310877_Inspection_20190819

mt ontorwAtr ources U
D-vsoifif SoiUa dW'iiteiiQ4*`_
qa
41
% '-()*r At iii�v
Type of Visit: C7oppflance Inspection 0
Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint
R Ro
0 Follow-up 0 Referral O'Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name:
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:
4�
"D` Current'
'j
esigm. ii� -r
esign-
_e
Swine,-
Cis :�picity_ pa
,a -etToultry
P0 a ad
- *1W y;F_
Wean to Finish
WE
I ILayer I
Dairy Cow
Y"
Wean to
Wean to Feeder
Non -La
Dairy Calf
--FfFeeder
to Finish
3.2m eft,
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
esi �C
u �rreO,,, Dry Cow
_-T
Farrow to Feeder apa6io','
p6i*. Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
L ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder I
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow I
-2 p,
7�
Turkeys
f5z
k 4 14
�, Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Z�
777 77 7 JfW
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: 0 Structure D 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?
Page I of 3
[—] Yes EE
d
M�o Ej NA [—] NE
[:] Yes F-1 No [:] NA [:] NE
D Yes D No Ej NA Ej NE
[:] Yes D No [:] NA D NE
[:]Yes E24o DNA NE
0 Yes 2-<o DNA NE
❑ ❑ 21412015 Continued
d
[:] Yes D No [:] NA D NE
[:]Yes E24o DNA NE
0 Yes 2-<o DNA NE
❑ ❑ 21412015 Continued
❑ ❑ 21412015 Continued

FaciliNumber: 3 OMJ I Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ 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:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
[ fo
❑ 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
[Q,<o'
❑ 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
E240
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
CD46
❑ 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
E9 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
E!rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
mam enance or improvemen .
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):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ET<o
❑ 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
[!D<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
EJNo'
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
®�1Vo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
o
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
N3
❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
i["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
[JN
❑ 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
��NAD NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - 02 Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes �o ❑ 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:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
Ea-'5o
❑ N
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
ffNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0.Xio�
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ®-loo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes EgKo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes L124o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [ -<0
❑ Yes [�Ko
❑ Yes Lko
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Comments (refer to question #): 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 Signatui
Page 3 of 3
Phone: eho e7q('3 7�
Date:
21412015