760003_Inspection_20201130

Facility Number
03
56 Division of Water Resources
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: qi,Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Farm Name:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Arrival Time:
l ie101 fav
e Cauce_Ai-e,
1126 • P.► o\sV\ ) tertmin Town rJ c a'1 a-1
1-I5 q G P; /e60 e btu .) E2arm e u r nl G
110h�l,v vice
vV l 1€dn
Departure Time:
Owner Email:
Phone:
County:
Region: Vcl 0
Title:
Latitude:
Integrator:
Phone:
puyvi S
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
f 2 "NroY1,\11,ebo{D
verS�C�I� ., ,ern on aux) I.rn
Swine
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
ce
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Design Current
Dr Poultr Ca ' acit Po
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry 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?
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 t4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
Yes
❑No ❑NA ❑NE
N. No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑No ❑NA ❑NE
Page 1 of 3
5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number: 1 {1 - ( ±.)
Waste Collection & Treatment
Date of Inspection: i� b I
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
O Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
U tPeeY Lovvbr
I I
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 stntctures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a (i Yes LXNo ❑ 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 fit' 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 0 NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? ��CC
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes �4( No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? 77��
II. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
n Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
n PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window
12. Crop Type(s): CO( n TA(13. Soil Type(s):
❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? n Yes ig No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? n Yes X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable n Yes 'ter' No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes [X] No
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ExtNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 14 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ow.
No
❑ NA
O NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ Yes 14 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application in Weekly Freeboard , ❑ Waste Analysis afit�Cfifiiy'si� El Waste Tiansfrrs Weather Code
ARainfall 54 Stocking Crop Yielc[ 120 Minute Inspectiolt A Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections N 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? n Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number: - (��*j
Date of Inspection: \ .)b 13 1, I
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
Vj No
No
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? n Yes IA No NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? n Yes ixNo ❑ 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 0 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 ❑ 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 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NA
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).
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
0i IS clue o o,..;UeS-havN CGlou''l -f lwr Irayv's For
v -�-e_e � '� n S -I--� m
Ca t bYz�. a� AR, �'0 a` o •
b19 odae_ Svf-Ve )
CJc'V a01ct oc5v.-4
ina CoYvvt-
��\ 1 is6°`\
vppQ-"( pc -h i,owti
CcrsiL p ck 1 D
a-o- m ; � � >1S Q r t \ i n ►�, CL b) taN g_ wa1 pro \n de. 3
Clkann c u F o' �.sL' 011\ qpe Y tact plre •vlw
L� S
}oo.►p wI -tow w�C CL c A" ( o-toz.
av Yee. li.► nA l.*t Y .l w S25 '�'re
� 1 v,w\sto e. Gch Yunn n A
CVO Y� n 6.1n Sl appecP WH e
)Li as W cud CuM G ► ((Atkas c-es t be �bl e ��eLt
lQ r. (s( 0\n)e c M Y �r€11/1. \' A c W r S
Ib�baiIfci tl-6061.9
u
. Q1v '63L 616v c ,qS`J
OVCYY Y\
I,owev Hbux,
Phone:
Date: 1 13 o l01)
5/12/2020
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signratu
Page 3 of 3
C c` ( av\-0 (e,�