 00
Farrow to Wean
arrow to Feeder &c) 0
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Phone:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er I I --d
Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turks .�
Turkey Poults
Other
Design Current
Region:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Daig Calf
Daig Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes <No NA E] NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ED Application Field El 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)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ YesFNoLO]
NA [:]NE
2. 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 ❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 oj3 2/412015 Continned

Facility Number: - Z Date of Inspection: %–_Jj
❑ 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?
❑ Yes
N ❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? I f yes, check
[] Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge
levels
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Non-compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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?
❑ YesNo
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 ❑ 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 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 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 or racility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
P; 9,]
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
zeJ�vJON&,-,su)41Qy
Jr-h,,vyI NS 1.? -a 4 ih d 5C1iQ4J0, IC_;�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 13 t, S' z-fL `L` , f e -
Page 3 of 3
Phone:CL" 1 7 0 1 L zD p
Date: ? ` 3 o — j
2/4/2015

Facili Number: E - '7 I_ Date of Ins ection: - '
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? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: w
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �� �� 72 /� 3� ri l—
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 06 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 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 hreat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ICJ N ❑ 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 o ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 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): -) VV U� h S 11&0 t'
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? ❑ YesgNo-'NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes
NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ YesNA ❑ NE
I8. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? [] Yes
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 ofthe CAWMP readily available'? Ifyes, check ❑ YesNA ❑ 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers eat er Code
❑ Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections Sl ge 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
Pare 2 of 3 214/1015 Continued