310764_Inspection_20190819

..Ar
I ' _z , °� ` ' :. ate,. C7xDivisionsof at
on ° -
Fac>>(t Number-4 ;�' 3 = L o aaDivisi °rig f Soilyand Rater -Co y° F
40, -
;=^P _ _ - " ."•".....�. _ _ •;sc,. i �,''`.;, "" y4' e =
Type of Visit: QD 7Routine
pliance Inspection Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral ' O Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: h-) Region: UA
Farm Name: �j U ( kwoo �S Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative:
Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude: Longitude:
Cuirren`f, =wig Desu;Current
°
;�kr.Tlesign`,6:
g q`,
z tlS a>> ,. �.E _
«.,r-_ _- f1:.a. _ __ _ _ - ."� _- _ -r =,= __ ti
a°Ca aci o - VYet_Poultr' T-°°,;Ca acl Pop. ` __°__
P ti3'°' L��: rY a }... 1?. t3'"-'°
�.�'
t::s.r` __-'.q's
attlen--,a,-. �. '
CaT'aci .o
P tya . P• - ` r
-'- �� �@ = a5 �r.F6•:- ___'� "MY 'a.�ip yt,�:_
., , - _ ^•R=€
-�3�a1 .4._.`-
lv"b 11
Wean to Finish
=I ILayer
a,
Wean to Feeder -
S k�f _ Non -La Layer __Dairy
q"
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
= 477
Desi Ciirrentb.._ ae
Farrow to Feeder
_
-_ '=,:D . Point` =g .Ca 'aci_ .: ,Po _-
;;
Farrow to Finish
La ers =f`'
Gilts
Non -La ers =-=
--
Boars
Pullets
Turkeys = __
F��e.;'.as.;
�Otli '
���y
a` Turke Pouets
4
Other
= = Other
Dairy Cow
Calf
Dairy Heifer
D 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
�io
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ 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)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ 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
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued
s

Facility Number: j - 6 L Date of Inspection: �
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
U24o
❑ 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� W
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 0-(a
5. Are there any immediate threats to the int6grity 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
Flo
❑ 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
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[D o
❑ 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
[Uo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
CLIAo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
[:]Yes
L lf' o
❑ 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 PrNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes [91<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes To ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
❑ Yes Eobdo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Ep llo ❑ NA ❑ NE
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
EZ,W
❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
[:]Yes
[VeT o'
❑ 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
❑�Qo
❑ 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
[�3<o
❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NE
Page 2 of 3
21412015 Continued

FaciliNumber: jDate of Inspection: QJ
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes LK ❑ 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)
❑ Yes ®-No ❑ NA 0 NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NE
❑ Yes Ea<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ®'< ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes 8 o 0NA ❑NE
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWNIP? ❑ Yes
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes
Ej_N__o ❑ NA ❑ NE
�io ❑ NA ❑ NE
E30<o NA ❑ NE
194 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question f: 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 necessary).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu
Page 3 of 3
��. C O� orr, Phone: 1(0 jq t 131,
re:Z�& LDate: 6
21412015