310246_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20200707

(9 Division of Water Resources
Facility Number 3 - O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: Cormliance Inspection Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: (j Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: -7- ;2ty Arrival Time: r Rw, Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: No' \q` �ZZ LL FA 2M1 I - O Owner Email:
Owner Name: Royc" I A T E azx LL Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: Roy)rJd
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator:
Region: N_ i RQ
Certification Number:
Certification Number.
r
Longitude:
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish 5-3,6e) 5,513C)
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Layer I I ::::]
Non -Layer
Design Current
Dry Poultry Canacity Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Pouets
Other
Design Current
Cattle 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?
❑ Yes
M/ o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
D O
❑ 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
Ltr1No,',O 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 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: -� I - a Date of Inspection:
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: 1 3
Spillway?: _
Designed Freeboard (in): Q , �' 19,
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
[-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
YNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes L]"No ❑ 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 ENo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ YesFg-N-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 [DNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 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): S[-� d- L d W'd- G,-e e r Me-, b y ✓t'.
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes 2<0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes [UNo ❑ 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
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
2/yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
l f No
❑ 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 [V] No . ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes to ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: -3 1 - Date of Inspection: - a0ao
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑Yes 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 provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes zo [I/NA ❑ NE
Other Issues -T '7,�p
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortalitv rates that were hither 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?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes—ffj�o ❑ NA
❑ Yes E2 1Vo ❑ NA
❑ Yes R No ❑ NA
[:]Yes M No ❑ 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).
T ,CiU4Q We -
oc-
\,wA �'or
Covzr- 60 d. izy s
No NsT Issues �,./aTN M►IbS�N�
Cov, d W AiVC R6 2 PATE-r Jh toT Joao
-- 2410 i3 fLtA refs.
Reviewer/Inspector Name: J O H O
,SUre I -Auk W ICJ
K/19
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
Phone: NoJ 6 (-4-q 5--7
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date: �' -. OLA
21412015