860010_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20230922

Division of Water Resources
Facility Number - O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: ® Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Iq laalArrival Time: Departure Time: I to, "t —hn County: 1,grY Region: wS�
Farm Name: kcoba -F(a� m Owner Email: l_C-ZlR n'ax) k @ i(Y> \ \ . (-6m
Owner Name: Lo(,b -arms, I A (, Phone:
Mailing Address: 02. ?nnnk4 =TPAA, 'M1�� V(A Pl)S: �VX) ) UL Q`d 562
Physical Address: '�2ciq 60(Aw (� �.%fi Ny,�
Facility Contact: k(iwmw Title: Nwor Phone: ��� � �i� �' J�t✓
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: _ eUo (> Longitude: " 46i t C5
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
ar �ne'� 7m cx�
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Pullets
Other
Poults
Design Current
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 fi-om a discharge?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
airy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifers Z
'
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes CK No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes [—]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
JR) No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
RNo
DNA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 511212020 Continued

Facility Number: qkv - Date of inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes )6j�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: 1W S? ykcy—
Spillway?: 4
Designed Freeboard (in): 0411
Observed Freeboard (in): " Di.
fm
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
[:]Yes R'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 X 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 ';4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes KNo
❑ 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 1;4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes 'J;j�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): 11�0 � U)rn t Ibor inn 1I Olr;10 ,�
lk.
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes XNo
❑ 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 ." No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
'K No
❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
54 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP El Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application KWeekly Freeboard ,Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑
` <Weather Code
Rainfall XStocking 5<Crop Yield Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑ S4+14�
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
§l No
❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
to NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
511212020 Continued

Facilit Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes IX 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.
❑ 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 15<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? Sul i1
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes 5<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
' <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
XNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
'RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ 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).
a 1. a, a\ N 1C. mc, 'traced ? j(
I ► °Ill );23 Ca) a3
C5 �.u`b ie •5u
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Rtbifffck Cy1wler I
Phone: 33kv -11U A V'__)
Reviewer/Inspector
Page 3 of 3
f/
Date: q IQa(a-_;�
511212020