760060_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20201124

Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
[teason for Visit: �6 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: \� Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: ndo� 1) Region:
Farm Name: ��T(�(\ate rl �S 1 (�i Owner Email:
Owner Name: �Aa2A V-0012 ylna Phone:
Mailing Address: � Duel L -i.�-I es�/i l I e, 1
Physical Address: 1 Qrj �rn ��� d i ��eir ry� be -•I , 2'�l �1 D
Facility Contact: �� Title: Phone: 10� — C1 0 - t — ��9
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
� Back-up Operator: — 3-1 �� 1/� G 15I �y Certification Number: �
Location of Farm: Latitude: [ 11 -101
5 � I -b Longitude:
US Nw C)�L) C) Ids Li bcr�- ®R- var ns eul Soy ; Ck n
,}yip
/'F
.+
,..
Wean to Finish
La er
Daii Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -La er
Dai Calf
Feeder to Finish
ti
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
MU W'111
:;
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
_I .�
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
,'
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Turke Poults
��..°
Other
Discharees 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)?
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?
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes
[:]No
❑ Yes
`ice No
j
Yes
[:]No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 511212020 Continued

Facili Number: jDate of Ins ection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 4 No
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: UVVQ-Y L/Owe"4 Lq V/ s f 0 e\4 WS P
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
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
EANo
❑ 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 ❑ 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 NTNo [3NA ❑ 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 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): �T. O�rLl,l 1 IQae, roro SI � an
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
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
81 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
LA
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? if yee, r4wek Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application Weekly Freeboard] Waste Analysis Soil Analysis Weather Code
Rainfall Stocking IjN Crop Yield 11flute UIRPectinns — r�Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No ( NA ❑ NE
LIN
Page 2 of 3 511212020 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
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 ❑ No NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. IN
❑ 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 to 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 [9 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
77��
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 10 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 [A No
7�
❑ 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 additionalrecommendations or any other cots.
Use drawinss of facility to better exnlain situations (use additional gages as necessarv).
r ni. - .ear (2"Dr) .
C� uJ Sh Ci-CLO �� (3�C Ca�/� ri n\� Pun 6 fiU
.) Q Ve Y CcN2� . •1 l rQAIJ �� f 4 p Vzory
► - � V3 nog runes: n op have Iv
6rnu. l '("
h" 1 Sri t ur s� a"c�e.cd o,r, P "Plx�m S . kD a
� cst . �l%�5 Wb,
t La S}- so' �s ? SOt IS +Ran � 0..i- Cab � pe
Gll 1c� V?l zrn owe_ Sc n C, _Y•e � L Sbt,d S
i n ?OQ�CCkX M �
-0%eXd uc57� Cow
S ,
t Sln W C, e- POA A tb u k_ Cti t o mi l l oS �e2
(1S- -U f (l�� 1 W o Y ; n L- A o ape rct; 6`rb u`r\&Q^' Y154-:
NY Y-tc,\A bud" ne,, l (,6 y Q„r,tty- bj; t4 r ;,ram,l
J
kilts
l .2-3 �
Reviewer/Inspector Name: ftCCq a ey- C AI rl ( Ca ud It
Reviewer/Inspector Sig
Page 3 of 3
Ph ne: Ih��6��
Date: I
511212020