310248_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20200117

C°) Division of Water Resources
Facility Number -M 0 Division of Soil and. Water Conservation 1 —
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: 7Routine
pliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: j 1 O Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Uo'� Region: W Igo
Farm Name: A V,A2 jn s LC, FA lzwi Owner Email:
Owner Name: A IC, Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
1-1,4 -off
Certified Operator: Certification Number:-- iy+S
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current
Swine Capacity POP.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
®
Oo
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
. Other
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Design, Current
Dry Poultry Canacitv Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
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)?
Design . Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E N ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) [:]Yes e No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? [:]Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes To ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: `?y 1 -D L _� jDate of Inspection: _ pack
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?: _
Designed Freeboard (in): -�- 1 _
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?
Structure 5
gy] ❑ NA ❑ NE
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes IVNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes tNo ❑ 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 Eo'/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? [—]Yes GZNo ❑ 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 d No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes D10 ❑ 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):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
940,
❑ 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
L_!a'"o
❑ 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
EE o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
El Yes
,--,
0.410
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
ED0<o
❑ 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? ❑ Yes 1!f'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes �5 'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: 3 1 - Date of Inspection: —17T— akO c)
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes � o
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No
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 V/No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [�/No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
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?
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:
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?
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ✓[ /No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes EB/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 2/ /No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes E o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes VNo'
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ##): ,Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawines of facilitv to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessarv).
CC'I; 6fc' �ion lue aoac�
CjF-tJ-D or Soil SAmPLC To 171�.iR jAr,PLCS wEP_L,- FA���'
Qum o,N 2i5S u LTS
GLL)PGE sur_Q" F-A '&_NSIOJ,� UN-FIL aoo,`f
����p � �� ��►��, ��.r- �- ����� ,PLR''
To as 1;�Jt1/
1F-'� i s rnc2ii h C' dd�, I f n1 A) i 11\� C, d rnasT
1— "flS 2A1N SYzCwis !Z�
Reviewer/Inspector Name: n) Put Phone: (q fo 111 _ I S_7_7_
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: /�„�„�-j_ Date: 0 1
Page 3 of 3 21412015