310005_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20200402

Division of Water Resources. "
F.acility'Number 0 Division of Soil and Water. Conservation:
Other Agency
Cype of Visit: ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Zeason for Visit: ® Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: rrival Time:0 U Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: 6-11 ��g -'sd7 '� �� � --'� Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: y� Title:
Onsite Representative: a-A'66 �` S
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Region:
Design ° Current °. ° ` , Design: Current Design: Current, °
Swine, Capacity pop. Vet Poultry Capacity 'Pop. Cattle, Ca&ci' = ;Pop.
Wean to Finish
0
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Layer
Non -Layer
Design, Current
Dry Poultry Canacitv -Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers ,
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Pouets
Other
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?
[:]Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
rINA
NE
gb. Did the dischar e reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NE
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)
❑Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
❑
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 ` 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: i -+,-� Date of Ins ection: 110
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? 0 Yes
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: t{/rlUu; C
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 2,37
5. Are there any immediate threats t 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
to ❑ NA/ ❑ NE
❑ No [-PEA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ 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 ED"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes Ej.,I<o ❑ 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 ❑ <o ❑ 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):
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
to
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Ej-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
to
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
to
❑ 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 o ❑ 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 ElSludge 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? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: I - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
/ No DNA
❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
Q Yes
[:]No ❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
[I] Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon n ,n,
m
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance: L 5 d'► 1.
O
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
3 To ❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No �TA
❑ NE
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? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ YesVNo ❑ 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).
❑ Yes E3Xo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Z N ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
5 n �
a1 C. - :e j A ro-w 1 evi
-� '�t \�s � + Ll 1' 2- ( 70. R-,f Lo C-) �;
r-
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
,� �./ r �"te-0 o4_ �G6 C-r'L� � j 16/i,
Phone: U S LV3 5
Date: I� ,
21412015