310667_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20200127

('Division of Water Resources
Facility Number - O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
`-"�— O, Other Agency
Type of Visit: (DCO�Poliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: VRoutine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: �,, Departure Time: County: Pv /%Y'
e �
Farm Name: 1—it7dq S r t^rrq Owner Email:
Owner Name: P IN k' y ? kUGfl_'!� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone:
Region: 1A I I JE
Onsite Representative:
Integrator:
P
Certified Operator:
(k; (; p 8 SaMde ( s-
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Certification Number:
Latitude:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
R ayer
on -Layer
Design Current
Dry Poultry Cauacity POD.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Discharl4es and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
°
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
Yes
24
No
❑ NA
NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
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)
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
El Yes
o
rj'_N
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yeso
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: -Z - Date of Inspection: Oi �G2
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes VN"o ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: i- a
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes To ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
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 ED44o ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes EIN- ❑ 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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes j 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): �U►f AnSj
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 �/j o
❑ 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?
❑ Yes o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of l operating waste application equipment?
ro erY g
properly P
❑ Yes VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes N ❑ 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? If 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 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ YesVNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: 3 t - jDate of Inspection: Qtp 6
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? r ❑ Yes _YNo
�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ 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? ❑ Yes rNo
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ 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
[2/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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. D subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
dyes
❑ 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
ENo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[�
❑ 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 facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Ge+ c11 i'breJiav) do,-'-Q A5;AP ANV' Senak +0
Vie 1e -so 'A PLAT bJafe ��a1 y -)oa I
Work aY, 'tee (7, Sp av"A hey,
CaJ,
t �►'� tom/ 1 n a'
_.�`"'r' inSpeL��cfl e��d�►`�`� (r�yl'c7p ; Records cf IhSfec'+ior, dove Pj-a-7-a0ad Jh©
issue vjlt�k fo )d%'01 duv'j'l 11,yecj"aY�.'
Reviewer/Inspector Name: n u f_ fet Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 44�Date: 11 — GZ^7`��0ZZ 6
Page 3 of 3 21412015