410002_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20201209

Facility Number: -
Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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 No ❑ 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
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
IP No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
.9� NA
❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes
�Z(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
* NO was}e 6kk06N\
�3 mz�n
T 60N wbaA,WY)� ? V1(6�' �n�q co►m plc �l
�tqc6w� s CU 4 0 k�v2 o�n � li o �� c�� �b� oA s�D s I �
f
Z1. S6�k dUt ZC)ZO i%1YDi���� �c1 �� A��i� ZDZ3
14. Los* i My hVV Cal l brAAitir-k Zvl 0
CMQ e Vey t a J (vZQ&U a5a kw
Z5. 51ua5e. suNeq Cornpl eked Za�ot.
70z0 , W l keg C )A
aPQ��ed �z��,�a�
N a C oyn awy,
. `o,,� ajai►n _ uSe a� �yuiPrt°�pvt+.
ZO 2z 0� w X� use. aA-
Lk5e
10vt Z6Z.D Lk n toss erky'vs ioa rvtskd
sludge sviveys
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
�gi�iv�-S lb i I
Phone:
Date:
21412015

Facility Number: i^ - Date of Ins ection: ZQZLj
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: GASP
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity 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
14 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
No
❑ 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 19 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): ��iA, (UL
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
LPL 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ 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 ;d No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application Weekly Freebo d 9Waste Analysis Soil Analysis Weather Code
Rainfall 120 Minute Inspections N Monthly and 1" 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 VNA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Type of Visit: W Compliance Inspection V Operation Review V Structure Evaluation U reclinical Assistance
Reason for Visi • Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
t
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: %�Q p tY County: j' Region:
Farm Name: Q� �� Ka 1(�S Owner Email:
Owner Name: U l d Phone: 33t� 33q I 3 (��
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ���a �a id Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: I_\/1
Certified Operator: Certification Number: CowU
- ed 01 16111612
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Discharges 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)?
Certification Number:
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?
Longitude:
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes W No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued