310668_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20200625

Division. of Water Resources61 / $.- - ,
Facili Number 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
3 - (�o$
0=Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
f� Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:-o?5--a�Arrival Time: $`1 rY1 Departure Time: ° 7o County: �— Region: W I lZd
Farm Name: F- * S iff Ait m,
Owner Name: UP RF-L ftm
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: (Ir F-YL oo-ac Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:;
besign Current
Swiue, . 'Capacity , °Pop. ` .
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder �j
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other_
Other
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude:
Design- :Current.
Wet Poultry Capacity -'Pop.,
Layer
Non -Layer
Design . Current
Drv, Poultry Capacity Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Longitude:
Cattle`
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
. 'Design , Current
Capacity Pop.
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
[:]Yes
j�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
adNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
YNo
❑ NA
❑ 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
ETNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
Io NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 1, 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection: — a 5-20 ZO
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ®No
Structure 1
Identifier:
1
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
1.9 ,S
Observed Freeboard (in):
95
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
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?
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes [RTo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes R<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental hreat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [ Zo ❑ 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 �] o ❑ 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 2-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): So4L-_ iy)S, oryj, Whew' 6) 'Vdec- cwet` 3laze-4
13. Soil Type(s): i
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?'
El Yes
N
❑ 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
�jTo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
E2�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Ea o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit 'readily available? ❑ Yes Evr o ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes 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 [2 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 ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes [KNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes EKo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: - oZ
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? -❑ Yes oiNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes iKo ❑ 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 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 2/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 Ev /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
❑ 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 �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes WTNVN
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft 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).
Cal��,rian due •aoao
-SluQge -a•a
ap)p PoA I S IN 2-rcmna6
1r#.ciL1T'Y wtu.. Pump 0IJ WC16- Ba' 5 Soy13EAAK
1N S?aja�- wi=rN 'DA$'7'+oL gE2rn�v�� INUP
UNTIL w I N e' Z COVC AZ rd"ZM W e L.C. S Ptu 6-
w ILL 8 E UPP iRTWi
Au Z iT�t A S C9a rt�eT �C NTAT/ o %l Fle: "91 N c,_ aN NE I Gk A CR S /-Aeu 1'>,
V4,AlcE S,, Z t -a c,41-ANC'6 Wl aN Z'R2 a AMC& (9-/-;toao "Ta New W11,
Reviewer/Inspector Name: -T R N ��RY
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Phone:«-
Date:
Page 3 of 3 V " 21412015